Responses_to_Questions_28_Dec_2016.pdf

1) At Section 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2016) a new clause was inserted to wit:

(e) Multiple offers. Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions or commercial items for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. Each offer submitted will be evaluated separately.

Please clarify the instruction here, and the intended meaning. Is it:

Offerors may submit alternative pricing scenarios versus FFP, i.e., T&M, Cost type, etc.?

Offerors may offer alternative management organization, i.e., PM, Cyber PM, DPM, etc…?

Offerors may offer differing FTE counts or work years?

Answer: This is not a new clause, this is part of the standard FAR Clause 52.212-1. We have changed it to “Reserved” to limit confusion.

To clarify, this is a FFP contract and offerors should submit FFP pricing. Offerors are encouraged to submit pricing, management, and Labor Category terms using the instructions provided as they will be evaluated accordingly.

2) In reviewing the Amended Solicitation for RFP FA7037-16-R-0001, the Government removed the requirement for CD-ROM (electronic files) submissions from the solicitations documents; however, the Governments answers several questions in the Q&As about the CD-ROMS. Can you confirm that

CD-ROMs submissions are still a requirement?

Answer: With the Amendment requiring submission of a complete proposal electronically on the

AMRDEC SAFE Application, a CD is not required.

3) In the latest update by the government, the RFP Sections 3.2.2.2 and 7.4, further clarified in

Responses to Questions released December 16, 2016, that to be evaluated as “relevant,” each Past

Performance Information (PPI) reference must be for a contract that has “provided at least 80 FTEs at geographically separated units (GSU’s) in the CONUS and OCONUS” combined.

Answer: IAW 52.212-1 addendum, paras. 7.2 & 7.4, Contractors are required to submit a minimum of three (3) PPI references and each must show the contractor has supported a requirement that has provided at least 80 FTEs at geographically separated units (GSU’s) in the CONUS and OCONUS

(combined) in order to be considered relevant.

4) Amendment 0001, Page 15 of 30: In reference to 52.212-1, paragraph 7.2, is the Offeror to present a write-up for each contract, 2 page limit per contract reference, they consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort?

Answer: Yes, 52.212-1 addendum, para. 7.2 states: “Submit information on contracts you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Each relevant contract shall have a minimum of 2 years of active performance within 5 years preceding the (Linguist Analyst

Support Services/LASS) final solicitation issuance date. This includes contracts that were awarded prior to this period, but still had performance occurring as of this time. This information is required on the offeror, subcontractors, teaming partners and/or joint venture partners the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. Submit a minimum of (3) and a maximum of (5) references;

(1) of the references provided should be on the Offeror (Prime Contractor), if available. The remaining references may be provided for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners considered critical to successful performance of the requirement.”

5) Amendment 0001, Page 15 of 30: In reference to 52.212-1, paragraph 7.2.1, is there a page limit, when using the PPI Tool (database), for the printed version?

Answer: Per 52.212-1 addendum, para. 7.2.1, “Submit a separate PPI input using the PPI tool (posted on FedBizOpps with the solicitation information as "ppi_tool.accdb") and instructions provided

(Attachment 7 - PPI Tool Instructions) for each reference. Hard copies of the pages generated from this tool shall be used as the hard copy of the Past Performance volume subject to the limitations outlined in this RFP and should be Tab 1 of the Past Performance volume.” The maximum page limit of Volume III is 18, with the “Business Relationship Report” being exempt from the page limit.

6) Attachment 07, PPI Tool instructions, Page 7: In reference to “Printing Reports and Submitting PPI

Tool”, item #2., the instructions state: “The Business Relationships and Past Performance documents will print separately; combine the two to create your Past Performance Volume.” Are there any page limitations applied to either report? If yes, what are the page limitations for the Past Performance report? What are the page limitations for the Business Relationships report?

Answer: The maximum page limit of Volume III is 18, with the “Business Relationship Report” being exempt from the page limit.

7) Amendment 0001, Page 15 of 30: In reference to 52.212-1, paragraphs 7.2 and 7.2.1, is it the intent of the government to receive PPI information describing relevancy and recency separate from the PPI

Tool input? If so, to which does the two page limitation refer?

Answer: No, it is referring to the same input.

8) Comment: In Section 7.0 Contractors are given instructions detailing what is to be submitted for

Volume III and how many pages are available for each required subsection. In Section 7.1 number 2, it states that we are not to exceed 2 pages per submission with a max of 5 submissions.

Question: In the PPI Tool there are two reports, the Past Performance Report (a two page report) and the Business Relationship Report (one page report); although the Business Relationship Report is not mentioned in Section 7, are we to submit it as an additional page?

Answer: The “Business Relationship Report” is exempt from the page limit.