FA8056-17-R-0001_Final_RFP_posted_01_27_17.docx

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FINAL RFP Q & A

A. General Questions Date Posted On FBO

1. Question: Is this solicitation a pre-solicitation still, or is it now in actual solicitation phase? This packet is very large and is confusing as to where it is in the process, with DRAFT RFP & FINAL RFQ questions, please clarify.

Answer: The FBO posting can become cumbersome over time. The Final RFP was posted on 21 December 2016 with a close date of 1 February 2017.

Draft RFP questions pertain only to the draft RFP. I advise you focus on the Final RFP (to include the SOW and attachments) and related Amendments and Q&As.

Final RFP Q&As were posted last night and Amendment 0002 of the Final RFP will be issued today. The Amendment 0002 captures the changes resultant from the first round of Q&As. A conformed copy of the solicitation will also be posted. This conformed copy will have the most up to date terms and conditions.

2. Question: Are completed proposals required by Feb 1?

Answer: Yes, the proposal due date is 1 Feb 2017 (Note: Original question is dated 18 JAN 2017. Since that time the proposal due date has been extended to 8 FEB 2017).

3. Question: Why is the Type / Set Aside category on FBO still classified as a Pre-Solicitation and not a Combined Synopsis / Solicitation?

Answer: The notice would not have been classified as a “Combined Synopsis/Solicitation”, as that is not what was intended. The Notice Type field on FBO.gov is not something the Contracting Officer has control over once the initial notice type has been selected. Since the initial post for this effort was the posting of the Draft RFP the notice type was “Presolicitation”. However, the Contracting Officer contacted the FedBizOpps System Administrator to inquire if the notice type could change to “Solicitation” once the Final RFP was posted. The response was this is an FBO error that the System Administrator cannot fix.

4. Question: In my experience, the Presolicitation, PS, comes out first as an opportunity. Then after some time, and it’s usually stated on the PS, a Combined Synopsis / Solicitation comes out separately from the PS. That process ensures there is no confusion to the sellers. If a seller was to search for this using the Combined Synopsis / Solicitation check box, they would never find it because it is still classified as a Presolicitation. Who may have missed this opportunity because of this error?

Answer: The information was posted to FBO in the following order: Draft RFP (21 Oct 2016), the 15 day notice of Final RFP release via the Synopsis (1 Dec 2016), and Final RFP (21 Dec 2016). If you had seen the Draft RFP and elected to "Watch This Opportunity" for updates you would have been notified of all changes to the posting, regardless of their classification.

5. Question: I have been following this opportunity and have posted questions and was still confused because of the “Error” showing this opportunity as still a presolicitation. I did not know the final proposal was due on Feb 1st because of this, until this morning when I had to ask. Another confusing point, when posting the attachments on Dec 21st, it just says Package #3. Why did it not say FINAL RFP? With all the attachments in this opportunity already it’s easy to see how sellers could be confused especially with the presolicitation classification. Some sellers such as myself prepare for the opportunity to become a Combined Synopsis / Solicitation to reevaluate the priority.

Answer: The Dec 21, 2106 posting that announces the "release of the Final Request for Proposal (RFP FA8056-17-R-0001)..." corresponds to the "Package" that was posted concurrently with that announcement to comprise the Final RFP solicitation. The "error" is the title of the Final RFP package as "Package". We contacted FBO administrators in order to correct the title but there was nothing they could do. If, at that time, you had been confused about our information release, you could have contacted us for clarification. Also, this solicitation was not issued as a "combined synopsis/solicitation" and would not have been classified as such and is not required to be classified as such. Our intent, and actions, were to release a synopsis and then the solicitation. Because so many other offerors have been engaged knowing of the final RFP release, and appear to be prepared to submit offers, the Contracting Officer does not see that the posting was unreasonable in its timing or content. Please consider the final RFP posting and subsequent Questions and Answers to meet a deadline of 8 Feb 2017 [02:00 PM EST] for proposal submission. Thank you.

TOP

1/27/17

FA8056-17-R-0001

Final RFP Comments & Responses

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY