FA8232-16-R-3001_RFP_Q A_1_-_12_3Dec15.pdf

PDGU Questions & Answers

Solicitation No. FA8232-16-R-3001 Questions 1 - 12

Question 1: Box 12 of the SF33 indicates that proposal validity is 120 calendar days. In Section L-III, Information to Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation, Part 2.1, General Information, Paragraph (d), it is noted that "The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume five that the proposal is valid through December 2016."

Will box 12 of the SF33 be updated to reflect this date or should this statement be included in cover letter?

Answer 1: See Amendment 0001. Block 12 has been updated to change the proposal validity requirement through 31 December 2016 to match what is stated in Section L.

Question 2: Section 7.2.1, Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form indicates that completed blocks 13 and 15 and signed and dated block 27 constitutes an offer. Should block 27 be corrected to reflect block 17?

Answer 2: See Amendment 0001. Section L has been updated to change the referenced block from Block 27 to Block 17.

Question 3: Sections L and M reference tying the Technical Volume against a CSOW; however, CSOW is not allocated specifically in the technical volume or as a plan. Recommend assigning the CSOW as an appendix along with the other plans.

Answer 3: See Amendment 0001. Section L has been updated to add the CSOW under Volume II of Table 1 of Paragraph 2.2 and specify that there is no page limit on the

CSOW.

Question 4: Appendix C is a picture of an icon of the SRTM and cannot be accessed. Will the government be providing this document separately?

Answer 4: See Amendment 0001. Due to issues offerors have been having in accessing the SRTM file embedded in Appendix C of the SOO, the document has been added as an attachment in Section J of the solicitation.

Question 5: Please provide the following proposal documents referenced in the documents provided on FedBizOpps but which cannot be currently located or accessed. Additionally, with the delay in the ability to access the SRD and other supporting documents, we would ask that the Government consider an extension of proposal due date of a week or on a day for day basis from the release of the RFP until such time as the documents below are provided. a) SRTM: Appears to be an embedded document at the end of the SOO but the document cannot be opened. b) PPI Tool: Attachment L-Two indicates that this should be available on FedBizOpps. It is not currently available.

Answer 5: Regarding the SRTM, see response to Question 4. Regarding the PPI Tool, it is a web-based tool and instructions are provided in Attachment L-Two on how to access and use the tool.

Question 6: Per Section L paragraph 1.0, a Contract Statement of Work (CSOW) is mentioned in the introductory paragraph with no further explanation in Section L. Can the Government identify which proposal volume includes the CSOW, what content you expect to see included in it, and how many pages are allocated to it?

Answer 6: The CSOW shall be included in Volume II without a page limit and shall provide details on the offeror’s technical approach in accomplishing the SOO and SSRD provided by the Government.

Question 7: Per Section M paragraph 2.2.3e, the Government will review the CSOW and assess the thoroughness of the proposed system's hardware and software architecture. Did the government also intend to review the narrative for this measure of merit in addition to the CSOW, similar to the language in several other measures of merit under section 2.2.3?

Answer 7: Yes, both the CSOW and narrative will be reviewed and incorporated in the contract. Section M has been updated to provide clarification on paragraph 2.2.3(e), which in the latest update has been changed to 2.3.3(e) instead. See Amendment 0001 for this update.

Question 8: The Small Business Participation Plan is not listed in Section L, Table 1 under Volume II, Technical/Technical Risk but it is still referenced in Section L (4.2.3n) and Section M (2.3.3n) as evaluated content in Volume II. Can the Government clarify its intent and in which Volume the Participation Plan should be included?

Answer 8: See Amendment 0001. Section L has been updated to include the Small Business Participation Plan in Volume II of Table 1. The 30 pages per plan specified for Volume II is applicable to this plan.

Question 9: What CLINs are applicable for the IPMR CDRLs (A036 and A021)? DI-MGMT- 81861A details specific formats relating to Earned Value reporting, which is typically not required of Firm Fixed Price efforts. CLIN 0003 which is listed on the DD Form 1423 is Not Separately Priced.

Answer 9: All DID tailoring will be done post contract award. We do not intend to enact Earned Value Management on this program based on current program estimates.

Question 10: As DFARs 252.204-7012 is included in this RFP, I'm required to request that the Government explicitly call out the relevant "Unclassified Controlled Technical Information (UCTI)" or "Covered Defense Information (CDI)" if it is not clearly identified in the RFP.

During the review of the final documents, I could not find reference to either UCTI or CDI outside of the inclusion of the DFARs clause 252.204-7012 in the RFP. I have included below the definition of CDI we have been provided. Can the Government explicitly call out the information it deems to be UCTI/CDI on this effort?

Answer 10: Any documents marked with a distribution statement defined in DoD Instruction 5230.24, other than distribution statement “A,” are the only instances where UCTI/CDI would be relevant.

Question 11: The prescription for DFARS clause 252.215-7009, Proposal Adequacy Checklist, indicates that this checklist is to be completed when the submittal of certified cost or pricing data is required. As certified cost or pricing data is not required with proposal submittal, recommend this DFARS clause be deleted.

Answer 11: See Amendment 0001. DFARS provision 252.215-7009 has been deleted.

Question 12: In reference to Section L, Table 1 in Section 2.2 removed reference to Attachments L-THREE, L-FOUR, and L-SEVEN, yet Section 5.1 still requires them. Recommend that reference to Attachments 3, 4 and 7 be deleted in Para 5.1.

Answer 12: The referenced Section L paragraphs were reviewed and determined to be correct as is. Attachments 3, 4 and 7 are not submitted by offerors with their proposal.

Those responses will be submitted directly to the contracting office by the contacts that offerors provided the Past Performance Questionnaires to for completion.