FA8650-13-R-4016-0002-Q As.doc
DOC document 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AFRL/RYD Maintenance & Fabrication of Experimental Processing & Test Equipment Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8650-13-R-4016
About this file
Questions Answers
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 22
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
Solicitation FA8650-13-R-4016 AFRL/RYD Maintenance and Fabrication of Experimental Processing
And Test Equipment
Questions and Answers; Requests for Clarifications and Corrections 1.
Is it possible to get an increase of 80 pages just for the technical volume only?
ANSWER: No it is not possible for us to increase the page limit for the technical volume.
2.
Is there an error on the spreadsheet that doesn’t allow you to enter FFP costs in the option years?
ANSWER: Yes, the spreadsheet did have an error that locked some cells that were not to be locked and also did not have some of the formulas in blocks where they were required. The spreadsheet has been corrected and is being posted for your use.
3.
Under the revised RFP paragraph M002, Evaluation Criteria, paragraph b(2) Sub factor 1.2 - Staffing, Description of Merit, reads in part '(c) provides examples of employment, education, and related experience of proposed employees ...'" and my question: Does the bidder need to provide generic job descriptions for their proposed employee positions OR resumes of specific individuals proposed for each proposed position? Please clarify.
ANSWER: You may provide generic job descriptions to meet this criteria. Generic resumes (no names or personal information for a specific person) may be submitted also.
4.
For the Option to Extend Services Tab, the CLIN 2001 Labor (FFP) Estimated Total Cost cell is protected and has a formula which puts in an amount which is half of the Option Year 2 amount. This cell should be unprotected and the formula taken out because, the extended period, as identified, has 8 out of the possible 11 holidays and, therefore, the proposed amount will be less than one half of the Option Year 2 amount because there are less direct hours in the subject period. Therefore, the contractor should be allowed to enter their proposed amount for this period. In addition the Rate cells in the side table have “0” entered and they are protected so amounts different from zero cannot be entered. These cells should be unprotected and the rates left blank, awaiting the contractor’s input.
ANSWER: The Rate cells have been corrected and unprotected for your input. However, the FFP cells of the Option To Extend Services Tab will not be unprotected. This sheet is for evaluation purposes only in order to meet the clause prescription.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .