8Feb08.doc

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

RFP FA8530-08-R-21758

8 Feb 08

Question: Please clarify an apparent page count discrepancy between the RFP, the FACTS sheet verbiage and the Q&A information provided on 6 Feb 08 and 30 Jan 08. Certain areas of the referenced text are bolded to identify sources of confusion.

Item 1: RFP - both initial and Amendment 1 - L-900(2)(f)(i) states the following: "The Offerors may expand the answering space on the FACTS Sheet so that the filled-in Sheet for each relevant contract covers no more than both sides of two 8 ½ x 11 pages."

Item 2: RFP Attachment 8 (i.e. the FACTS sheet - both initial and REV 1) paragraph O. states the following: “Complete the following regarding subcontractor relevancy of the effort identified in paragraph B to the proposed effort. This information is limited to two pages beyond the page limitation of the FACTS sheet information."

Item 3: The RFP Questions and Answers (Q&A) dated 30 Jan 08 - and partially re-iterated on the 6 Feb 08 Q&A - states the following: "Paragraph O of the FACTS Sheet is referring to the two pages described in the RFP Clause L-900. Therefore, the FACTS Sheet page limitation for each relevant contract is the three pages of the FACTS Sheet the Government provided, two additional pages (both sides) relevancy and, if necessary, one additional page describing unfavorable assessment. In total the most single pages to be submitted for one relevant contract is 8 (3 pages FACTS Sheet, four pages - two double-sided sheets - for relevancy, and one page if needed for unfavorable assessment)."

Interpretation:

*Item 1 defines the maximum number of single pages for the basic FACTS Sheet response - i.e. both sides of two 8 ½ x 11 pages - which equates to 4 single pages (i.e. expanded answering space).

*Item 2 further explains that the response to paragraph O can go two pages beyond the page limitations established in Item 1 resulting in a total of 6 single pages (eight single pages if these paragraph O "pages" each consist of both sides of two 8 ½ x 11 pages).

*Item 3 indicates that the limitations of paragraph O are the only explicit page limitation identified in Item 1 [i.e. RFP L-900(2)(f)(i)], perhaps suggesting that the page limitation for the basic FACTS sheet is only the 'answering space on the FACTS Sheet' resulting in a 3 single page total; except for the additional information for paragraphs M (one additional single page) and O (4 additional single pages).

Does the term "for relevancy" (end of Item 3 above) refer to the responses for paragraph O only? Please clarify the discrepancy between the RFP (Item 1) verbiage and the responses provided in the Q&A (Item 3) regarding the single page limitation for the basic FACTS Sheet. If the clarified limitation for the basic FACTS Sheet (not including the responses to paragraphs M and O) response is not 4 single pages, it is respectfully requested that the RFP verbiage be amended to clearly identify single page limitations for each element of the past performance submission.

Answer: The Government has reviewed the responses provided to earlier questions and has realized it provided incorrect information. The page limitations for the FACTS Sheet are as set forth in RFP L-900(2)(f)(i), Paragraph M, and Paragraph O of the FACTS Sheet:

Completed FACTS Sheet:

No more than both sides of two pages = 4 pages

(RFP L-900(2)(f)(i))

Paragraph M adverse performance information: No more than one page = 1 page

(Paragraph M)

Paragraph O Relevancy information: No more than two pages

= 2 pages

(Paragraph O)

Maximum page count for each FACTS Sheet submission:

= 7 pages

Question: Reference Section K - Use of Non-Government Advisors, for the purpose of establishing Proprietary Information Agreements with the non-Government advisor support companies, please provide contact information for each company listed on the bottom of page 83 of 110 (K-410N).

Answer: The non-Government advisors listed in the RFP work in PEO’s office. Their company information was provided in the RFP to alert offerors to the fact that these contractors work in the PEO’s office. However, due to the fact that the PEO will not be the SSA or Services Designated Official (DO) for this effort, these advisors will not have access to any source selection sensitive information. If any offeror believes there is still a need to establish a Proprietary Information Agreement with these contractors, please notify the Government and contact information can be provided.

Question: The minimum capability matrix specification associated with Paint Facilities (paint/depaint facility, backshop, and fuel) requires the following:

*Possession of refueling, defueling, fluid purging, fuel tank maintenance, *Fuel cell foam handling/storage capabilities, equipment and facilities IAW TOs

1-1-3 and applicable C-130 OMMS manuals, and

*A minimum of 1,500 square feet available for storage of foam awaiting replacement and /or installation.

From an operational requirement, do you anticipate the need to perform fuel tank maintenance and fuel cell foam/handling in a paint/depaint facility? Suggest the requirement be simplified to read, "1. The Offeror shall possess refueling and defueling equipment IAW C-130 OMMS manuals".

Answer: The Offeror must have the required capabilities as listed in the specification at or accessible to the Paint/Depaint Facility. The Government does not anticipate any requirements where fuel tank maintenance and fuel cell foam/handling would be required to be performed in a Paint/Depaint Facility.

Question: Volume III - Present and Past Performance states that “Offerors shall include two additional pages (8 ½ x 11 inch page with 0.5 inch margins), in spreadsheet format, that list all contracts the Offeror is performing or has performed in the past three (3) years. Any delivery/task orders performed under the Flexible Acquisition and Sustainment Tool (FAST) contracts and the Integrated Weapon System Support Program (IWSSP) contract shall be included.”

Clarification is requested. Should this past performance focus on top level (i.e. IDIQ) type contracts, or should past performance be based on individual task/delivery orders?

Answer: For work performed under an IDIQ contract, because the actual work is performed at the individual task/delivery order level, past performance is to be based on individual task/delivery orders.

Question: Reference RFP Section L, L-232 – DFAR 252.215-7003 Excessive Pass-Through Charges--Identification of Subcontract Effort, page 103. The provision requires the offeror to “identify in its proposal the percent of effort it intends to perform, and the percent expected to be performed by each subcontractor, under the contract…”

Is it the Government’s intent that each offeror identify this percentage in their contract proposal? If the answer is yes:

(a) Should the calculation of the percentage be based on the offeror and critical subcontractors only or the offeror’s whole team?

(b) Should the calculation of the percentage be based on the whole scope of services or just the minimum capability matrix?

(c) For purposes of this proposal, an offeror is a single CAGE code and other CAGE codes from the same company are subcontractors. For purposes of responding to the clause, should this definition of offeror and subcontractor be used or should the standard definition be used?

Answer: Compliance with this clause is at the D/TO level, where work is actually performed, per Clause H-901. For compliance purposes for F2AST, the offeror is a single CAGE code and other CAGE codes from the same company are subcontractors and this is the definition that is to be used.