25Feb08.doc

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

RFP FA8530-08-R-21758

25 Feb 08 Question: Reference Clause H-901 (f) at Amendment #6. As shown, the clause seems to discount the fact that the Sell Prices on contract do not disclose any price buildup used by any bidder or subcontractor during the basic contract proposal process. Hence, it would appear to be difficult for the Government to determine if any adjustments to labor prices are warranted. In addition, depending upon the geographical location from which a particular bidder may choose to provide service (other than a pre-determined Government site), there may be multiple wage determinations to consider. Given the unique nature of competitive task order bids, and taking into account the multiple facets of the Service Contract Act (including but not limited to pay and benefit amounts) as well as other contractual and financial considerations applicable to task order proposals such as overhead, G&A, and profit, we suggest that the clause be re-written to allow that if a bidder is to submit a proposal for an SCA covered task and subsequently submits a revised labor price or prices for that task order. Such labor prices would be submitted for appropriateness and review by the government. Further, given that there are additional proposal efforts required for such task order bids, we suggest that a more flexible approach such as doubling the proposal response time be adopted by the government.

Answer: An answer will be provided in the immediate future.

Question: Reference RFP Section A, SF1447, block 9 – Based on the current schedule, we must ship on Monday to ensure delivery on Wednesday. Having the next amendment and the Government’s decision on a due date extension today is crucial to meeting the current delivery date. In light of this, will the Government let us know when the next amendment will be issued and whether or not it will include an extension in the due date?

Answer: RFP Amendment 0007, posted 22 Feb 08, extended the proposal response date to 5 Mar 08.

Question: Reference RFP Section L-900.2.a. Please provide a telephone number for Mike Vernon at Hill AFB for delivery of the Cost/Price Volume and confirm that the Hill AFB address is acceptable for delivery by commercial carriers.

Answer: Mike Vernon’s telephone number is (801) 777-7595. The Hill AFB address as provided in the RFP is acceptable for delivery by commercial carriers.

Question: Please confirm offerors may complete Volume III FACTS Sheet Table O using 8 point Arial font in the column entitled “Fill-in for the Effort Identified in Para B. Above.”

Answer: No: tables, spreadsheets, etc., are to be completed in the font size they were provided by the Government.

Question: Volume III FACTS Sheet Table O is currently narrower than the 1” margin requirement. Please confirm offerors may expand Volume III FACTS Sheet Table O to meet 1” margin requirements.

Answer: This is acceptable.

Question: Q&A 21 Feb 08 stated the following in response to subcontractors proposing composite rates: “In the event that an Offeror believes they are unable to propose in this manner due to the requirements of their Disclosure Statement, that Offeror may propose the same rate for each level of a labor category, but is required to provide to the Government the portion(s) of their Disclosure Statement that requires them to propose in this manner.” Will a copy of the applicable portion of an approved FPRA be acceptable in lieu of the Disclosure Statement?

Answer: No.

Question: Reference Government response (posted 13 Feb) to a question regarding the information required by DFARS 252.242-7001 (from Amendment 0001, section L, paragraph 2.d. on Volume I, Completed and Executed RFP). The Government answer stated “Regarding the EVMS (DFARS 252.242-7001) requirement, Offerors must provide written verification that either the ACO has recognized that the proposed earned value management system (EVMS) complies with the EVMS criteria of DoDI 5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, or that the proposed cost/schedule control system has been accepted by the Department of Defense.”

As Amendment 6, Section L-900, paragraph 2.d still contains the same language and in light of Section I, IA-631(**) 252.242-7002 EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (MAR 2005) (IAW DFARS 242.1107-70(a)(2)), please clarify if this requirement is Order Specific or if it applies to the Base Contract?

If it applies to the Basic Contract, what information is expected to be supplied if an Offeror does not have either an ACO recognized or DoD approved EVMS system?

If it applies to the Basic Contract, what information would be required if an Offeror does not intend on bidding on Task Orders that have an EVMS requirement?

Answer: This requirement applies to the basic contract. If an Offeror does not have either an ACO recognized or DoD approved EVMS System, the provisions of part (b) of this clause (DFARS 252.242-7001) specify what the Offeror is required to submit to the Government with its proposal at the basic contract level, whether or not the offeror intends to bid on D/TOs that have an EVMS requirement. Any orders which require EVMS will so state in the RFOP.

Question: Are forms DD 2139 and DD 2345 to be submitted with D/TO's?

Answer: If these forms are applicable to a specific D/TO, they will be required and submitted at the D/TO level.

Question: With regard to DFARS 252.225-7027 Restrictions on Contingent Fees for Foreign Military Sales (APR 2003) will the Government allow, if appropriate, same to be negotiated at the D/TO level?

Answer: Yes.

Question: To clarify the Governments response in Q&As distributed on 21 February 2008, if a local airport provides fuel services (fuel storage, fuel, defuel, etc.) to a critical subcontractor, is this considered possession or access to the respective capabilities?

Answer: No. G1.5.5, Hangar, Backshop, Fuel states: “The Offeror shall possess refueling, defueling, fluid purging, fuel tank maintenance, and fuel cell foam handling/storage capabilities, equipment and facilities IAW TOs 1-1-3 and applicable C-130 OMMS manuals. This means that the prime or a critical subcontractor must possess this capability. In this instance, access to does not equal possession.

Question In completing the RFP does the Government want contractors to submit a model contract ie the original RFP with the amendments incorporated or do you want only a completed signed RFP and signed RFP amendments as submitted to the contractors?

Answer: Contractors should submit a completed signed RFP and signed RFP amendments.