Questions to USG T-6 COMBS through 2 Mar 11.pdf
PDF 62 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Formal Request for Proposal
- Solicitation number
- FA8617-11-R-6208
About this file
Questions to USG T-6 COMBS through 2 Mar 11.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 139 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Question: We are trying to submit the Past Performance Information Tool as required in the T6
RFP (Solicitation FA8617-11-R-6208). The problem we’re encountering is when we hit
“submit” it tells us to change the file name (which we did) and to submit as stated in the RFP.
When selecting “Step #4: Submit” of the Access file, a dialogue box opens and provides file naming convention instructions. After ensuring the attached file is named appropriately (and following the RFP submission requirements), we selected “OK” and the screen returns to the default Contractor’s Menu. There is not a message confirming submission is successful, or that the electronic file has been sent. This is a continuous loop until the software program is exited.
We have followed the directions in the RFP, but it does not appear the file was transmitted. Can you confirm instructions for appropriate submittal of the Past Performance Information Tool?
Answer: Clicking submit on the Past Performance Information Tool merely uploads the data into the underlying Microsoft Access database file. It does not electronically submit information to the Government in any way. Reference Section L (Attachment 21), paragraph 2.3 (8) for the naming conventions for the Microsoft Access database file. In addition, please refer to paragraph 2.3 (1) which details how electronic offer information must be formally submitted.
Finally, if potential offerors have any reservations due to not being able to access the Microsoft
Access database file once it is created, please refer to the final sentence of paragraph 2.3 itself which details that if there is a discrepancy between electronic and hard copy proposals, the hard copy proposal will be used for formal evaluations.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .