Questions-Answers_Official_RFP.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 13 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA810917R0004
About this file
Questions/Answers to Official RFP
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 52 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| PWS Section 1.13 specifically defines four trips each year in support of the sporadic demand and highly variable inventory model and asks for pricing of those trips. However, there is no allowance in the format for other travel in support of broader task management such as kick-off meetings. Should these broader task management trips be priced separately under the travel CLIN (e.g., use current SLINs x003AA or x0003AB, use additional SLIN x003AC, etc.), or included in the estimate for the regular/recurring reports CLIN (CLINs x001)? | If an additional trip were to be required at a later date, an additional SubCLIN would be added at that time and negotiated (TBN). |
| PWS Section 1.13 calls for itemized estimates for travel costs, which is a cost reimbursement type requirement. Travel is considered a firm-fixed-price element in all other instances of the RFP. As such, the contractor should ensure that the proposed travel schedule is going to satisfy the government’s requirements for the trip, but the cost element should be irrelevant to the government. Therefore, we respectfully request the requirement for itemized estimates for travel costs be deleted. | PWS Section 1.13 is hereby deleted as stated in the solicitation amendment. |
| PWS Section 1.14 calls for resource expenditures for taskings. As a firm-fixed-price task, this information is not applicable or relevant. Therefore, we respectfully request this requirement be deleted. | PWS Section 1.14, b. (Resource expenditures for taskings) is hereby deleted as stated in the solicitation amendment. |
| Since the contract years will not align with calendar years (January 1 – December 31), will the Government consider changing the Section B CLIN x002 format for clarity purposes? Specifically, can the “Year” data changed to reflect contract years (e.g., “Base Year” for CLIN 0002, Option Year 1 for CLIN 1002, and so on) as opposed to “2017” for CLIN 0002, “2018” for CLIN 1002, and so on. | Section B (Calendar Year vs. Contract Year) is hereby changed as stated in the solicitation amendment. |
| The sample data for technical sub-factors 2 and 3 is not included in the FBO offering. How will the government provide that data to potential offerors? | Three of the flat data files discussed in Section L Technical Subfactor (TSF) 2 have been attached for viewing. In order to obtain the fourth flat data file please contact Joshua Taft at joshua.taft@us.af.mil and submit the "Demand Data Request" form. The fourth flat data file will be supplied through the secure AMRDEC site. |
| The electronic cost model format that includes working formulas and will calculate the TEP as demonstrated in Table MCP-1 is not included in the FBO offering. Only a .pdf version is currently available for download. How will the government provide the formula-based electronic cost model to potential offers? | An additional attachment has been posted that includes an excel version of the cost model. |
| Per Section L, the original is supposed to be without holes and printed head-to-toe, yet is also supposed to be in a three-ring binder. Is that accurate? If so, please clarify which element(s) of the “original” copy should be without any punched holes (e.g., Solicitation/Contract Form (Section A) only?), and how this should be included in the three-ring binder without punched holes (e.g., slipped in the volume loose-leaf, binder pocket, etc.) | The orginial copy provided for this requirement does not need punched holes and may be provided in a binder pocket or binder clip. |
| Will potential offerors be given the opportunity to leave for the evaluation team the slides that were presented during the live demo? | Slides presented during the live demo may be left for the evaluation team to view. |
| LG1.0.6 states the PCO is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. The PCO is the individual listed in Block A of the model contract (Joshua Taft). Section LG1.2 requires proposal submittal to the PCO and James Banks. Past performance questionnaires are also to be submitted to James Banks. Is it correct that Joshua Taft is the PCO (the individual that all questions or concerns should be sent to) and James Banks is to receive the proposal hardcopy shipment and past performance questionnaires? | For clarification, the Contracting Officer for this requirement is James Banks and the Contracting Specialist is Joshua Taft. |
| What contract is this requirement replacing? | FA8109-15-C-0001 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .