Questions_and_Answers__1.pdf

1. Reference: Amendment 1. The Government posted the following revised solicitation documents to fbo.gov on 31 Oct 13: SF 1449 Solicitation and Attachment 4 VAL Make/Model/Year Lookup Table. Although the fbo.gov announcement text states these documents are part of “Amendment 1,” we haven’t been able to locate a formal amendment document on fbo.gov, such as the Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, which would typically be used to incorporate the solicitation changes.

Question: Does the Government intend to incorporate the new solicitation changes through the use of a SF 30?

Answer: Yes, the Government will incorporate future solicitation changes via an SF30.

2. Reference: RFP Section M, Paragraph 6.2.4 states: “An offeror will be assigned an overall technical capability rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable based upon the offeror’s ability to clearly demonstrate its technical capability to meet each subfactor. An offeror will receive an overall technical acceptability rating of Acceptable only if it receives an Acceptable rating for each of the three subfactors: Maintenance and Recovery Response Plan, Quality Control, and Technical Vehicle Specifications. If an offeror receives an Unacceptable rating on any of the three subfactors, the overall Technical Factor will be rated as Unacceptable.”

Question: Will a subfactor be rated Unacceptable if the offeror fails to clearly demonstrate its technical capability to meet each requirement within the subfactor? For example, if the offeror fails to provide adequate details on how it will maintain vehicle records and reports, as required by RFP Section M, Paragraph 6.2.1.1.6, will Subfactor 1, Maintenance and Recovery Response Plan, be rated Unacceptable?

Answer: Yes, the offeror must meet all requirements specified for each subfactor to be deemed technically acceptable.

3. Reference: RFP Page 61 of 100, Deliveries and Performance, states the period of performance is anticipated to begin 15 Dec 2013 and could continue through 14 Jun 2019 if all options are exercised. However, RFP Page 85 includes FAR clause 52.216-18 Ordering (Oct 1995) which states, in part: “(a) Any supplies and services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of delivery orders or task orders by the individuals or activities designated in the Schedule. Such orders may be issued from 15 December 2013 through 14 June 2019.”

Question: As the referenced FAR clause states the Government may issue orders through 14 Jun 19, it stands to reason an order issued on or just prior to 14 Jun 19 would be for services to be performed beyond 14 Jun

19. Is the 66 month contract term (base year + 4 option years + 6 month option period) the maximum length of contractor performance or is it the maximum period in which new orders may be placed? If the latter, how far beyond the 66 month contract term could the contractor’s performance continue?

Answer: The period of performance on the Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract is simply the period in which orders can be placed. Orders may be placed until the IDIQ contract expires. For example, if the Option to Extend Services is exercised and continues performance until 14 June 19, the last day to place orders is 14 June 19. The period of performance for each order is a maximum of 12 months, with an Option to Extend services for an additional 6 months. If an order is placed on 14 June 19 for the full 12 months, and the Government decides to exercise the 6 month Option to Extend Services, the contractor would continue performance until 14 December 20.

4. Reference: RFP Section M, Paragraph 3.1 states: “The Government will evaluate a minimum of three (3) proposals. Offers will be ranked according to total price over the five (5) year six (6) month period. The lowest priced three (3) proposals will then be evaluated for technical acceptability and past performance. If any one of the three lowest priced proposals is deemed technically unacceptable or unacceptable for past performance reasons, it will be replaced by the next lowest. This process will continue until there are three technically acceptable and past performance acceptable proposals, or until all proposals have been evaluated.

Award shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and is the lowest priced technically acceptable with acceptable past performance.” However, this methodology appears to be contradicted by RFP Section M, Paragraph 4.2, which states, in part: “The Government will evaluate all technical capability proposals received by the required date/time.”

Question: Would the Government please clarify which proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability?

Answer: The Government concurs that paragraphs 3.1 and 4.2 of Section M contradict. As a result, paragraph 4.2 has been modified to change the sentence as follows:

From: “The Government will evaluate all technical capability proposals received by the required date/time.”

To: “The Government will evaluate technical capability proposals in accordance with paragraph 3.1.”

5. Reference: RFP Section L, Paragraph 3.2.2.3. This paragraph states, in part: “The offeror must detail and break out by CLIN how it intends to provide all vehicles required, whether owned, subcontracted, procured or any combination thereof.” However, this requirement is not mentioned in the corresponding Paragraph

6.2.3.1 of RFP Section M.

Question: Would the Government please clarify the proposal requirements and evaluation methodology for Subfactor 3, Technical Specifications of Proposed Leased Vehicles?

Answer: To ensure proposal requirements/evaluation methodology under Sections L and M correlate, paragraph 6.2.3.1.3. has been added to Section M, Subfactor 3 Technical Specifications of Proposed Lease Vehicles as follows:

6.2.3.1.3. The offeror details and breaks out by CLIN how it intends to provide all vehicles required, whether owned, subcontracted, procured or any combination thereof.

6. Reference: RFP Section M, Paragraph 6.3. As this reference permits contract award to an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, it is reasonable to conclude the Government will perform a price realism analysis to determine if the offered prices are too low, such that there may be a risk of poor performance.

Question: Does the Government intend to perform a price realism analysis?

Answer: The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis. To clarify that the Government reserves this right, Paragraph 6.1.2. has been added to Section M.

7. Reference: PWS Paragraph 1.1, PWS Attachment 1 and RFP Attachment 2. PWS paragraph 1.1 states, in part: “The Government’s estimated requirement is for 322 vehicles per year.” However, PWS Attachment 1 shows an estimate of 321 vehicles and Attachment 2, Vehicle Price Per Month, shows an estimated quantity of 323 vehicles.

Question: Would the Government please clarify the estimated number of required vehicles and please update all RFP documents to ensure agreement of numbers?

Answer: PWS was corrected to reflect the current estimated quantity of 323 vehicles.

8. Reference: RFP Section L, Paragraph 3.1. This paragraph states, in part: “The offeror shall utilize the Excel spreadsheet entitled ‘Vehicle Price Per Month’, included as Attachment 2 of the solicitation, when proposing the price for each individual vehicle type.” Paragraph 3.1 also states, in part: “The offeror must also submit an overall Firm Fixed Price based on the quantity of vehicles specified in Attachment 1 of the PWS.”

Question: Would the Government please clarify what document or format is to be used for submission of an overall FFP based on the quantity of vehicles specified in Attachment 1 of the PWS?

Answer: The Government does not require a specific format/document for submitting the overall FFP price, as long as the total 5-year, 6-month amount is specified in the price proposal (Volume I) and coincides with the amounts calculated in the “Vehicle Price per Month” spreadsheet.

9. Reference: RFP Pages 51-53 - Bid Schedule

Question: Are offerors required to submit a completed Bid Schedule, as found on RFP pages 51-53, as part of their Price Proposal? If yes, would the Government please confirm the Total at the bottom of the Bid Schedule will not be used for evaluation purposes as this Total includes Incidental Charges and DBA Insurance?

Answer: The offeror must submit a complete Bid Schedule, however, since the total amount includes Incidental Charges and DBA Insurance, this information will not be used for evaluation purposes.

10. Reference: RFP pages 53-54 - Period of Performance Summary

Question: Are offerors required to submit a completed Period of Performance Summary, as found on RFP pages 53-54, as part of their Price Proposal. If yes, would the Government please confirm the Total Amount for Basic and All Options at the bottom of the Period of Performance Summary will not be used for evaluation purposes as this Total includes Incidental Charges and DBA Insurance?

Answer: The offeror must complete the Period of Performance Summary, however, since the total amount for each period includes Incidental Charges and DBA Insurance, this information will not be used for evaluation purposes.