Questions_and_Answers__9-_Solicitation.doc

Questions and Answers #9

SOLICITATION – FA8106-14-R-0004

Reference Appendix D - ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1

Question #1:

a) Does Table 2.2.8 Correlation Matrix, page 6-7 of Appendix D represent the comprehensive list of minimum requirements needed for evaluation of the offeror's technical, past performance, and price proposals?

b) If so, must requirements on the Correlation Matrix be present in all three volumes or is compliance met with a reference in only one of the volumes?

Answer: No. The Correlation Matrix is a tool primarily for the technical volume, used by the Government to assist with quickly identifying where in the Offeror’s technical proposal information can be found. It is not all-inclusive and can be modified to add information.

Reference Appendix D - ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and Appendix E – Evaluation Factors for Award, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

Question 2:

a) Is it the government's intent for the Appendix D, Correlation Matrix Table 2.2.8, on pages 6-7 of the ITO, to be consistent with all PWS paragraphs as referenced in both Appendix D "ITO" (Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) and Appendix E "Evaluation Factors for Award" (Addendum to FAR 52.212-2)?

b) If yes, there are currently inconsistencies between Table 2.2.8, "PWS para" column, PWS references in Appendix D, and PWS references in Appendix E. These inconsistencies for minimum requirements across the Appendices A, D, and E, PER TABLE 2.2.8 are as follows:

1) PWS paragraphs 1.27.1.3 and 1.27.1.4 are included in Table 2.2.8 but not included in either Appendix D paragraph 3.2.6b and Appendix E paragraph 2.2.4b:

2) Reference to PWS paragraphs 1.39 and "all subsequent paragraphs" is only made in Appendix D, paragraph 3.2.3a

3) The Appendix D reference to PWS 1.39 and “all subsequent paragraphs” (see Question 2.b.2 directly preceding) implies that PWS paragraph 1.39.2 “ Phase-Out Period Requirements” must also be addressed IAW the ITO as currently written. Is this the government’s intent? (Note: PWS 1.39.2 is not referenced in the Correlation Matrix or Appendix E)

4) Reference to paragraph 1.18.1 is made in Appendix L paragraph 3.2.5.c, but is not made in either Appendix E 2.2.3c or in the PWS column for Table 2.2.8.

Contractor recommends a review of Table 2.2.8 and corrections to it and/or Appendices D and E to correct inconsistencies across all three documents and ensure that all bidders are addressing the minimum requirements to be compliant for evaluation and award.

Answer: No. The Correlation Matrix assist’s the Government in quickly locating information within your proposal against the PWS, Appendix D and Appendix E. It is not all-inclusive. “N/A” is appropriate for items not applicable and can be modified.

Reference Appendix D - ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1

Question #4:

Appendix D, Table 2.2 for Volume III Price, has a different/conflicting organization for Pricing Narrative as referenced to the corresponding ITO paragraph(s) than Appendix D, Paragraph 5.5 “Volume Organization” listing. Paragraph 5.5 has “Section” inserts (indicating TABS?) at odd places which interrupt the flow of the ITO paragraphs and looks cumbersome and un-intentional. Which flow and order for the Pricing Volume should the contractor follow in its volume outline, or is it at contractor discretion?

Answer: Please insure the items in Table 2.2 for Volume III is included with the items under paragraph 5.5 of Appendix D. How the items are tabbed in the Pricing Volume is at the discretion of the Offeror.

Question #5:

Appendix D, Table 2.2, for Volume IV Contract Documentation, calls for the Team List/Attachment 2.0 in two places, one following the Title page, and one preceding the Letters of Intent. Is this the intent?

Answer: The second team list should read “Government Offices” in accordance with para 6.3.4.

Question #6:

Is submittal/inclusion of the actual copies of Letters of Intent (LOI) in Volume IV, Contract Documentation, sufficient for compliance to Appendix D ITO paragraph 3.2.3 (a) and IAW PWS paragraph 1.25, OR are they required in the Volume I Technical, as well. If so, can the LOI artifacts be excluded from the Technical Volume page count of 65 pages?

Answer: Offerors can state LOI’s are located in the Contracts Volume or be placed as a separate tab in the Technical Volume and if placed in the Technical Volume it will not be counted in the 65 page limit.

Question #7: Appendix D, Section 3.2.3, Please confirm that the detailed timeline in Section 3.2.3. Subfactor One: Phase-In/Transition can be created in Microsoft Project and exported as a picture into the proposal response Microsoft Word document.

Answer: Yes, it is acceptable to export into a Microsoft Word document.