Industry Day Questions-AnswersRev2-23-10.doc

Tactical Meteorological Observation System (TMOS) Sustainment

RFP FA8217-10-R-5002

Industry Day Questions and Answers

Question 1. Several Plans are requested in Section L. Will the Government consider exempting the following plan examples from the 200 page limit?

Example 1: PWS 3.2.1.1.2.a Hardware (HW) Test Plan, HW Test Report, Software (SW) Test Plan, SW Test Report.

Example 2: PWS 3.2.1.3.1 Several DIACAP sample documents have been requested.

Answer 1. The above mentioned examples have been excluded from the 200 page limit.

Question 2. The pricing worksheet references the RFI number for this opportunity not the solicitation number. The transition CLIN has also been eliminated. Was that an oversight?

Answer 2. The solicitation number has been corrected on the pricing worksheet. Transition from incumbent (if required) is considered part of the cost of the CLS effort. There is a transition CLIN from awardee to organic on years 2 through 5. There isn’t one on year 1 because there is no intent to go organic that soon.

Question 3. Considering the scope and potential impact of the government responses to the questions, would the government consider extending the due date for submission of proposals?

Answer 3. Changes made to this RFP were not significant enough to warrant an extension at this time.

Question 4. The usage data supplied does not indicate location and therefore a typical shipping cost for 2008 and 2009 cannot be derived to help obtain a minimized shipping rate for the sample provided. Please provide submitted copies (at least a year's history) of two incumbent contract CDRLs: Monthly Status Report and Depot Repair Report. These include site-specific data on what failed when; quantities associated with the failure; and how many hours were spent to return the equipment to service.

Answer 4. A usage spreadsheet by location has been provided as supplemental information to the RFP. No one, including the Government and incumbent, knows how many hours are required to return a TMQ-53 to serviceable condition. The location worksheet (Appendix 1 to the PWS) has been updated however it provides only a snap-shot in time. We have provided parts usage data, but do not have the capability to provide system level failures. We do not know the average downtime for a system.

Question 5. The RFP contains Clause 52.222-41 Service Contract Act and Clause 52.222-20 Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act and a copy of the Wage Determination was provided as an attachment to the RFP. Please clarify why the Service Contract Act and Wage Determination are included when the predominance of work under this RFP is material and/or repaired items. We recommend that the government delete the Service Contract Act and Wage Determination in this RFP. If this is not the government’s intent, please provide which CLIN applies to each clause.

Answer 5. This intent of this effort is to provide a service and the Service Contract Act therefore applies in accordance with FAR 22.1002-1. The Service Contract Act is applicable to all service CLINs (e.g. CLS, repairs). The Walsh Healey is also applicable in accordance with FAR 22.603 and is applicable to all product CLINs.

Question 6. Page 75 of 86 Paragraph G States “The Offeror does not need to submit past performance information in response to this RFP. The PCO will make a determination of acceptable past performance in accordance with FAR part 15.101-2(b)(1). The PCO will make a determination of contractor responsibility based on information obtained from government sources.” We recommend that Sections L and M of the solicitation be revised to include appropriate Evaluation Factors and Subfactors that enable the Government to evaluate performance risk based on relevant Past Performance.

Answer 6. The Government acquisition team has considered all source selection methods (full trade off, PPT, and LPTA) and has made a decision that LPTA is applicable to this effort and will provide the most efficient means for award.

Question 7. For Iraq and Afghanistan, will the Government supply DODAAC delivery from a central airport point of entry in each country?

Answer 7. There is commercial transportation available for contractor’s use to meet this requirement. The Weapon System Support Cadre (WSSC) team from Combat Weather Center has provided assistance in the past by taking parts to forward operating locations. Offerors should not rely on this service continuing as there is commercial transportation available and we do not control the WSSC activities.

Question 8. CDRL A007 – Provisioning Spares Recommendation: Specified DID DI-ALSS-81557 states that contractor format is acceptable. Is there an example of desired format and content that can be reviewed prior to bid?

Answer 8. No. It will be in contractor format IAW the DID and CDRL.

Question 9. CDRL A009 – Operational and Organizational Maintenance Instructions, Tactical

Meteorological Observing System (TMOS), AN/TMQ-53: Is the existing Technical Manual available for review prior to bidding?

Answer 9. The Government is researching this question and will provide if it deems it is value-added to proposal development. The technical manual is currently up to date and will not take significant work up front. The technical manual only needs to be modified as a result of changes to the system.

Question 10. CDRL A012 – DIACAP Security Package: Is there an existing set of Accreditation Documentation and is it available for review prior to bidding?

Answer 10. The Government has determined that providing a copy of the DIACAP Security Package with the RFP would not be value added. The Government has just received a 3-year accreditation.

Question 11. CDRL A013 – Computer Based Training Materials: Are the existing Computer Based Training Materials available for review prior to bidding? Can we get an outline of the CBT training course? How long is the course in student contact hours?

Answer 11. The Government has determined that there is no value added in supplying this information in advance of award. Computer programmers are not necessary to write code (as the PWS states that commercial software is to be used). The Awardee will likely not be able to copy the current file created for CBT but will be able to copy the data. The data can be manipulated or modified using commercial software. There is no outline of the CBT training course. The course is self-paced and could realistically be completed by the student in one-hour.

Question 12. A 30 day transition time is risky for the Government. There may not be sufficient time to get State Department ITAR approvals.

Answer 12. The Government does not believe that ITAR approval is necessary for this effort.

Question 13. Can inventory of GFP be conducted through direct telephone interviews and a subsequent FAX from each site that details the parts on-hand?

Answer 13. The Government maintains a current list of inventory and does not expect the contractor to physically inspect all sites to take inventory of GFP. End users have accountability to track GFP as well.

Question 14. We recommend that the Government revise the referenced paragraphs of the PWS, Section L, and Section M to require that each non-incumbent Offeror include the price of a transition from the incumbent and each bidder’s start-up price in CLIN 0001.

Answer 14. The acquisition team has reviewed all pricing strategies and has determined that transition (from incumbent) is part of the overall cost of gaining the contract and therefore should be included in the CLS effort. This strategy is also preferred for price evaluation purposes.

Question 15. Are software licenses government purpose rights or contractor exclusive rights?

Answer 15. The Prime Contractor must purchase a license for each system. Once purchased by the Prime Contractor, the software licenses become Government Furnished Software (GFS).

Question 16. Section 4. Contractor Performance Evaluation and the Performance Plan Attachment 1 – Services Summary. Both of these tables identify the following performance threshold: “Performance is acceptable when 96% of TMOS systems are Fully Mission Capable (FMC) during any month under contract. Performance is unacceptable when less than 95% of TMOS systems are Fully Mission Capable in same reporting period.” Do we correctly interpret the requirements of the Solicitation CLIN structure as well as the PWS description of requirements to state that levels of sparing and repairs are the responsibility of the Government?

Answer 16. It is the contractor’s responsibility to determine the appropriate level of sparing and repairs in order to meet the minimum contract performance requirements. The Government cannot hold the contractor responsible if funding to procure the appropriate level of sparing and repairs is not provided. The RFP has been amended to caveat that the performance statements above are subject to receipt of adequate funding.

Question 17. What level of effort is required in order to support the CLS CLINs, i.e. number of bodies, hours, etc.?

Answer 17. Offerors must make a determination as to the level of effort required by their firm for this effort. We cannot disclose the incumbent’s pricing strategy nor would it necessarily be applicable to other firms.

Question 18. What support from the incumbent provider can be expected in order to facilitate a 30 day transition?

Answer 18. The Government (program office, Quality Assurance Personnel, DCMA) will work with the incumbent to facilitate transition. The awardee will not be adversely graded (CPARs) for areas outside of their control.

Question 19. What is the rationale for a 30 day transition, versus 60 (or 90) days? The 30 day transition period seems insufficient for adequate coordination with the incumbent.

Answer 19. It is the Government’s requirement that the CLS be up and running in as little time as possible. Most responses to our market research indicated that a 30 day transition would be sufficient.

Question 20. Is shipping cost to be included with the cost of sparing and repairing CLINs or is it cost reimbursable?

Answer 20. There is not a CLIN included in the RFP for cost reimbursement of shipping.

Question 21. Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section 3, paragraph 3.1.4, Environmental Stress Screening Requirements. We recommend that the Government delete this requirement.

Answer 21. This paragraph has been removed from the PWS.

Question 22. Some of the DIACAP documents, such as the “score card”, requested by this RFP are considered sensitive to the command and they have not agreed to release that data. Is it technically acceptable to not have every DIACAP sample document?

Answer 22. All DIACAP documents requested are required to be technically acceptable. The Government will accept redacted versions of DIACAP documents.

Question 23. Will a diminished version of CLS support still be required once this effort transitions to an organic provider?

Answer 23. The Government does not know at this time. It is possible that a CLS provider will still be necessary for software support and/or system integration.

Question 24. 3. Page 79 of 86. DIACAP documentation - due to the size and unique formatting of these documents, we recommend you allow for these documents to be provided as attachments to the proposal and excluded from the page limitation.

Answer 24. The RFP has been amended to allow the DIACAP documentation to be exempt from formatting requirements.

Question 25. CDRL A009 appears to have incorrect references back to the PWS. Is this true?

Answer 25. CDRL A009 has been corrected. The correct PWS references are: 3.2.7.8, 3.2.7.34, and 4.1.

Question 26. Is man-month (MM) the cost for a single man for one month or the total price to perform the effort in the applicable CLIN for one month?

Answer 26. Man-month is the total price to perform the entire effort in the applicable CLIN for one month. This has been reflected in the Schedule, Section B.

Question 27. What is the government’s estimated or desired time frame for transition of

TMQ-53 logistics support to the organic provider?

Answer 27. The transition to organic timeframe is currently unknown although it is projected for 2012. This is why it is a cost plus fixed fee CLIN to be negotiated at a later date. Transition will also be contingent on funding.

Question 28. Will the pricing data of the past and current CLS contract be available? Will GSA pricing data of the OEM vendors be available?

Answer 28. This information may be requested through the Freedom of Information Act.

Question 29. Other than the spares pipeline, are there any other critical issues?

Answer 29. Regarding the transition to organic, the major issues are funding and changing the user culture from a CLS methodology to using Air Force supply procedures.

Question 30. Is there an established system mean time between failure in the operational documents, or directives from the using Command?

Answer 30. The TRD states that the TMQ-53 must have a mission reliability of greater than 95 percent for a 30 day mission. This corresponds to a Mean Time Between Critical Failure (MTBCF) of 3200 hours.

Question 31. At any given point in time, how many of the approx 300 systems owned by the Air Force are actually in use or expected to be readily available? CONUS? OCONUS?

Answer 31. Currently the systems are located as follows: CENTCOM AOR 104, EUCOM AOR 26, PACOM AOR 26, SOUTHCOM AOR 7, CONUS 121, Army 8, JTF 4. The positioning of these systems changes on almost a daily basis as they are tactical. This is a snapshot in time.

Question 32. Most of the locations for the equipment show a minimum of two systems. Are both systems always operational or is one a backup?

Answer 32. In CONUS locations, the second system is a backup. In OCONUS locations, both systems are operating simultaneously most of the time.

Question 33. What percentage (+/-10%) of the CONUS AN/TMQ-53 systems are packed for deployment and not in everyday use?

Answer 33. This is unknown. Bases have differing requirements therefore we do not have accountability of what they have on their shelves.

Question 34. Is the push to go organic due to the need to better track R&M data?

Answer 34. Through the SORAP process, the AN/TMQ-53 was designated as a “core” workload and must transition to organic sustainment. This is now a HQ AFMC/A4 mandate. These procedures are in place due to the 50/50 law.

Question 35. Is the expected operational time of the help desk 0800 Eastern to 1700

Pacific times?

Answer 35. Currently the helpdesk is staffed from 0800 to 1700 ET.

Question 36. Is OCONUS travel required for CLS personnel?

Answer 36. No – all updates, troubleshooting etc. are done from contractor’s facility (remote location).

Question 37. Is there GFP equipment stored in Brussels? If so, is this equipment part of the transition plan? Where is this equipment listed in the current RFP and where is this equipment accounted for?

Answer 37. Yes - there is equipment in Brussels which will have to be transferred. The awardee is responsible for obtaining storage space for GFP. Yes – this equipment should be part of the transition plan. Table VI-2 to the PWS has been updated to reflect this information.

Question 38. Attachment 4 in the Pricing Worksheet requires the Offeror to provide cost rates for the specified labor categories to be used for pricing future modifications. Are there any minimum qualifications or other definitions for the specified labor categories?

Answer 38. Consult the Service Contract Act Directory of Occupations.

Question 39. Para 3.2.7.8: Paragraph refers to CDRL A009 as dealing with Time Compliance

Technical Orders (TCTOs), but CDRL A009 is the AN/TMQ-53 Technical Manual. Are

TCTOs to be included directly in the Technical Manual?

Answer 39. A TCTO is considered a technical manual and any modification introduced as a TCTO will be incorporated into the TO in the annual rewrite.

Question 40. Will the Government add FAR 52.232-16, Progress Payments for the firm fixed price items?

Answer 40. No.

Question 41. How will payment be made for these CLINs? Will payment be made monthly at the unit price for these CLINs.

Answer 41. The RFP will be amended to allow for monthly billing.

Question 42. How is rapid deployment to Europe, Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Djibouti handled (personnel dispatch)?

Answer 42. No dispatch of contractor personnel is required. Rapid deployment of systems will be handled by the user community. Shipping locations may change and/or the number of systems supported under CLS, but other significant impacts to the CLS is not expected.

Question 43. Does all of the equipment have UID markings, or just those items that are mandated by the $5,000 cost?

Answer 43. Most of the items have UID markings, but it is unknown as to whether all equipment (e.g. cables, support equipment, etc. valued under $5,000) is currently marked. This RFP requires that the components listed on the PWS Table VI-3 all contain UID markings.

Question 44. Will DIACAP testing be required at each site? How does the awardee become re-accredited?

Answer 44. No – DIACAP testing is not required at each site. During PMRs, a qualified Air Force representative will conduct testing on test bed systems. DIACAP security testing is required every year. Accreditation is an ongoing process, but approval is currently required every three years.

Question 45. 6. Para 3.2.7.9: Paragraph refers to CDRL A010 for a “modification test plan”, while CDRL A010 (DI-NDTI-80809) deals with “Test Report”. Normally Test Plans are a separate CDRL referencing DI-NDTI-80566. Is CDRL A010 to use both DID references and include Test Plans?

Answer 45. Yes.

Question 46. In the Draft RFP package there are several directed Vendors such as Vaisala and NAL. Are these sources restricted on the price of their support either in parts or services to all bidders to ensure all potential bidders are evaluated against the same initial cost and price breaks? Is it expected that all potential vendors, upon requesting pricing and cost breaks, will present the same relative equipment costs or is it expected that the potential Offerors are to negotiate best price for proposal purposes?

Answer 46. The Government cannot direct vendor pricing. It is expected that prime contractors will have all sub-contracts in place.

Question 47. What is the current configuration of the Helpdesk? What is provided at the Helpdesk and what do we need to bring?

Answer 47. It is a call center and computer system. The help desk must be at the contractor’s facility. Users call into Remedy at AFWA and a ticket is created. The ticket is referred to the contractor and the contractor works through the issue with the user. The contractor will follow up with Remedy to close out the ticket. Occasionally, the user will contact the contractor directly. If that happens, the contractor must initiate the ticket with AFWA.

Question 48. Does training for Remedy have to be through Offutt or can it be another source?

Answer 48. Training must be through Offutt to ensure interface with Remedy.

Question 49. Does the price for new TMQ-53 Systems (CLIN 0005, 1005, etc.) and Spares (CLIN 0006, 1006, etc.) include the cost of shipping to Government field locations, packaging, and other ancillary costs?

Answer 49. There is no CLIN available for shipping. It is up to the contractor to determine which costing methodology is more practicable – shipping as part of CLS or included in spare/repair estimates.

Question 50. Section I of the RFP includes FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. Which proposal volume should include the compensation plan?

Answer 50. The RFP has been amended to note that the Professional Employee Compensation Plan shall be included in Vol. IV of the proposal.

Question 51. The CLIN descriptions in Section B reference both “Limitations of Liability: High Value Item” and “Limitations of Liability: Other Than High Value Item“. However, FAR 52.246-23 -- Limitation of Liability and 52.246-24 -- Limitation of Liability -- High-Value Items are not included in Section I. Shouldn’t the labor CLINs reference 52.246-25 -- Limitation of Liability – Services which is in Section I?

Answer 51. Clauses 52.246-23 and 52.246-24 have been incorporated into the RFP.

Question 52. Does the wireless requirement include the Iridium modem capability or simply the ability for the operator to access the data/logger via the laptop computer?

Answer 52. The wireless requirement only means that the TMOS is capable of sending wireless data through the use of the Iridium modems or the ARWest modems. The operator can view data received from the data logger via the laptop computer, or the handheld device.

Question 53. Does the CET apply to each requirement listed in Section L of the draft RFP package or is it only relevant to completion of 3.2.1.1.2?

Answer 53. The CET was provided as a sample awardable task and is relevant to only the CLINs in which it is referenced. The Government does not want to see a solution to or proposal for the CET – it is a reference document only.

Question 54. 7. Para 3.2.7.11: Paragraph ends in an incomplete sentence “AN/TMQ53 program is required to”

Answer 54. “AN/TMQ-53 program is required to” has been deleted from that paragraph.

Question 55. CLIN 0004 references PWS paragraphs 3.2.7.17 in reference to software licenses. Paragraph 3.2.7.17 in the released PWS is not relevant to software licenses: “The contractor shall update and submit updated applicable deliverables as a result of modification and CCB.

Answer 55. The correct PWS paragraph reference is 3.2.7.19 and has been updated.

Question 56. The CET references document number T.O. 31M1-2TMQ53-1 which is not publicly available. Will the government release this document?

Answer 56. This document is not required for proposal preparation.

Question 57. How does the Government plan to evaluate a proposal if it’s pricing is inaccurate?

Answer 57. The Government will be evaluating price for reasonableness, balance, and realism.

Question 58. Is transition plan expected to start on the day of the contract award?

Answer 58. Yes, please see PWS paragraph 3.2.1.1. The first delivery order will be awarded along with the basic contract.

Question 59. Will the Government post the presentation slides briefed during Industry Day?

Answer 59. Yes – to FedBizOps.

Question 60. When will questions asked during Industry Day be posted?

Answer 60. Monday, 08 February 2010.

Question 61. How will the one-on-one sessions during Industry Day be handled?

Answer 61. We will go over questions submitted by the contractor first and then allow additional questions if time permits.

Question 62. Do you anticipate any changes to the pricing worksheet besides correcting the RFP number?

Answer 62. No.

Question 63. Are Offerors expected to propose a dollar amount for the travel CLINs?

Answer 63. No – the Government will provide a ceiling amount for travel at the delivery order level. Travel will not be evaluated or included as part of the total evaluated price.

Question 64. Please identify the specific paragraphs in PWS Section 3.2 that are to be included in the pricing for Contractor Logistics Support CLINs (0001, 0010etc.) and the Software Maintenance CLINs (0003, 0011, etc.).

Answer 64. Software maintenance paragraphs are identified in PWS para. 3.2.7.18. All other paragraphs under Section 3.2 relate to CLS.

Question 65. How is the Awardee supposed to notify the Government of obsolescence issues and other changes which would benefit the TMQ-53 system?

Answer 65. All proposed modifications to the TMQ-53 system should be submitted to the Contracting Officer in the form of an Engineering Change Proposal. The Government would then make a determination as to whether to integrate the change. Changes to the system cannot be arbitrarily made and must obtain approval through the Configuration Control Board. Changing a component of the system would change the Government’s spares and provisioning processes.

Question 66. How much notice would the awardee need to provide the Government of planned/suggested changes to the AN/TMQ-53 system?

Answer 66. As soon as an Awardee has an idea that the TMQ-53 system needs to be changed, they should notify the Government immediately of the issue. Whether or not the change would be incorporated would depend on the ECP, whether the government accepts the change, a CCB, etc. That part could take many months.

Question 67. Will all repairs under CLINs 0002, 1002, etc. be performed at the contractor’s facility?

Answer 67. No, not necessarily – the contractor will manage the repair process. Some repairs will most likely need to be done elsewhere by one of the vendors.

Question 68. Is it required to address future transition to the organic provider in the proposal?

Answer 68. No.

Question 69. Is the awardee required to provide training to operators?

Answer 69. The TMQ-53 systems are operator maintained. Operator training is provided elsewhere. Our program office is not involved in any training initiatives going on. The awardee will not be required to provide training to operators.

Question 70. When is award of this contract anticipated?

Answer 70. Sometime this year.

Question 71. What date does the incumbent’s contract end?

Answer 71. That information can be requested through the Freedom of Information Act.

Question 72. Is there an LRU list that is associated with each site?

Answer 72. Every site maintains an inventory. Every site does not necessarily have additional spares on hand. What is on-site depends on the location and the estimated number of failures.

Question 73. Meunier is listed as a vendor that Offerors must demonstrate the ability to partner with. What part(s) does this company provide?

Answer 73. Iridium screwdriver. This source has been removed from Section L.

Question 74. Does having a location near Hill AFB, make the Offeror more desirable?

Answer 74. No.

Question 75. Are those companies who responded to the RFI for this effort considered a “qualified source”?

Answer 75. No. The Government did not make a “qualified source” determination. RFI responses were used to develop the RFP.

Question 76. Section L, para. 3.2.1.1.2.(a) asks for 2 examples (one software, one hardware: both within last 5 years) of successful Integration Test Plans and Test Reports as part of Systems Engineering. Would it be considered technically acceptable to submit 1 set of Test Plans and Test Reports that incorporate both a software and hardware example?

Answer 76. The proposal must include 1 example of software and 1 example of hardware. If one set of test plans and test reports is submitted but those plans/report include 1 each example of software and 1 each example of hardware, the Government evaluation team will find that technically acceptable.

Question 77. The PWS refers to the AN/TMQ-53 as a “weapons system”. Is this correct?

Answer 77. Yes – the TMQ-53 is an Air Force Weather Weapon System (AFWWS.

Question 78. Section L asks for evidence of established vendor relationships. What kind of evidence is acceptable? What if the Offeror cannot provide evidence of those relationships?

Answer 78. The answer provided at Industry Day was that the Government is not directing what kind of evidence the Offeror provides and that if the Offeror does not provide evidence, they will be technically unacceptable. That answer was not entirely correct. The draft RFP that was posted for this effort requested that Offerors provide evidence of established vendor relationships. The formal RFP revised this statement and Section L, para. 3.2.1.2.2.(g) now states “Provide plan to establish and sustain relationships with key original equipment vendors required for successful completion of this effort”. Offerors must submit this plan as part of their proposal to be considered technically acceptable.

Question 79. Where are the TMQ-53 mock-ups located?

Answer 79. At Raytheon’s facility in Indianapolis, IN.

Question 80. Of the 297 systems currently, is it correct that there are 104 deployed?

Answer 80. Currently, yes. This is just a snapshot in time though and is consistently changing.

Question 81. Section M states that the Government will use estimated quantities of spares and repairs when developing the total evaluated price. How many of those estimated quantities are quantities derived from the incumbent?

Answer 81. The estimated quantities were developed by utilizing a combination of historical data and future projections.

Question 82. Provide clarification as to the unit of issue for the baseline (the Government may order up to 12 MM).

Answer 82. The basic contract is essentially a “shell” and is priced by the man-month. The quantity or number of months will be determined at the delivery order level. The number of months ordered is based on Government need and how much funding is available. It is anticipated that the first delivery order will contain CLS service for six (6) months (pending availability of funds).

Question 83. Are Offerors supposed to submit pricing for the transition to organic CLIN (1012, 2012, etc.)?

Answer 83. No – the scope of transition to organic is unknown at this time and will not be included in the total evaluated price.

Question 84. Does the Government intend on performing an audit (through DCAA) on the lowest priced technically acceptable bidder?

Answer 84. The Government anticipates competition and would utilize DCAA’s rapid rate program if competition is received. If only one proposal is received, the Government may utilize DCMA/DCAA for assistance with the technical evaluation and audit.

Question 85. Are the proposed cost rates to be included in the total evaluation price?

Answer 85. Yes. The program office has defined a set of notional hours which will be used to determine the total evaluation price.

Question 86. Are spares being held for deployment included on the GFP list attached to the RFP?

Answer 86. Yes.

Question 87. Many of the current DIACAP/DITSCAP documents are labeled For Official Use Only (FOUO). Is it appropriate to submit these documents as evidence/example of expertise, or is it necessary to submit documents which do not carry the FOUO marking?

Answer 87. It is acceptable to submit the DIACAP documentation with the For Official Use Only (FOUO) markings. They are not going to be utilized by the Government for anything besides evaluation under this RFP.

Question 88. It is understood that GFE / GFP is currently being stored in Brussels, Belgium and must be accounted for in the Transition Plan. Does the Program Office expect the awardee to maintain a warehouse in Brussels or will this GFP be transferred to the awardees facility CONUS?

Answer 88. The warehouse in Brussels was a business decision made by the incumbent. It is not a requirement of this solicitation.

Question 89. If the program office does not want to maintain a presence in Brussels, is the awardee expected to pay shipping costs from Brussels, Belgium to the new contractor facility at the CONUS location?

Answer 89. Yes.

Question 90. It is understood that the transition cost from incumbent to awardee is part of the overall CLS costs. Will the awardee be allowed to invoice for all of the transition costs in the first invoice as it is a 30 day turn over?

Answer 90. Transition is to be considered part of the overall CLS effort. The awardee is allowed to invoice monthly.

Question 91. The Performance Plan was included in the original RFP released 21 January but was not included in the first amendment of the solicitation. Is this document still relevant to this solicitation and will it still be used as a measure of performance metrics?

Answer 91. Yes.

Question 92. FBO indicates that the solicitation is due "Mar 01, 2010 4:00 pm Eastern". Amendment 0002 states in Item 11 "1-MAR-2010 4:00 PM". Continuation of Block 14 on pg 2 states "Extend the proposal due date from 22 February 2010 to 01 March 2010, 4:00 p.m. Mountain Time." Please clarify the time submissions are due.

Answer 92. FBO has been changed from Eastern to Mountain Time.

Question 93. Would the government consider allowing contractors to submit their proposals electronically in accordance with the 1 March 2010, 4pm MT deadline with hard copy proposals delivered within 3 days of electronic submission?

Answer 93. No – all information requested in the RFP must be delivered by the deadline stated in the solicitation.

Question 94. Reference RFP Section L.1.2: The last sentence in this section states “In addition to the “Hard Copies requested in Table 1 below, please submit one (1) complete electronic copy of your entire proposal on CD IAW PWS Section 2.5”. There is no PWS Section 2.5. Please clarify what, if anything, is required on the electronic copy in addition to the requirements spelled out in Section L.1.5 of the RFP.

Answer 94. “IAW PWS Section 2.5” has been removed from Section L.

Question 95. Amendment 2 solicitation (FA8217-10-R-5002-0002) Section L (pg. 76) paragraph 3.2.1.3.1(g) states the relevant PWS requirement: “IAW PWS Section 6, Table VI-4, Section 3.2.7, Paragraphs 3.2.7.13 and 3.2.7.19” Section M (pg. 82) paragraph 2.1.3.1 (g) states the relevant PWS requirement: “IAW PWS Section 6, Table VI-4, Section 3.2.7, Paragraphs 3.2.7.13 –3.2.7.19”. Are we to address PWS paragraph 3.2.7.13 AND 3.2.7.19 only OR 3.2.7.13 through 3.2.7.19?

Answer 95. Section M paragraph 2.1.3.1 (g) is relevant to the PWS Section 3.2.7, Paragraphs 3.2.7.13 and 3.2.7.19. Section M has been corrected to reflect this.

Question 96. Reference RFP Section L.5.1.2 Section B - Supplies or Services and Costs and Pricing. This section states “All pricing information shall be addressed in Section B Schedule of the RFP”. The TMOS Pricing Worksheet provides the pricing information for all of the Section B CLINs. Is it necessary for the offeror to retype this information in Section B of the RFP included in Volume IV contract Documentation?

Answer 96. No.