AF_FIAR__Follow-on_Proposal_Additional_Question_Response_FINAL.pdf

Proposal Title and RFP: Air Force FIAR Follow on Support, Solicitation #: FA7014-17-R-5002

Follow-on Questions to Amendment 0004

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

1 Amendment

004, Q&A, page 9

An answer to a question on page 9 of the Q&A states “Offerors shall propose staff mix and FTEs for the base year and keep that constant across the options for this solicitation (Attachments 5a-5h)”

An answer to a question on page 50 of the Q&A states “If the Offeror is proposing additional hours that varies from the base year and any option year then indicate this on the Rates and Hours tab.”

An answer to a question on page 56 states “The offeror is proposing for FTEs to complete the tasks for a twelve month period. The option years are the same level of work. If the offeror is proposing to decrease or increase FTEs during the option years, the offeror may duplicate that tab and update the information at their discretion along with an explanation as to the decrease or increase.”

These three answers leave the offering community unclear as to whether it would be deemed acceptable to change the proposed level of effort over the task order option periods. Please clarify if offeror’s must maintain the same staffing mix and level of effort across the base year and subsequent option year.

Each task order is for a base year (12 months) plus 4 option years (12 months) each. The offeror should price to perform the same work for each periods of performance.

If the offeror wants to propose more or less FTE’s/Hours for the effort, the offeror is able to do so; however, the offeror shall provide rationale and a matrix as stated in the RFP Attachment 1 paragraph 4.1.1.3.1.

2 The following question and answer on page 40 are not clear:

Question: “Please confirm that offerors should not submit a completed Section B / SF 1449

Continuation Sheet (CLIN pricing) with their Price

Submission.”

Answer: “Updated. This section is to be completed with the final proposed price.”

Attachments 5a-5h have been updated adding a CLIN structure Tab. Offerors shall fill out the CLIN structure tab in lieu of the SF 1449.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

Can the government please clarify specifically what was updated in the solicitation in response to this question, and where that update is located? We cannot locate any update to the solicitation or instructions related to completing the CLIN tables.

3 The following question and answer on page 40 are not clear:

Question: “Please confirm that offerors should not submit a completed Section B / SF 1449

Continuation Sheet (CLIN pricing) with their Price

Submission.”

Answer: “Updated. This section is to be completed with the final proposed price.”

The statement, “This section is to be completed with the final proposed price” suggests that offerors are to submit a completed / populated Section B /

SF1440 Continuation sheet (CLIN pricing) with their price submission.

The CLINs are organized by Task, not by Task

Order.

When Task Orders are awarded, will each TO have its own separate and distinct set of CLINs, rather than a common set of CLINs at the IDIQ level?

Attachments 5a-5h have been updated adding a CLIN structure Tab. Offerors shall fill out the CLIN structure tab in lieu of the SF 1449.

Task 9 will be added into the award IDIQ CLIN structure to address any training support in separate task orders as the requirement(s) arise.

4 The following question and answer on page 40 are not clear:

Question: “Please confirm that offerors should not submit a completed Section B / SF 1449

Continuation Sheet (CLIN pricing) with their Price

Submission.”

Answer: “Updated. This section is to be completed with the final proposed price.”

The CLINs are organized by PWS Task, not by task order.

Attachments 5a-5h have been updated adding a CLIN structure Tab for each task order to provide clarity.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

To confirm: the government’s instruction is that offerors are to take the eight task order prices, break apart each TO price to align to whichever CLINs are associated with their effort (for example, TO1’s price will be subdivided between CLINs 2, 3, 4, 5, 8), even though the pricing worksheets provided do not calculate pricing at the CLIN level.

The total price of each CLIN will then be comprised of portions of multiple task orders, without clear traceability from the task order pricing worksheets to the CLIN tables.

Please confirm this is the government’s instruction to offerors.

5 Attachments

5a-5g;

Response to historical estimates on page 50, 53 and 55 Q&A

Q&A response on page 50 indicates that the historical hours are a representation across the life of the contract, response on page 53 states that hours are annual and response to the last question on page 55 s tates that if you deviate from the historical hours then you must explain

Can the government please clarify the ambiguity around whether the FTEs provided in Attachments

5a-5g represent historical staffing for a one year period.

Yes. This historical data represents staffing for a one year period.

6 Attachment 9, PWS page 27, Section 2.9

Task 9 Formal Classroom Training Task 9 has been added to the PWS in Amendment

4.

A CLIN for task 9 has not been added to the SF

1449 Continuation (CLIN tables), nor does

Attachments 5a-5h include a Task 9 in the

Historical Data by Task and Proposed FTEs Est by Task tabs.

Request the RFP and attachments be updated accordingly.

The SF 1449 has been updated to add task 9. Task 9

(CLIN 0009) will only be utilized when needed. A separate PWS and Task Order will be provided at the time.

Each offeror shall provide the hourly rates for the Instructor labor category in attachment 4.

7 Amendment

4, labor categories

Amendment 4 added a new labor category, “Instructor.” This labor category is not included in attachments 5a-5h. Request that the attachments be updated with this new labor category.

The PWS Attachment E added in the LCAT, Instructor to cover Task 9 for training.

Task 9 (CLIN 0009) will only be utilized when needed.

A separate PWS and Task Order will be provided at the time.

Each offeror shall provide the hourly rates for the Instructor labor category in attachment 4.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

8 In answering the question on pages 41 and 42, the government cited the prescribing clause for the

Compensation plan, FAR 22.1103 which states “… the contracting officer shall insert the provision at

52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for

Professional Employees, in solicitations for negotiated contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed $700,000…”

We would like to remind that this FIAR acquisition, an IDIQ under FAR 12 Commercial Item procurements, is not a negotiated contract.

Therefore, the compensation plan is not required per the FAR.

While 52.222-46 is not required, it can be included per the Contracting Officer’s discretion. Follow the instructions in the RFP as stated.

9 RFP Section

B / SF 1449

Continuation;

2nd and 3rd responses on pg 40 of Q&A

Q&A responses confirm that the offeror shall complete Section B / SF

The government’s answer to the question on page

40 regarding if and how to complete the SF1449’s

CLIN Min/Max tables is insufficient to clearly instruct offerors if there is a requirement and if so, how it should be completed.

Within the SF1449 issued in Amendment 4, on page

18, there is a section titled “CLIN

DELIVERY/TASK ORDER

MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CLIN

ORDER VALUE.”

The table that follows itemizes the following per

CLIN:

Minimum Quantity, Minimum Amount, Maximum Quantity, Maximum Amount

We understand that the entire IDIQ’s minimum quantity / amount and maximum quantity / amount are identified in the preceding paragraph. However, there is no information on how each CLIN, which is to say, each PWS Task Area can have their own minimum and maximum.

Based on the government’s response it is still unclear as to whether offerors need to complete this portion of the SF1449 Continuation, and if so, how

Offerors shall complete the CLIN Structure tab on each of the TO pricing sheets (5a-5h) in lieu of completing the

SF 1449.

Yes, the minimum for each CLIN will be ‘1’. This will be updated at contract award.

Offerors do not have to completed/fill-in the SF 1449.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

to complete the minimum and maximum amounts by CLIN.

The IDIQ’s minimum quantity is 1 (as noted on page 18). But if each CLIN also has their own individual minimum quantity, is that a fractional quantity such that the totals across all CLINs equals the ‘1’ of the entire IDIQ?

10 Attachment 4 as issued in Amendment 4

Attachment 4 has been revised to only request

Unburdened DL, Fringe, and Discount. Those three columns are then summed for the IDIQ ceiling rate.

This is represented both in the formula placed in column E and the Instructions, which state that the

Total Labor (three separate columns) will auto-calculate.

The math that the government is forcing on offerors therefore requires that offerors develop a IDIQ labor rate based solely on the direct labor and fringe dollar amounts, further reduced by a discount.

This is wholly inconsistent with the principles of

FAR 12 commercial pricing. This approach also prohibits offerors from accounting for other costs of doing business.

Recommend that -

1, the Proposed Rate field be a user-entered value that is not a formula.

2, the Proposed Rate field be independent of the preceding three columns.

Discounts are at the offerors discretion and not required by the Government.

Updated the RFP Attachment 1 para 4.3.1.2

11 Attachment 4 as issued in Amendment 4

Attachment 4 has been revised to only request

Unburdened DL, Fringe, and Discount.

If the Unburdened DL and Fringe are being evaluated with the compensation plan for realism, how will the government regard the discount?

For example, if an offeror’s proposed DL and fringe are evaluated as realistic, but at the low-end of the realism spectrum, and that offeror offered a significant discount to the DL and fringe in

The Government will evaluate Attachment 4 based on

3.4.2.1 of Addendum 52.212-2. This IDIQ Pricing Sheet

(Attachment 4) will be evaluated for fair and reasonable pricing on the final proposed rate. If the Offeror is providing a discount it will be applied in Column C;

however, it is the Proposed Rate that will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness.

Discounts are at the offerors discretion and not required by the Government.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

Attachment 4, wouldn’t the government want to consider that the discount could erode the realism of either the DL and fringe? But with no direct linkage of the discount being associated to either DL or fringe or combination of both, it is not possible to take the impact of the discount into account when considering compensation realism.

Recommend removal of the FFP Discount from Attachment 4 for these reasons.

A discount would be more relevant when applied at the Task Order level, attachments 5a-5h.

Updated the RFP Attachment 1 para 4.3.1.2 to address

PECP.

12 4.3.3 Small

Business

Participation

Plan

Please confirm that the SB Participation Plan should be completed based on the Total Contract Value of $800Million, the IDIQ ceiling.

No, that was an example provided if the offeror was proposing $800,000,000. See Question #15.

13 Attachment 2 as issued with

Amendment 4

Amendment 4 added an 8th task order, PMO.

Attachment 2 (Evaluation – Commercial Items), paragraph 1.3 states that the government intends to award 1 IDIQ and task orders 0001 – 0007.

Does the government intend to award Task Order

0008 at the same time as the IDIQ and task orders 1-7?

Yes, Addendum 52.212-2 has been updated to show award of 8 task orders (5a to 5h).

14 Attachment 2 as issued with Amendment 4

Amendment 4 added an 8th task order, PMO.

Attachment 2 (Evaluation – Commercial Items), paragraph 3.4.1 states that ‘Cost/Price will also be evaluated for the total proposed cost/price for Task Orders 1-7 to ensure consistency with the IDIQ.’

Please confirm that this paragraph should be updated to reflect Task Orders 1-8.

Yes, that is correct. The task orders were increased for

5h. Updated document.

15 Attachment 2 as issued with

Amendment 4

Attachment 2 (Evaluation – Commercial Items) , paragraph 3.5.2.2 / Table 4 was updated in

Amendment 4 to note “All percentages shall use the

Total Small Business Set Aside Percentage as a baseline of the total Offeror’s price multiplied by

25% which would be the SB Percentage.”

This was just an example. Each Offeror will need to determine the value of the Small Business Participation

Plan. A clear example was provided for this based on an example contract value of $800M. To meet the small business participation of 25% is the goal so based on the provided example and the Offeror is proposing

$800,000,000 for their cost/price proposal then the SBPP amount would be 25% of the proposed cost/price

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

The offeror’s total price, as defined in paragraph 3.4.3.1, is the sum of the task order pricing.

Nowhere else in the instructions does the government specify which dollar amount should be considered the TCV for the small business plan and the subcontracting plan. Typically, IDIQs use the

IDIQ ceiling value as the TCV. The Note under table 4 seems to indicate differently.

Please provide a clear instruction to offerors on what dollar amount should be used for the Total

Contract Value in the Small Business and

Subcontracting Plans: Either the sum of task orders 1-8 (offeror defined) or the IDIQ Ceiling ($800M).

submitted. The cost/price for each Offeror will be based on the overall cost/price for Attachments 5a to 5h.

*Note: The IDIQ Ceiling is $800M. This is overall for the base and all option years of the IDIQ.

16 Attachment 1

Instructions – page 10, section

4.3.1.2

Professional

Employee

Compensation Plan.

Per FAR 12.102 (b) and FAR 12.301 (e), the government may utilize other parts of the FAR under Part 12 acquisitions - including FAR 15 provisions as appropriate. The use of other parts of the FAR is not without limit, however. FAR 12.102

(c) clarifies the Government’s ability to this by specifying that “When a policy in another part of the FAR is inconsistent with a policy in this part, this part 12 shall take precedence for the acquisition of commercial items.” To emphasize this point, the

FAR (under 12.302) goes on to mandate that the

Contracting Officer shall not tailor or add any clauses in a contract for commercial items that is in a manner that’s inconsistent with customary commercial practice.

A compensation plan requirement is not consistent with commercial practices, and it is not a clause required per FAR 12.301. In fact, none of the required clauses in 12.301 have any connection with cost, pricing, or compensation data. On the other hand, the compensation plan is based entirely on cost and pricing-related data.

Finally, under all contract types, FAR 15 discourages the collection of cost and pricing data

While 52.222-46 is not required, it can be included per the Contracting Officer’s discretion. Follow the instructions in the RFP

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

for Commercial item acquisitions - particularly when there is adequate price competition.

Therefore, respectfully request removal of the requirement for the Professional Employee

Compensation Plan. The compensation plan poses an unreasonable burden on contractors .

17 FAR 52.222-46 explains the purpose of the compensation plan – i.e., to ensure continuity of quality service under service contract recompetitions. Per the clause:

“(a) Recompetition of service contracts may in some cases result in lowering the compensation

(salaries and fringe benefits) paid or furnished professional employees. This lowering can be detrimental in obtaining the quality of professional services needed for adequate contract performance.”

“Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.”

In this instance, the predecessor AF FIAR contract did not require the submission of a professional employee compensation plan, and, as a contract with fixed price orders, the government could not have insight into the salaries and benefits paid to incumbent staff. Therefore, without this insight, how will the government adequately determine that the compensation paid to the newly-proposed professional employees will or will not be lower during this recompete? Comparison to salary survey data, like salary.com, may not actually be an

The Government will not expand upon its decision.

Follow the instructions in the RFP.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

appropriate proxy for the incumbent compensation without demonstrable evidence that it is. On the other hand, an offeror’s understanding of the

Government’s requirement would seem to be better measured by an offeror’s Technical and

Management volume responses, and a demonstrated ability to effectively manage fixed price task orders while producing quality deliverables.

Can the government expand on the purpose that the

Employee Compensation evaluation serves in the context of this acquisition, and how that purpose cannot be achieved through alternative means that do not require submission of cost and pricing related data?

18 As a FAR 12 IDIQ with FFP task orders, the government will have a.) no mechanism to measure compensation and benefits levels within the awarded task orders, and b.) no insight into the overall on-going costs of the program. Conversely, offerors are being asked to submit compensation and benefit information for a realism evaluation. As offerors provide a compensation plan to project or anticipate compensation data, the Government will be in a position where they have no mechanism to police adherence during execution or to ensure actual compensation paid to individuals aligns to the estimated compensation levels proposed at the time of proposal. Therefore, this requirement fails to provide the Government any meaningful data yet poses an unreasonable burden on commercial vendors to comply with this requirement.

Respectfully request removal of the professional employee compensation plan.

Follow the instructions in the RFP

19 4.3.1.1 IDIQ Pricing Sheet

(Attachment 4): The Offeror shall complete and submit the IDIQ Pricing

Sheet with fully burdened off-site rates. This pricing sheet will be

The instructions for completing the IDIQ Pricing

Sheet (Attachment 4) state that “The cost/price proposal should provide supporting cost data to include labor categories, labor rates (rounded to two decimal places), labor hours, as applicable and in

Correct. Attachment 4 the IDIQ Pricing Sheet must be completed and Attachments 5a – 5h Task Order Request

Forms must also be completed for the first series of task orders to be awarded with the base IDIQ. See Section

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

incorporated and attached to contract.

The cost/price proposal should provide supporting cost data to include labor categories, labor rates (rounded to two decimal places), labor hours, as applicable and in accordance with the

IDIQ Pricing Sheet within the RFP.

accordance with the IDIQ Pricing Sheet within the

RFP.”

The instructions seem to indicate that the IDIQ

Pricing sheet should be completed in accordance with the IDIQ Pricing Sheet. Would the government please clarify this paragraph and specifically the last instruction under 4.3.1.1?

4.3.1.3 of Addendum 52.212-1. Removed labor hours from the paragraph for clarity.

20 Please confirm that a complete Volume III submission will consist of:

1. Attachment 4 IDIQ Pricing Sheet

2. Professional Employee Compensation Plan

3. Attachments 5a-g

4. Small Business Participation Plan

Correct. The Offeror should provide a cost/price response addressing the elements for Volume III as outlined in section 4.3 of Addendum 52.212-1.

21 Attachment 1, 52.212-1, Page 7, Section

4.1.1.3 and

Attachment 2, 52.212-1, Section 3.2.3

The Government notes in their response to a question on page 2, that the Government is allowing the ‘offeror to use the labor categories listed, propose all new labor categories, or propose to remove some. However if the offeror is proposing alternate labor categories , they must be mapped to the Government provided labor categories.’ Given the broad scope of work in this PWS we would like to provide individuals to support in certain task areas such as Task 6 Change Mgmt/Comms, Task 7

Acquisition Program Office Valuation Sustainment, Task 9 Formal Classroom training that would have different qualifications that would benefit the government. If the offeror proposes new labor categories whereby changing the years of experience, certifications, and specific experience, the offeror will not be able to map the new LCAT to the existing LCATs defined in Attachment E, Labor

Categories. Will the Government please confirm that defining new LCATs that cannot be mapped back to the original AF LCATs is acceptable?

Yes, each Offeror may propose the LCATs of their choice and make a statement or reference that it is a new

LCAT and does not map back to Attachment E. The

Offeror will provide a description similar to how the

Government has for Attachment E addressing the same titles of Attachment E for the newly proposed LCAT(s).

22 Attachment 1, 52.212-1, Section

Attachment F, specifically within the title ‘PWS

Attachment F – Key Personnel Positions (in addition to Attachment G requirements)’ still references attachment G1-G3 which define the

Yes, that is correct to provide or identify Key Personnel for Attachment F and G1-G3. Updated Attachment 1 paragraph 4.1.1.3.1 for clarity

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

4.1.1.3.1, Assessable Units. Will the Government please confirm that based on the information in

Attachment F, offerors are to provide Key

Personnel for all of the positions detailed in

Attachment F, to include the positions detailed in the G1-G3 attachments? Subsequently, will the

Government confirm that no changes were incorporated into Attachments G1-G3? If changes were incorporated, will the Government please provide the updated versions to the offerors?

23 Attachment

10 (QASP),

Section 2.3

Key Personnel

The Government notes in their response to a question, specifically page 33, that ‘revisions were made to the QASP’ document but it does not appear that the Government released the updated document. Will the Government please provide the updated QASP document to offerors?

The Government will post the latest QASP for reference.

24 Attachment F, Key

Personnel Positions

Based on the Government’s response to a question, specifically on page 56, the Government notes

‘resumes are required for key positions listed in

Attachment F only’. Will the Government confirm that Attachment F references G1-G3 Attachments, and therefore Key Personnel should be provided for the positions outlined in Attachment F as well as G1-G3?

Yes, that is correct to provide or identify Key Personnel for Attachment F and G1-G3.

Updated Attachment 1 paragraph 4.1.1.3.1 for clarity

25 Attachment 1, Section 4.2.2

Teaming Arrangements

The solicitation requires a summary as to the overall arrangement, including relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with the same partner and must be consistent with FAR 52.207-6. FAR 52.207-6 stipulates these arrangements are for small business offerors that are either going to prime or have a small business teaming arrangement. Please clarify if it is the government’s intent to have this section apply to other than small business who are not in a mentor protégé relationship or JV and simply want a summary of our subcontractors their role on the team?

This applies to any teaming arrangement – a summary must be provided to address 4.2.2.

26 Attachment 1

– Addendum

4.3.3.2.1 The extent to which the

prime Offeror proposes qualified first

RFP Attachment 1 Section 4.3.3.2.1 requires qualified first tier small businesses for purposes of

Yes, as stated in 3.5 Small Business Participation Plan

(SBPP) the Offeror must provide in their SBPP response

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

(as Amended)

4.3.3 Small

Business

Participation Plan tier small, SDVOSB, WOSB, and

VOSB subcontractors that will meet or exceed the following targets for this procurement based upon percent of total contract value in table 2:

completing and meeting the small business participation goals set forth in the solicitation for the proposal and resulting contract. On December

23, 2016 the Federal Registry announced a Final

Rule Action to take effect on January 23, 2017 where the Small Business Administration (SBA) would allow Large Business prime contractors to recognize and receive credit for Lower Tier small business subcontracting IAW the 2014 NDAA, Section 1614. Please confirm that the successful offeror will be permitted to meet their small business goals through the use of second tier subcontractors?

how the goal will be met and that would include any additional levels for subcontractor support. The first tier reference was for the Professional Employee

Compensation Plan (PECP) noted in 3.4.2.2 which does not apply in regards to meeting the SBPP.

27 USAF FIAR

Q&As

FINAL

20171004

Last Question on Page 36

Question on

Attachments G1, G2, and G3 On page 36, in response to the last question on the page concerning Attachments G-1 through G-3, the

Government refers to the Assessable Unit leads as key personnel. On page 37, in response to the third question on the page concerning key personnel, the

Government responded the PWS Attachment F was updated to add clarity. Attachment F also refers to

Attachments G-1 through G-3. On page 56, in response to the first question listed on the page, the

Government stated resumes are only required for the positions listed in Attachment F. However, Attachment F refers to Attachments G-1 through G-

3, and the Government stated in the other responses to questions the Assessable Units required named leads. Is it the Government’s intention that the offerors only provide names for the key personnel assigned as Assessable Unit leads?

Yes, that is correct to provide or identify Key Personnel for Attachment F and G1-G3.

Updated Attachment 1 paragraph 4.1.1.3.1 for clarity

28 USAF FIAR

Q&As

FINAL

20171004

Last Question on Page 9

Attachment_1_Addendum_to_52_212-

1_FIAR_FINAL, Section 4.1.1.3.2, Attachments 5a-5g

On page 9, in response to the last question on the page, the Government stated: “Offerors shall propose staff mix and FTEs for the base year and keep that constant across the options for this solicitation (Attachments 5a-5h).” However, on page 50, in response to the first question on the page, the Government indicated the offeror may propose additional hours that varies from the base year and any option year. Additionally, on page

55, in response to the last question, the Government

See the answer to Question #1

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

First Question on Page 50 stated: “The offeror is proposing for FTEs to complete the tasks for a twelve month period. The option years are the same level of work. If the offeror is proposing to decrease or increase FTEs during the option years , the offeror may duplicate that tab and update the information at their discretion along with an explanation as to the decrease or increase.” These different responses regarding how to develop a response related to staffing and pricing the engagement will result in the offerors submitting inconsistent proposals to the

Government, which will make evaluating the bids very difficult. We request the Government clarify its instructions to offerors on whether we are to bid hours and hold them constant across all years or make adjustments to increase or decrease the FTEs and provide an explanation for the changes.

29 USAF FIAR

Q&As

FINAL

20171004

Last Question on Page 22, Attachments 5a-5g

With the addition of Task 9 – Formal Training, does the Government plan to update Attachments 5a through 5h? Could the government also provide historical hours for Task 9?

See Answer to Question #3

30 USAF FIAR

Q&As

FINAL

20171004

First Question on Page 54

Attachment 1 – Section 4.3.1.1

Attachment 4 – IDIQ Pricing Sheet

Attachment 4 – IDIQ Pricing Sheet includes a column for “FFP Discount Applied.” Applying a discount to direct and indirect cost elements is not consistent with supporting documentation for a realistic PECP. Will the Government modify

Attachment 4 to remove the FFP Applied Discount column?

No, if the offeror has no discounts then the column is blank or put in $0.00 to show no discounts.

31 USAF FIAR

Q&As

FINAL

20171004

First Question on Page 36

Attachment 5g

Per the first question on page 36 of the Q&A, the

Government indicated that it “Updated the 5g spreadsheet – see attached.” However, it appears that Attachment 5g has not been updated. Could the

Government please confirm the update to

Attachment 5g?

The update on the spreadsheets for pricing (i.e. 5a to 5h) has been the tab names. 5h is a new template to cover the additional section of the revised PWS.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

Attachments 5a-5h, Historical Hrs Est by Task and Proposed Hrs Est by Task

Attachment 9 AF FIAR PWS

(amendment 4)

There appears to be significant differences between the Sub-Tasks listed in the PWS, and the Sub-Tasks listed in Attachments 5a-5h, both in the Historical and Proposed hours tabs. These differences between the sub-tasks in the PWS and the sub-tasks in the

Attachments 5a-5h workbooks exist for Tasks 2, 3, and 5.

For example, Attachments 5a-5h list the following

Sub-tasks for CLIN 0002, Task 2:

CLIN 0002/2.2

Enduring Audit Readiness

Entity Level Controls

OMB Circular A-123, Appendix A

Prep of the Statement of Assurance

Service Providers

Executive level Support/Metrics

However, the PWS lists a different set of sub-task under CLIN 0002 / Task 2:

2.2 Task 2: Enduring Audit Readiness/Internal

Controls

2.2.1 Entity Level Controls (ELC) and OMB

Circular A-123

2.2.2 Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC)

Only: Process Documentation and Standards in FM

Knowledge Now (FMKN) at MAJCOM or below level

Historical Hrs Est by Task are provide for each task identified and should be taken in total for all the requirements in the task in the PWS. For example:

Enduring Audit Readiness has a historical overall FTE estimate of 49 in Attachment 5a.

Updated PWS and Pricing Sheets

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question

References Question Government Answers:

2.2.3 Support to inspection programs MAJCOM

and below

2.2.4 Internal audit sampling, testing, reconciliation

and corrective actions at MAJCOM and below

2.2.5 Service Providers (SP)

In consideration of the forgoing example, it is noted that the government has provided a template for offerors to use to propose their level of effort, which will be evaluated under Factor 1 – Technical, Sub-

Factor 3 Staffing Plan. However, from a compliance perspective, it is not clear how offerors can complete Attachment 5’s Proposed Hrs tab in a way that facilitates the Government’s review and evaluation of the proposed resources to meet the

PWS requirements when Attachment 5 does not match the activities listed in the PWS.

Would the government please revise Attachments

5a-5h to;

a. Ensure the Sub-Tasks that offerors are to propose hours against match the PWS’ sub-task requirements, and;

b. Provide historical FTE data aligned to the same sub-tasks of the PWS