CSIAC_BCO_Draft_RFP_Questions_DTIC_Response_14_Dec_16.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 11 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Special Notice Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8075-16-R-0002
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| CSIAC_BCO_Draft_RFP_Questions_20Oct16.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| CSIAC_Draft_RFP.zip | ZIP file |
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
Sheet1
| CSIAC BCO RFP Q&A as of 14 December 2016 | |||
| # | Solicitation Section | Question/Comment | Response |
| 1 | Section M3.1.3 (page 123) | Page 123 Section M3.1.3 Relevance: Under Cost it states Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant and Not Relevant list only cost type contracts to be considered for relevancy. Request consideration of not only cost-type contracts be considered for relevancy but also fixed price or hybrid contracts especially since in the cyber and M&S efforts many high tech state-of-the-art solutions need not only be researched but to deliver hardware/software and integrated prototype systems for the warfighter or DoD which is executed as a fixed price contract. Request that the verbiage of “contracts be considered for relevancy” be updated in the RFP vice cost type contracts only be considered for relevancy. | The assumption that only cost contracts will be considered for "Relevancy" is incorrect. Only the "Very Relevant" rating is limited to cost contracts. A paragraph has been added to RFP Section M3.1.3.1 to explain how Cost is only one of four factors that is evaluated for "Relevancy" and how overall "Relevancy" will be assessed. |
| 2 | Over the past several years, DTIC and the IAC Director have stressed the importance of delivering impactful information products, analytic tools, and technological solutions to the Warfighter (i.e., COCOMs, services, etc.), whether they are developed and delivered directly by working with the Warfighter or indirectly by working through the S&T or acquisition communities. Yet, the draft RFP does not include evaluation criteria for having successful past performance in developing and delivering solutions that ultimately benefit the Warfighter. Since contributions that ultimately benefit the Warfighter strongly demonstrate and validate the relevance and importance of the IAC program, would the Government consider adding an evaluation criterion or criteria for past performance that demonstrates an ability to meet critical technical needs of Warfighters? That is, for past performance that demonstrates the ability to identify and understand critical problems and needs of Warfighters and the ability to work with them or the S&T and acquisition communities to find, develop, and deliver information products, tools, and technological solutions to solve those problems and meet those needs in an impactful manner? | The RFP's stated Past Performance relevance criteria listed under "Operations Approach" at paragraph M3.1.3.1, accurately cover the Government's requirements. No change is required. | |
| 5 | |||
| 6 | |||
| 7 | |||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | |||
| 10 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .