Post_RFP_Q A_(17_Jun_13).docx

Q. The RFP states the organization is FA8707 but the delivery order states FA8730. Is this correct?

A. Yes

Q. Can the Government post a Word copy of the individual Delivery Order (DD1155) to FBO.gov?

A. Yes

Q. Is the contractor allowed to replace Attachment 8 Past Performance Information Sheet with a contractor-specific format, so long as it contains the same information required on RFP Attachment 8?

A. No, Offerors shall respond in accordance with Attachment 8 of the RFP.

Q. Compared to the draft RFP, in the final RFP subfactors 1 and 2 were swapped. In addition, the relative weighting of subfactors 1 and 2 were swapped, so that they remain weighted as if there were no swap in subfactor positions. Were both changes intended simultaneously, as presented in the final RFP?

A. Yes

Q. Due to the existence of the Transition period, and Transition SOO that contains specific transition tasks during the first several months of the PoP, what period of performance should be used to spread the pre-loaded labor hours in Attachment 7 Cost Model during the Base Period on CLIN 0001?

A. Offerors shall use the dates as specified in the Cost Model, 1 Feb 14 – 31 Jan 15. Transition is a distinct task that will be priced separately. Transition should not be considered in the distribution of hours or establishing labor rates under CLIN 0001.

Q. Please confirm that Offerors should make adjustments to the RFP Cost Model to incorporate any estimates for direct cost of facility space dedicated to Labs or Subcontractors. Changes to incorporate those costs do not seem to meet the current criteria for making changes to the Cost Model in L6.8.

A. Other direct costs should be proposed under CLIN X004

Q. We recommend the following changes to the DD254 based on our security officer’s review of the RFP:

a. Blocks 10b-d change to ”yes” because in order to access certain areas within USSTRATCOM, an individual is required to have these particular accesses.

b. On page 5, reference 10g – A. should read as follows: Contractor may require access up to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Cosmic Top Secret information for reference only at USSTRATCOM.

A. The Government will take the recommendations into consideration and update the document as required.

Q. Request for clarification on DFARS 252.234-7001 Notice of EVMS (Apr 2008): Per RFP Section I FAR 52.216-19, this contract will not have any order for a single item in excess of $15M, or any order for a combination of items in excess of $20M. Please provide the Government’s interpretation of this GAP CIE ordering limitation within the requirements for DFARS 252.234-7001, where requirements differ depending on the amount of the proposal submitted. Should offerors respond to DFARS 252.234-7001 based on:

a. the value of the GAP CIE Cost Model (amounts submitted will differ for each offeror),

b. the value of the GAP CIE IDIQ Ceiling ($98M),

c. or, the value of the GAP CIE individual order limitations per FAR 52.216-19. ($15M/$20M)?

A. The value of GAP CIE individual order limitations

Q. Sections L and M refer to a “technical approach” or “approach” for Subfactor 1. The bidder’s library included many “Technical Approach Documents” which have a specific format and set of information to describe proposed capabilities. Is there a RFP requirement for the “technical approach” or “approach” for each DR in Subfactor 1 to comply with the “Technical Approach Documents” formatting provided in the bidder’s library?

A. No standard format is required

Q. We have identified an error in the Cost Model where the calculation for a cost element references back a “Loading Factors” rate using the wrong ‘named’ cell. Please clarify how the Government would like Offerors to handle calculation issues such as this if we find others through the remainder of the proposal development process.

a. Looking ahead to the evaluation phase, if Cost Model changes are made by one Offeror, but not by other Offerors, will the Government adjust the Cost Model for all Offerors to ensure consistency across proposal evaluations?

A. Although the “name” pertaining to the specific cell may be incorrect, it appears the calculated outcome of the cost associated with the labor rates at the Government or Contractor will still be calculated correctly. If errors are identified in the spreadsheet, but do not affect the calculated outcome no action is required. However, Offerors are encouraged to notify the Contracting Officer of those type errors.

If errors are identified that affect the calculated outcome, an Offeror may update the cost model, annotate the change under the “Loading Factor” tab and immediately alert the Contracting Officer. Appropriate action will be taken to ensure all potential Offerors/Offerors are aware of the error in the spreadsheet.

Q. If an Offeror presents a solution that is significantly less than 80,323 hours in the staffing plan, how can the Offeror also present and "provide sufficient detail to demonstrate reasonableness and realism" in the cost/price proposal if the Government’s preloaded total hours must be used? If an Offeror’s staffing plan properly demonstrates an approach that supports 50,000 labor hours, can it propose very low cost labor for the difference between the Government’s preloaded total hours of 80,323 and the Offeror’s 50,000 hours supported by its staffing plan?

A. The 80,323 preloaded hours are for pricing purposes only. Offerors shall distribute ALL preloaded hours across the applicable functional categories identified in the cost model. The skill mix and labor categories identified in the staffing plan should be consistent with the skill mix and labor categories shown in the cost price model, and consistent with the proposed processes under Subfactor 2, Software Development Lifecycle Process.

Q. Is there a cutoff date for submission of RFP questions?

A. No