Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Reference Question Answer L.4.6 Will the Government please verify that 4 of 5 volumes for Mission Capabilities should be redacted? If so, are there any specific instructions with respect to the exact information the Government intends to be redacted from the 4 Mission Capability copies?

4 of the 5 required copies of the Mission Capability volume shall be redacted for the following information: Company name and any other specific identifying trademarks, symbols, or emblems;

company addresses and contact information; and CME résumés name and any other Personally Identifiable Information (PII).

Attachment 2, Draft

DD 254

In block 11.e. PERFORM SERVICES ONLY: should this block be checked: YES?

Are there attachments missing from this DD 254?

Updated DD254 will be attached.

L.7.4 Paragraph 2, IAW FAR 9.104-5, the offeror is required to comply with the submission regarding FAR 52.209-5, Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters found in Section K of this RFP. There is no Section K in the RFP. Will the Government provide Section K?

Section K was inadvertently omitted and will be included via solicitation amendment.

L.6; 6.2., E.

Technical Section

The purpose of this section is to allow the offeror to set forth in the most comprehensive manner its understanding of the program requirements and to demonstrate its ability to meet the evaluation requirements of 52.212-2 Addendum – Evaluation Factors and Basis of Award ; Factor 1, Mission Capability (Technical). In this section the offeror shall present a clear and concise description of how it plans to meet contract requirements. The offeror shall describe the performance standards (emphasis added) that have been established in each area (emphasis added) and explain how performance standards will be met. This section shall not contain any pricing data.

The technical section shall be completed as follows:

Questions: Will specific standards for each area be provided via future amendment?

Additionally, will the Government please clarify if referenced “area” above is the same as each Subfactor 1-8?

This text will be changed to: The purpose of this section is to allow the offeror to set forth in the most comprehensive manner its understanding of the program requirements and to demonstrate its ability to meet the evaluation requirements of Section M, – Evaluation Factors for Award ; Factor 1, Mission Capability (Technical). In this section the offeror shall present a clear and concise description of how it will meet the requirements and perform the tasks and services described in the PWS (Attachment 1).

"Area" refers to Factor 1, Mission Capability, which encompasses Subfactors 1-8. This change will be included via solicitation amendment.

PSW Cover: FA6800-

17-R-0002. RFP

Section L.2.1:

FA6800-17-R-0001.

Will the Government please clarify the Solicitation number for this RFP. The correct solicitation number is FA6800-17-R-0002. This section will be updated via solicitation amendment.

Solicitation, Offer and Award, Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices, Items Nos. x009, Overtime/Special Projects/Reachback Additional Contractor effort for special projects, reachback support and surge requirements. (Over and Above). 3 months. FFP.

The Government has provided very detailed scope for CLINs x001 through x008, and CLINs x010 through x012. However, CLIN x009 has no scope identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and is not quantified and qualified in the same manner. Given that this task is not well defined, this could lead to varying assumptions and associated pricing solutions. Would the Government clarify the associated scope that should be bid upon OR provide clarification surrounding this CLINs effort relative to the other CLINs and associated skill sets and PWS requirements? In addition, would the Government please provide the associated Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirement?

Based on recent changes to the requirement, this CLIN will be removed from the solicitation.

Subfactor 9; PWS 6.1 Can you please confirm the FCL required for submittal? Below are the exerts that are conflicting, the first indicates a final TOP SECRET FCL is required at the time of submittal (I believe this is correct) and the second indicates no clearance is required at the time of submittal and only a plan for obtaining a SECRET is required. K. Subfactor 9 – Contractor Facility Clearance. Offeror will be considered technicall acceptable for this technical factor when it provides evidence that their company possesses a minimum of an active (final adjudicated) TOP SECRET Facility Clearance from the Defense Security Service (DSS) Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) at time of proposal submission. Failure to provide this evidence or if offeror’s company does not have the proper facility clearance, it will render this technical factor unacceptable, and therefore, unawardable; and 6.1. The work to be performed under this contract is up to the TOP SECRET level, and the government will provide all processing, storage, and other accommodations for that and all other classified information. There is, however, a requirement for the company to possess a SECRET Facility Clearance (FCL) from the Defense Security Service (DSS) Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) and the company must either possess said clearance or demonstrate the plan for obtaining it at time of proposal submission.

Paragraph 6.1 of the PWS will be changed as follows: "The work to be performed under this contract is up to the TOP SECRET level, and the government will provide all processing, storage, and other accommodations for that and all other classified information. There is, however, a requirement for the company to possesses a minimum of an active (final adjudicated) TOP SECRET Facility Clearance from the Defense Security Service (DSS) Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) at time of proposal submission.

Failure to provide this evidence or if offeror’s company does not have the proper facility clearance, it will render this technical factor unacceptable, and therefore, unawardable.

We are reviewing the subject solicitation and noted that on FBO is states it is a 100% Small Business set aside. However, on the SF33 there is no indication of a Small Business set aside. Would you please confirm whether this solicitation is Full and

This is a 100% Small Business Set-Aside. The solicitation will be updated via amendment.

Is this workload currently being accomplished by an incumbent contractor? If so, what contract number is the current contract?

The requirement is currently being performed via GSA contract #GS-23F-0058K, Order number GST0712BG0088. It was awarded on 09/28/2012 to Northrop Grumman Systems. Any further questions regarding that order should be referred to the GSA contracting officer, Mr. Patrick Clementine. The

Have specific personnel been identified to fill these positions or are currently working

The requirement is being competed amongst all qualified small business concerns who meet the criteria set Can we get a copy of the employee resumes that your organization are interested in to fill these identified A&AS positions.

This requirement is not a personal services requirement. The Gov will be evaluating proposals to determine if proposals meet the requirements of the Solicitation and RFP. The requirement is being

Reference: L.6, 6.2, E5. and 6. 5. ; M.4.

4.3 E. and F

Will the Government please clarify the proper title for Subfactors 5 and 6? The correct titles for Subfactors 5 and 6 are Response Task Force (RTF) Equipment and Training support and Response Task force (RTF) Logistics and Training Support, respectively. Section L will be updated to the correct titles as listed in Section M.

Reference: PWS 5.4.

Nuclear Security Tactics and Training Center (NSTTC) Support (1X CME with possibility of another CME added if funding becomes available).

Will the Government consider adding an optional CLIN to accommodate the growth referenced in PWS 5.4?

This statement has been removed from the PWS. An updated PWS will be attached to the amendment.

Sheet1