Questions_Answers_FPS3_RFP_14_Jan_2014.docx
DOCX document 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FPS3 SolicitationFA8730-14-R-0004 Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8730-14-R-0004
About this file
Questions and Answers_14 Jan 2014
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 40
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
UNCLASSIFIED
Questions and Answers FPS3 RFP
| # |
| Artifact |
| Pg |
| Para |
| Question |
| Government Response |
| 1 |
| Section L, Attachment L-2 Table 4-5 |
| Please clarify the rational for removing SightLogix P&L VMD system from the Equipment List |
| SightLogix P&L VMD is currently only approved for Air Force use within unmanned storage igloos. Because unmanned storage igloos are not present within Sample Problem #1, the item was removed to eliminate confusion. |
| The government added a constraint on the use of the Broadware VMS that it is “Approved with Advantor (sic) Predator Elite only”. Is this really the case? |
| Yes. The Broadware VMS is currently only approved for Air Force use with Predator Elite. |
| Would the Government consider a four week extension instead of a two week extension? |
| Given the scope of the changes contained in the Amendment, the Government believes that a two week extension is appropriate. |
| 4 |
| 8 Jan Q&A, Q17, Section L |
| 2.1.6. |
| The Governments response to Question 17 to the Q&A published on 8 January 2014, stated “The government expects the sample problem risk matrix to follow the level of detail found in SOW para 4.2.5.7 for likelihood and consequence. This includes the percentage values for probability and the actual dollar/schedule values for impact”. |
Section L 2.1.6 states - All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Cost/Price Proposal and Contract Documentation Volumes. Cost tradeoff information, workhour estimates and material kinds and quantities may be used in other volumes only as appropriate for presenting rationale for alternatives or design and tradeoff decisions. Hard copy and electronic copies of non-Cost/Price Volumes shall be “sanitized.” “Sanitized,” as used herein, means free of unit prices, total item prices, or other information that would conform to the definition of “Cost or Pricing Data” as defined in FAR Part 2.
Question: Given that the direction in Section L 2.1.6 prohibits the inclusion of any pricing in any Volume(s) save the Cost/Price Proposal and Contract Documentation Volumes, can Government please clarify?
Offerors should provide detailed information on their assessment of the risk consequence. This assessment should include the specific cost impact to the effort if the risk should be realized. Offerors should include the specific dollar value of their estimate to explain how the cost impact was estimated and how significant the risk is. Offerors should not include both the dollar value and exact percentage impact for cost impact.
This specific information will not be considered to violate the instruction at Section L para 2.1.6, which specifies that cost/price information shall be addressed ONLY in the Cost/Price volume. As a reminder, the offeror’s information on Risk Consequence Cost should include only information on the risk Cost and not other cost/price information.
| 5 |
| Section L |
| 4.4.5, 4.5.3 |
| Section L 4.4.5 Attachments to Sample Problem #1 (No Page Limit) and 4.5.3 Attachments to Sample Problem #2 – (No Page Limit) (Attachment 5 for SP1 and Attachment 2 for SP2) |
Provide a risk matrix for the sample problem identifying those significant programmatic risks or aspects of the sample problem projects you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or performance impact. Classify each risk as low, medium, or high and identify the probability and impact of occurrence. Propose a risk mitigation strategy for each identified risk. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.
Question: Does the performance impact refer to “System/Component” performance or “Contractor execution” performance or both? Please clarify.
The performance impact refers to the technical performance of the overall program (in this case the individual project for each Sample Problem).
| 6 |
| Volume I Technical Approach, Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix, L Para 7.1.7 (Section J, Attachment 3) and L Para 7.3.7 listings. |
| The RFP identifies the references in association with Para M0002, para e, Small Business Participation Factor. Can the Government please verify that the contractor is to identify the location of the Contract Administrative Data (L Para 7.1.7), DD Form 254 (Section J, Attachment 3), and DCMA form 640 (L Para 7.3.7) in association with para M0002 in the Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix? |
| “Para 7.1.7 (Section J, Attachment 3)” should read “Para 7.1.10 (Section J, Attachment 4 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan)”. This change was included in Amendment 0001. |
| 7 |
| 8 Jan Question and Answers 30, 34, and 36. |
| Based on question 36 is the Government instructing the offerors to not provide, as part of the sample task pricing, the cost for an iterative 35%, 65%, and 95% design review process? Response to question 34 specifically states that section 1.4.2.2 of attachment 8 states Design reviews was reworded to "Include all effort to prepare, conduct, and complete system design, reviews, and associated related overall system design documentation." These two responses contradict each other. In addition, does the Government mean to say: The test plan description is delivered as part of the proposed solution since question 30 changed the requirement to provide a description? |
| To clarify, the Government response to Question 34 in the 8 Jan Q&A referenced Attachment 7 - Work Breakdown Structure, not Attachment 8 - Section L. The WBS dictionary does not identify the tasks required under the solicitation sample problems. |
The solicitation sample problems do not include a requirement for further design efforts beyond the submittal of the design with the proposal.
Correct, the answer to #36 of the 8 Jan 14 Q&A should read, “The description of the test plan is delivered as part of the proposed solution.”
The solicitation sample problems do not include requirements for submittal of additional test plan/procedure documentation beyond what is included in the proposal.
There appears to be confusion introduced by the answers to questions 34 and 36. Question 34 provides clarification of the WBS dictionary and pricing format for design effort. Question 36 addresses the CDRLs associated with design and install and states there are “no further requirements specified for design work”.
Please clarify whether or not Offeror’s should propose design activities (labor required to transition the conceptual/proposed designs to 100% ready for construction), or should the priced portion of the sample tasks assume that all design effort is completed and approved at proposal submission?
Correct. The offeror is not required to accomplish further design effort or submit further design deliverables for the sample problems. The offeror should assume that all design effort is complete at proposal submission.
| 9. |
| 8 Jan 14 Q&A |
| Q30 |
| The Government has identified that an intended update to Section L was inadvertently omitted in Amendment 1 para 4.5.2. |
Offerors should provide a description of the proposed test approach/plan to verify that the proposed system installation complies with the sample problem requirements including a description of how the contractor proposes to verify the functionality/performance of the proposed system/subsystems. A proposed test verification matrix in the format described in Attachment L-2, Table 4-4, will be included as Attachment 7 to Sample Problem #2.
UNCLASSIFIED
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .