Draft_Solicitation_Questions_v2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 12 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AFICA Transient Alert Services II Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA5641-18-R-0002
About this file
Gov't response to questions concerning draft solicitation.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| DRAFT_TA2_PWS_20_FEB_2018.pdf | ||
| DRAFT_FA5641-18-R-0002_14_Aug_18.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| # | RFP Section | Para # | Page # | Relevant RFP Text / Discussion | Question / Recommendation | Gov't Response |
| 1 | 52.212-1 Addendum (ITOs); 52.212.2, Evals, PWS | 3.1.3; 8.0.1 | 24/49, 28/49, Pdf p, 26/69 | Reference 1 –SUBFACTOR 3- QUALITY CONTROL PLAN - The offeror shall provide a quality control plan that addresses the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), paragraph 8.0.7.11.” The single paragraph is similarly detailed in evaluation criteria on page 28/49. | Question 1 - Will the Govt please clarify the scope and intended content of the QCP? | The PWS has been revised. The QCP shall cover the requirements of the PWS. |
| Reference 2 – PWS, “8.0.1 QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (QCP). The contractor shall submit the QCP with his proposal as part of the technical evaluation.” | Question 2 - Are these two separate requirements – one for the Subfactor 3, and the other for the completed plan submitted with the proposal as part of the technical evaluation? And - - | The PWS has been revised. IAW with 52.212-1 the offeror's QCP will be technically evaluated. | ||||
| Reference 3 – PWS 8.0.3, “. . . include all services listed in this PWS to include transient aircraft arrival, processing and departure procedures. | If so does the Government expect to see the complete QCP as an (unevaluated) attachment to the Technical Proposal? | IAW 52.212-1 the QCP will be technically evaluated as Subfactor 3. | ||||
| Discussion- It appears the Instruction narrows the QCP to one issue, “Arrival, replenishing, and departure services.” While PWS 8.0.1 does not show the narrow scope, it implies the QCP should cover all requirements, such as 8.0 – 8.0.7.11, for a complete QCP. 8.0.3 infers the plan includes the entire PWS. |
| 2 | 52.212-1 (Clauses) | Clauses 252.237-7023, and 252.237-7024 | 41/49 | Reference 1 – RFP Pg 41/49, Clause 252.237-7023, (c)(1) “The Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan submitted by the Contractor . . . .” | Will the Govt please clarify the requirement to submit the Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan? | IAW DFARS 252.237-7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services, the contractor shall provide with its offer a written plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services. This plan will not be evaluated as part of the award decision. |
| and | Reference 2 - RFP Pg 42/49, “ Clause 252.237-7024, (b)” . . . offeror shall provide with its offer a written plan . . . .” | For example, does the Govt expect to see the completed plan as an (unevaluated) attachment to the Technical Proposal? | ||||
| 42/49 | Reference 3 – PWS 10.3.1, “ . . . submit to the CO a comprehensive Continuation of Essential Services Plan . . . IAW DFARS 252.237-7023.” | |||||
| Discussion-No mention is made in the ITO of the requirement as to how and where to include the plan with the offer. | ||||||
| 3 | PWS 6.0 Training | 6.1.1 | p.26/69 | Ref 1 – PWS 6.1.1, “Personnel shall have initial training and testing, with recurring training and testing annually.” | Does the Govt have a specific rationale or purpose for requiring employee testing to verify knowledge and validate successful initial and recurring training? | This question is not clear. The contractor is responsible for training, qualifying, and certifying personnel for specific job tasks. The contractor shall provide all training required to meet the requirements of the PWS. |
| Ref 2 – PWS 6.0, “The contractor shall . . . ensure a fully qualified workforce . . . responsible for training, qualifying, and certifying personnel . . . .” | Reason for asking is requiring Govt-directed testing seems redundant because the Govt has already assigned responsibility to contractors for employee training, knowledge, qualifications, etc. Contractor responsibility should include the prerogative to select specific methods to verify proficiency, knowledge, and training success. | The PWS has been revised and redundancy removed. | ||||
| Ref 3 – PWS 1.1, “. . .. contractor shall provide fully qualified personnel “ | ||||||
| Ref 4 – PWS 1.1.1, “ . . . contractor shall ensure employees possess certification that validates knowledge . . . .” | ||||||
| p. 6 | Comment: References 2, 3, and 4 hold contractors responsible for employee training, qualifications, and success of training required in Ref 1. | |||||
| The fact that this is a PWS, rather than an SOW, implies the Govt has already chosen to prefer holding contractors responsible for results without regard to specific methods. |
File details come from the government source that posted it.