RESPONSE_TO_QUESTIONS_3.pdf
PDF 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MHU 110/141 Engineering Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8532-17-R-0007
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RESPONSE_TO_QUESTIONS_2.pdf | ||
| FA8532-17-R-0007-0001.pdf | ||
| REV-AwardableTaskOrderBidSchedule.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RESPONSE_TO_QUESTIONS_1.pdf | ||
| FA8532-17-R-0007.pdf | ||
| AwardableTask2.pdf | ||
| CDRLs_-_Part_II.pdf | ||
| SectionLFinal.pdf | ||
| CDRLs_-_Part_I.pdf | ||
| SectionMFinal.pdf | ||
| AwardableTask3.pdf | ||
| AwardableTaskOrderBidSchedule.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| PWS.pdf | ||
| 1653.pdf | ||
| 158.pdf | ||
| AwardableTask1.pdf |
Show all 16
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 3
RFP FA8532-17-R-0007
MHU-110/141
1. QUESTION: So with that the quote of methodology is superfluous – all you want on ATO 1 is the price. In present form then ATO is not truly awardable, so the price presented is not really awardable, is it?
a. ANSWER:
Yes, all we are requesting on ATO is price. And, it is the USG’s intent to award all ATOs in their present form.
2. QUESTION: Does this ATO 1, need revised to delete all references to the MHU-110?
No.
3. QUESTION: Reliance on OCONUS POC to support the task; via phone calls, email surveys etc.
– seems to be overly reliant on USAF support, in ensuring the contractor can meet scheduled delivery of Health Assessment. Does this seem to be the best way to assess he OCONUS trailers (30 each)?
Yes; this is the USG’s approach for the Health Assessment of the OCONUS trailers.
4. QUESTION: So we are not examining the condition of each trailer? (e.g. 80 trailers selected at Nellis).
As stated, visual inspection is required of the trailers.
5. QUESTION: In what shape, way or form is there a technical solution to be proposed, as in present state, all that is requested on the ATO are prices? There are no technical solutions to the ATO presented, the way we read Section L.
Information provided by the contractor, as related to Sections L and M will allow USAF to assess potential technical solutions and will be provided in required Contract Data Requirements Listing Reports.
6. QUESTION:
SF 1 – “..information and reports provided by the offeror” – are we attaching previous historical information to our technical proposal – if so these pages, lengthy they be, would greatly exceed the 25 page limitation on this volume.
We cannot tell offerors how to bid.
SF 2—“Offeror provide “Past Government-approved testing and/or engineering services reports, or relevant sections of test reports, shall be provided detailing each of the elements listed above.” Similar to above, the inclusion of these would greatly exceed the 25 page limitation of the Tech Volume. How shall we proceed to be responsive?
We cannot tell offerors how to bid. However, Contractors will be allowed to include test reports as an appendix but it will need to detail the exact location to be reviewed within their appendix and how it correlates to Section L or Section M.
7. QUESTION: It would help in the pricing of ATO 2 if we knew the total number of trailers assigned (RE: table of allowance) to each of the CONUS and OCONUS bases...What is the number at each type - the total available we would have to choose from? Example the 80 at Nellis - how many are there..only 80 MHU or XX?
Refer to Response to Questions 1, specifically Question 5 where this information has previously been addressed.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .