OTES Final RFP-PPI QuestionsResponses 14 Oct 11.xls
XLS spreadsheet 74 KB Posted
- Attached to
- OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION SERVICES (OTES) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA7046-11-R-0003
About this file
OTES Final RFP-PPI Questions Responses 14 Oct 11
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION SERVICES (OTES) has more files on GovTribe.
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
FINAL RFP QUESTONS
| Reference | Comment | Question | Response | |
| L 9.2.7.1.8 Table L 3.1.1 | L 9.2.7.1.8 requires that "all direct labor rates and indirect expense rates and estimating factors used in the proposal have been submitted for review by the cognizant DCAA prior to cost proposal submission." Table L 3.1.1 does not require that a copy of the proposal be submitted to DCAA. | Does the Government want a copy of the Cost/Price proposal submitted to DCAA concurrent with the submission of proposals to the Government? | Yes, the requirement instructions are in Section L, Paragraph L.9.2.7.1.8 for the proposal. Table L.3.1.1 is the proposal organization only. | |
| CDRL A002 Status Report | In the response to a previous question -- Section M, #3 -- the Government referred offerors to the text in CDRL A002 for the methodology for determining compliance with the "50%" rule (52.219-14). The sentence beginning "For both costs…" appears to have some words missing. The sentence does not explain how the "other direct costs and applicable indirect costs applied..." are to be handled in the calculation of the "50% rule." | Request that the Government review the wording in the remarks in Block 4 of A002 -- specifically, BLK - Paragraph 3.1 -- for clarity and provide additional wording to clarify the handling of ODCs and burdens when determining a small business prime contractor's compliance with 52.219-14. Clarify wording in Block 4 of CDRL A002. | Corrected to state: "For both costs, any other direct costs, e.g., travel, with applicable indirect costs applied and fee would be removed" in Amendment 1. | |
| RFP -- Table 0.1 (4.1?) Surveillance Matrix | Table 0.1. Surveillance Matrix | Verbiage refers to Table 4.1, but the table is notated as 0.1. Please Clarify. | Recommend clarification | Table number is 4.1. Corrected in Amendment 1. |
| RFP -- Table 0.1. Surveillance Matrix; PWS Ref 3.1.1 | Actual task order expenditures shall be TBD% (COR determined) of approved projected budgets" | This does not allow the contractor to gauge level to effectively monitor funding on each TO. Will the "TBD%" be updated before 1 November? | This does not allow the contractor to gauge level to effectively monitor funding on each TO. | PWS TBD% is correct. Actual percentages will be included in the task orders. |
| RFP -- DD254 Form, 8a Continuation Location | Table header 8a and 8c | The left column is defined as 8a. The adjacent column is labeled as 8c. Is there a column 8b? | Recommend clarification | No. |
| RFP -- DD254 Form, 8a Continuation Location | ASC AFMC Wright Patterson AFB, OH | Continuation Cognizant Security Office for WPAFB is listed as the Detroit Field Office in Livonia, MI. Is this correct? | Is this correct? | Yes. |
| RFP -- General | General comment | Is it possible to add page numbers to the final RFP? | Clarity | PD2 contract writing tool will not number the document. |
| CDRL SUMMARY Table | PWS Ref Column | The Performance Work Statement (PWS) in the RFP does not have numbered paragraphs. | Add paragraph numbering to PWS and confirm column references listed in table are correct. | Corrected in Amendment 1. |
| TO 2, Table 1.0 | 3rd Column labeled "CLIP" | Should this column be labeled "B1 CLIP"? | Add B1 to column label. | No, CLIP is an independent program managed by Electronic System Command. It's a software program that is integrated into both B-1 FIDL and B-52 CONECT, but it is its own separate program. |
| TO 2, Table 1.0 | Columns 2 and 3 | OT&E Report Brief dates are before the start of OTES contract. Will activities related to the B1 FIDL and CLIP programs be in "project closeout" phase for OTES? Clarify status of OTES effort for B1 programs. | Clarify status of OTES effort for B1 programs. | B-1 FIDL is likely to have more testing in FY12/13 timeframe. Offerors should be prepared to support these activities (follow-on test and evaluation). |
| TO 2, Page 2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence | Table 1.0 provides the current understanding of major BTO products for scoping proposals. | Is "products" the same as "programs?" Clarify wording. | Clarify wording. | Products refers to those deliverables (reports, briefings, etc.) produced in support of program testing activities. |
| TO 2, Page 2, 2nd paragraph | Additional BTO programs are expected during the period of performance of this task order. | If major BTO programs are added after task award, will the contractor be able to propose additional manpower? | Clarify the ability for the contractor to request increased cost/manpower if major BTO programs are added after Task Order award. | Due to this type of requirement changes, the task orders are cost reimbursement. |
| TO 2, Page 3, Paragraph 3.2.5 | Provide Information Technology (IT) Special Access Program (SAP) test support. | This sentence is not consistent with previous sentence of paragraph 3.2.5 which addresses training government personnel in the operations of computers. This was noted in the Draft RFP PWS paragraph 3.2.5 and was changed in the Final RFP PWS by making the last sentence it's own PWS paragraph and rewording to delete SAP terminology. | Suggest making last sentence new paragraph 3.2.6 and use same wording as RFP PWS of "Provide Information Technology (IT) during test support and execution." | Corrected in Amendment 2. |
| TO 2, Page 7, Table 0.1 Surveillance Matrix | Item 2, PWS Ref, 3.1.1 | Table appears to be mis-labeled as 0.1 rather than 4.1. Item 2, column 2's PWS reference is for 3.1.1 but TO2, nor does the RFP PWS has a paragraph 3.1.1. | Correct table label reference and PWS paragraph reference for Item 2. | Corrected in Amendment 1. Changed paragraph reference from 3.1.1. to 3.1 in PWS, QASP and task orders. |
| TO 2, Page 9, Paragraph 5.3.1, Phase-In | The paragraph refers to the incumbent contractor for interaction during the phase-in period. | Who is the incumbent contractor? | Identify the incumbent contractor for TO2. | SAIC |
| L2.1.1 and L8.2.4 | L2.1.1 states text lines to include all tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall have 1.5 line spacing. L8.2.4 states the offeror shall submit Performance Information sheets IAW the format contained in Section L Attachment L2. | Since RFP Attachment L-2 is structured in single-space format, would the Government consider exempting Attachment L-2 from the 1.5 line spacing requirement? | No change for L2.1.1. See new PPI instructions in Section L of Amendment 1. | |
| L4.0 | Each offeror is requested to submit Volume III, Past Performance 10 days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals. | Saturday, 10/22 is 10 days prior to the proposal due date of 11/1. Clarify the date the Government would like to receive Volume III. | Not later than the proposal due date. | |
| L8.2.9 | Contractor must provide OSHA citations for the last 3 years. Information must include willful, serious and other-than serious violations for NAICS code 541712. Violations is defined in OSHA standards. | Is it acceptable to submit this information as the last section in Volume III, exempted from page count? | See Amendment 1. A line item has been added to Table located under L8.2 for paragraph L8.2.9 with no page limit. | |
| DD254, Section 1b and 11c | It appears that these two sections may be in conflict. | Please clarify Task Order 0001 requires the contractor to perform using corporate office space. | Yes. | |
| DD254, continuation Sheet, Block 11L | This contract will require the contractor to use Automated Information Systems (AIS) to process and generate classified information up to and including TOP SECRET material. Any (non SAP or SCI) AIS used by the contractor at the facility identified in Block 6a, must be accredited by the DSS prior to classified usage. | Please clarify. If TOP SECRET processing and storage is required at the contractor location identified at Block 6a, the safeguarding level at 1b should read TOP SECRET. | Correct, however only Secret will be required at the contractor facility. | |
| PPI Sheet, Description of Effort, last sentence | Offerors shall submit Present and Past Performance data to support Factor 2, including all Technical Subfactors, and Factor 3, Cost Price. | Please clarify. Should the intent be to address Factor 1, Subfactor 1, including all technical subfactors? | Attachment L2 is removed. See PPI tool. See E28 Amendment 1. | |
| CDRL A002 | Based on FAR Clause 52.219-14, at least 50% of the cost of the contract performance must be expended for employees of the concern. CDRL A002 requires that this information be reported at the task order level. | Can the Government confirm that the 50% will be evaluated at the contract level and not the task order level? | Calculations must be provided at the task order level for CDRL A002. To meet the requirements of FAR 52.219-14, the offeror must meet the percentage on all issued task orders and not necessarily on individual task orders. | |
| Section I, Clause 5352.209-9001. Potential Organizational Conflict of Interest | This clause is in Section I and in Section L. | Should this clause be considered as part of Section L? | Yes. FAR 5352.209-9000 OCI is in Section I. | |
| Attachment L3 Cover Letter, Paragraph 3 | Instructions for questionnaires response due date is IAW Section L, Paragraph L4.0. Recipients of these questionnaires will not have the RFP. Section L, Paragraph 4.0 does not provide a due date for Questionnaires, but does request early submission of Volume III of the proposal. | Request change to cover letter to substitute a firm date of 24 Oct 11 in place of "in accordance with Section L, Paragraph L4.0"? | No, offeror should be providing due dates to the recipients of the letter. | |
| l2.1.4 | For Tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 10 point. | Will the Government allow Arial font at a size of 10 point or greater? | No. | |
| L2.1.10 | L.2.1.10 allows cost and pricing information in the Executive Summary Volume I. Section L9.1.2 prohibits Cost/Price information in any Volume other than Volume IV, Cost/Price. | Please clarify the intent of Section L2.1.10 relative to Cost/Price information to be included in the Volume I, Executive Summary. | Reference should be L2.1.11. The following was deleted "and/or the Executive Summary & Contract Documentation Volume" in Amendment 1. | |
| Section H Clause, H-270, Key Personnel | H-270 changed the description of Key Personnel from the task order level to the contract level. It further states "Key Personnel will be defined in individual task orders as required." Key personnel are not identified in any of the three task orders. Section L7.2.2.1 c) requires PDs for all direct technical personnel. | As there are no key personnel identified in the task orders, clarify the Government's expectations regarding inclusion of nameless resumes in Volume II and regarding inclusion of PDs in Volume II (technical). | Only submit PDs, nameless resumes are not permitted and there are no key personnel called out in task orders 0001 - 0003. | |
| PWS | Major headings within the PWS are not numbered nor are minor work statements numbered past the Test Planning section. Several sections such as L7.2.1 1) make reference to PWS paragraphs that are presently non-existent. This makes correlation between the proposal and the PWS difficult. | Would the Government revise the PWS to include as a minimum the Major Heading numbering to facilitate correlation between the PWS and the proposal? | The paragraph numbering of the PWS was corrected in Amendment 1. | |
| PWS | Within the PWS, the Transition section includes both Phase-In and Phase-out requirements. Section L7.2.2.5 addresses only a Phase-In Transition Plan, not a Phase-Out. | Clarify if there is a requirement to address Transition Phase-Out in the proposal. | No, not required. | |
| DD254 and Q&A responses | It states that safeguarding is not allowed (1b) yet in 11c it states that the contractor will have safeguarding for classified data and possibly hardware, with safeguarding at the location listed in 6a. | Clarify the DD254 requirement. | Correct, however only Secret will be requried at the contractor facility. | |
| Section L7.2.2.5(e), Initial Staffing | Present security clearance information for all personnel expected to work on this contract (refer to DD 254, Section C for security requirements). | There is no Section C on the DD254. Request clarification. | Correct reference is 7.2.2.2. The DD254 is located in Section C of the RFP, Descriptions and Specifications | |
| Q&A, Second Question, TO 0002 | Individual program documents will not be provided. However, Paragraph 2.0 in the updated task order states "Documents will be made available". | Please clarify if the Government intends to provide program documents after task order award. Otherwise, request Government make program documents available as a part of the RFP per Task Order 0002 Paragraph 2.0 | The government will provide necessary documents after award of the task order. | |
| TO 0001 | Task Order includes support of space programs, ground terminal programs, and aircraft programs. | Request the Government provide the anticipated percentage distribution of work expected among these three areas. | Currently, majority is Space and Ground terminals programs, however, in the future this can fluctuate amongst the three areas. | |
| PWS, Table 0.1, Applicable Documents and Test Execution | Both references refer to AFOTECMAN 99-101 | Please clarify if this is the the Government's intent. | Yes, AFOTECMAN 99-101 is available on FBOs. | |
| RFP, Section H, H-150, Base Support, Paragraph (c) | Subparagraph (c) references (e) and (f). | Are these references correct? | No. Paragraph (c) should state "The Air Force installations providing the support shall be listed in subparagraph (f), and the Government support to be furnished by each installation under this contract shall be listed in subparagraph (g)." Corrected in Amendment 2. | |
| RFP, Section L, Paragraph 2.1.3 | Reference states "page margins shall be a minimum of 1-inch each for the top, bottom and sides" | Will the Government accept headers and footers, such as volume Identification and page numbers, outside of the 1-inch margins? | Yes | |
| RFP, Section L, Paragraph 2.1.9, Electronic Media Offers and Submissions and Table L3.1.1, Proposal Organization | Section L, Paragraph 2.1.9 states "Each volume of the electronic proposal shall be in its own subdirectory on the CD-ROM, sequentially labeled Volume I through 3. Volume 4, Cost/Price, shall be submitted on a separate CD-ROM. Table L3.1.1 indicates that each volume will be turned in as an original with copies plus 1 CD-ROM. | Is it the Government's intent that offerors submit 3 CD-ROMs containing Volumes 1 through 3 on each CD-ROM and a fourth disc with Volume 4? | The Government's intent is stated in Table L3.1.1 - Original plus 4 copies for Volumes 1 through 3 plus 1 CD-ROM for each Volume and Original plus 2 copies for Volume 4 plus 1 CD-ROM. The following sentence was removed from L2.1.9 "Each volume of the electronic proposal shall be in its own subdirectory on the CD-ROM, sequentially labeled Volume 1 through 3...." in Amendment 1. | |
| RFP, Section L, Table L.3.1.1, Proposal Organization | Reference refers to "including OCI mitigation plan, if applicable" | Please clarify page limitations, if any, for said plan. | Table L3.1.1 states "10 pages for Executive Summary/No Limit for Contract Documentation." The OCI plan is part of the Contract Documentation. | |
| RFP, Section M, Paragraph 3.2.1, Technical Factor Acceptability, Item a, Subfactor 1. | Items begin with Number 8. | Is this the Government's intent? | Paragraph numbering iscorrected in Amendment 2. | |
| Task Order 0001, Paragraph 5.4.2 | Two paragraphs have the numbering of 5.4.2 | Is this the Government's intent? | Paragraph numbering is corrected in Amendment 2. | |
| Reference Task Order 0001, Paragraph 6.2.6; Task Order 0002 Paragraphs 5.5, 6.2.6, and Task Order 0003, Paragraphs 5.3, 5.5, and 6.2.6 | There are missing paragaphs | Is this the Government's intent? | No significance. If a paragraph is not cited in the Task order then it is not a requirement. We use the same task numbering from the PWS to the TO. | |
| Section L6.2.1 | Section L6.2.1 requires offerors, including major subcontractors, to provide company/divisions information including “ labor surplus area designation”. Research has not provided us with information on labor surplus area designations other than certain geographic areas of the United States that are so designated. | Would the Government clarify the intent of the requirement to provide “ labor surplus area designation” for Prime and each subcontractor? | In Amendment 2, paragraph L6.2.1 is revised for clarification. |
&C&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12FA7046-11-R-0003
FINAL RFP QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
&R&P
PPI QUESTIONS
| Reference | Comment | Question | Response |
| Reference RFP Amendment 1, Section L, Attachment L2, Present and Past Performance Information Tool, Paragraph 14, POC & Key Individuals Tab | Attachment L2 reference requires respondents to ‘Click the “New” button to specify any key individual or individuals who participated in this program or who may support the proposed acquisition. Also indicate their roles for both acquisitions, previous and current.’ This appears to be in violation of the last sentence in RFP Amendment 1, Section L, Paragraph L1.1, General Instructions, which states that “OFFERORS SHALL NOT SUBMIT NAMES OF PROPOSED PERSONNEL IN ANY VOLUME OF THE PROPOSAL.” | Please clarify that the PPI Tool requirement in Paragraph 14 is an exception to Paragraph L1.1 of Amendment 1, Section L. | The Points of Contact are not mandatory/required fields. Offeror shall not violate the instruction in paragraph L1.1. In Amendment 2, Attachment L2 paragraph 14 is revised. |
| PPI Database | Request the Government clarify the type of information and level of detail required in the “Responsibilities” section on the first input screen in the PPI Database | In Amendment 2, Attachment L2, paragraph 9 is revised to reflect the character limit of 3,500 without spaces in this field. | |
| L 8.2 Content of Past Performance Volume. Attachment L2 Present and Past Performance Information Tool | The offeror’s Past Performance Volume shall contain the following and be within the specified page constraints. . . .Printing Reports and Submitting PPI Tool. 4. Follow the submission instructions. Hard copies of the pages generated from this tool shall be used in 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. (Underlined for emphasis)….The table in L8.2 specifies that Business Relationships from the PPI Tool will follow Organizational Structure Change History, and Past Performance Information Report from the PPI Tool will follow Business Relationships. Instruction 4 under Printing Reports and Submitting PPI Tool specifies that the hard copy of pages generated from the tool should be Tab I of Volume III. | Please clarify where the hard copies of Business Relationships and Past Performance Information Report should be included in Volume III. | See Table L.3.1.1 for instructions. No hard copies of Business Relationships or PPI reports are required. |
| L1.1 General Information Attachment L2 POC & Key Individuals Tab | OFFERORS SHALL NOT SUBMIT NAMES OF PROPOSED PERSONNEL IN ANY VOLUME OF THE PROPOSAL. Key Individuals: Click the “New” button to specify any key individual or individuals who participated in this program or may support the proposed acquisition. . . . If you wish to include the past performance of individual key personnel, select the “New” button for each individual and fill out the necessary information | Please clarify if the POC & Key Individuals Tab is to be completed without naming the individuals who participated in the cited program and are being proposed to support OTES | The Points of Contact are not mandatory/required fields. Offeror shall not violate the instruction in paragraph L1.1. In Amendment 2, Attachment L2 paragraph 14 is revised. |
| (PPI) Tool in Attachment L.2 | There are several instructions for use of the Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool in Attachment L.2 that are not in compliance with the RFP requirements. For example: The PPI Tool has tabs for identification of key individuals and program manager whereas the RFP states that no names shall be used. | Would the Government confirm that the RFP instructions take precedence over the PPI Tool instructions wherever the two are not consistent? | The instructions in the RFP take precedence over the PPI tool. |
&CFA7046-11-R-0003
PPI QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .