NOSB_QandA.pdf

NETOPS Small Business ‐ Q and A

Subject: Admin ‐ Amendment

Question_Number: 1

Reference:

Section L, paragraph L2.3.8 (d)

Question:

Should a separate change matrix be created for each volume and , if so, where should it be placed in the proposal?

Answer:

Yes. A separate change matrix should be created for each volume. An electronic copy shall be included on the appropriate disc and a paper version included in the classification file folder.

Question_Number: 2

Reference:

L2.3.8 Amended Proposals

Question:

In the Change Matrix, if indicating where the change has been made by page number, should the page number from the final document be utilized, or the page number from the tracked changes document.

Answer:

The final document is the official document, and that is the page number that must be referenced. However, for ease of use, offerors may wish to include the page number for both the final and tracked changes versions.

Friday, October 19, 2012As of:

Question_Number: 3

Reference:

Section J, Attachment 19

Question:

In the Schedule of Changes, Change #31, it states the Section J, Attachment 19, Atch_19 _CITS_ITS_Pricing_Model_NetOps_SB is renamed NOSB_Atch_19_CITS_FFP_Amend_0006, however the file that was sent is title NOSB_Atch_19_CITS_ITS_FFP_Amend_0006. Please clarify if this is the correctly referenced file.

Answer:

Yes, this is the correctly referenced file. It will be properly named in Amendment 0007.

Question_Number: 4

Reference:

Cover letter, item 8.

Question:

Is the paper submission required to be printed on pastel Green paper, per the Cover letter?

As the Solicitation Amendment‐0006 does not confirm this.

Answer:

Yes. However, the pricing attachments can be printed on white paper.

Question_Number: 5

Reference:

NOSB_Amend_0006.pdf, Ammendment 6, Section L2.3.8

Question:

Item a) specifies that tracked changes show underlining and change bars. Default Word settings show change bars and inserted text underlined and deleted text with a strike‐ through. Does the Government not want to see deleted text in the electronic copies?

Answer:

Yes, the Government wants to see deleted text in the electronic copies.

Question_Number: 6

Reference:

NOSB_Amend_0006.pdf, Ammendment 6, Section L2.3.8

Question:

Item e) requires a change matrix be supplied. What is the format of the change matrix?

Answer:

There is no specific format for the change matrix.

Question_Number: 7

Reference:

NOSB_Amend_0006.pdf, Ammendment 6, Section L2.3.8

Question:

Item e) requires a change matrix be supplied. Is there one matrix for all volumes and all files?

Answer:

A separate change matrix should be created for each volume. An electronic copy shall be included on the appropriate disc and a paper version included in the classification file folder.

Question_Number: 8

Reference:

L2.3.8 (b) and (d)

Question:

For the required change matrix for Amended Proposals, is the change matrix in its own volume? If it is to be part of each volume (i.e., if needed), is it excluded from the page count?

Answer:

A separate change matrix should be created for each volume. The change matrix is excluded from the page count. Please note that the change matrix is a guide to the location of changes and is not included in items evaluated.

Question_Number: 9

Reference:

L.2.3, Proposal Format

Question:

Item (L.2.3.b) indicates "All amended proposal volumes shall be due 31 October. Does this mean that if a proposal volume has NOT changed that we don't neet to submit that volume in our new package? A) If it does mean that, but we decide to send all volumes whether or not there are any changes, will there be any penalty?

Answer:

If a volume is unchanged, only the electronic version (original and copy) must be resubmitted.

Question_Number: 10

Reference:

L2.3.8 Amended Proposals

Question:

In which volume should offerors submit the change matrix?

Answer:

A separate change matrix should be created for each volume. An electronic copy shall be included on the appropriate disc and a paper version included in the classification file folder.

Question_Number: 11

Reference:

Memorandum for all Offerors dated 5 October 2012

Question:

Do Excel Pricing Charts need to be printed on pastel green paper? Our preliminary tests have shown that they are more difficult to read on colored paper.

Answer:

No. Attachments 19 and 21 may be printed on white paper.

Subject: Admin ‐ General

Question_Number: 12

Reference:

General

Question:

Is it the Government's intent to re‐evaluate the offeror's proposal in it's entirety or evaluate only the changes made to the offeror's proposal?

Answer:

Initial proposal evaluations will be completed using the information provided in the amended proposal.

Question_Number: 13

Reference:

Section L, paragraph L2.3.1

Question:

Section L2.3.1 states "File names of electronic documents shall be limited to 15 characters and shall begin with the Government assigned three‐letter identifier." Where is this identifier found?

Answer:

Each email sent by the PCO contains the offerors three letter identifier followed by "‐ Source Selection Information ‐ See FAR 2.101 and 3.104" This is the three letter identifier offerors should use.

Question_Number: 14

Reference:

Amendment 006, L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling

Question:

Please clarify the CD‐R submission. Does the government require 2 "Copy" CD‐Rs and one "Original" CD‐R or 1 "Copy" and 1 "Original" CD‐R per volume?

Answer:

The Government requires one CD‐R/DVD‐R marked "original" and one marked "copy". Thus, two CD‐R/DVD‐R discs should be submitted per volume.

Question_Number: 15

Reference:

L2.3.2

Question:

Are landscape oriented pages allowed?

Answer:

Yes. If the pages are "foldout" pages as defined in L2.3.4, they count as two pages each.

Question_Number: 16

Reference:

L2.3.2

Question:

Are landscape tables and figures allowed?

Answer:

Yes. If the pages are "foldout" pages as defined in L2.3.4, they count as two pages each.

Question_Number: 17

Reference:

Section L2.2 (c) Section L2.3.1

Question:

Volumes should be "Provided in a six‐part (2‐divider) pressboard classification folder" and "CDs should be encased in vinyl CD/DVD protector sheet for three ring binders and placed in corresponding volumes" How are the vinyl CD/DVD protector sheets to be inserted into the volume folders?

Answer:

Vinyl CD/DVD protector sheets may be inserted into the volume folders in the same manner as an 8 1/2 " x 11" page; two holes in the top and secured with the attached fastener.

Question_Number: 18

Reference:

20121005_NOSB_Amend_0006_Cover_Letter.pdf, Ammendment 6 cover letter, item 8.

Question:

Does the "Word© version of their original proposal" include all documents of the original proposal including Excel spreadsheets and the Horseblanket?

Answer:

The pricing spreadsheets and horseblanket are excluded from the Word© requirement.

Excel versions of original proposal documents may be provided in Excel©. There is no requirement to copy Excel© attachments into Word©. The horseblanket may be provided in PDF format.

Question_Number: 19

Reference:

Paragraph L2.3.6 Cost or Pricing Information

Question:

The schedule of changes indicates that all cost or pricing information shall be addressed Only in the Cost/Price Volume. How should the offerer treat cost or pricing information being submitted in the original proposal being resubmitted. i.e. should this information be redacted.

Answer:

This is not a new requirement. This was also stated in L6.1.3. The original proposal shall be provided in its original form, as a Word© document.

Question_Number: 20

Reference:

L2.3.4

Question:

How many pages does the Horse Blanket count as?

Answer:

The horse blanket is exempted from the page count see Amendment 7 L2.2, Table 1

Question_Number: 21

Reference:

page 10 of 61 in amendment 0006, paragraph L2.3.1

Question:

On page 10 of 61 in amendment 0006, paragraph L2.3.1 refers to a “Government assigned three‐letter identifier”. Which three‐letter identifier should we use in our file names?

Answer:

Each email sent by the PCO contains the offerors three letter identifier followed by "‐ Source Selection Information ‐ See FAR 2.101 and 3.104" This is the three letter identifier offerors should use.

Question_Number: 22

Reference:

page 11 of 61 in amendment 0006, paragraph L2.3.8(a)

Question:

On page 11 of 61 in amendment 0006, paragraph L2.3.8(a) requires compliance with page limits stated in table 1 on page 9 of 61 which maintains the same page limits from the original solicitation but new requirements were added that require additional pages which mandates the removal of data that has been submitted to the Government for evaluation. To ensure the removal of previously submitted data does not degrade our proposal and to ensure Oct 31 is sufficient time to address everything on this 253 page amendment plus attachments, request the Government allow an additional 5 pages for the technical volume in order to accommodate the additional requirements within the abbreviated suspense time for proposal submission.

Answer:

No additional pages will be allowed. No new technical evaluation requirements were added as a result of this amendment. The items added for clarification to section L as paragraphs L4.2.5(2)(j), L4.2.5(2)(k), L4.2.5(3)(d), and L4.2.5(5) were previously included as asterisked items in the STO, Section J, Attachment 20. Each page of the STO, Section J, Atch 20 states at the bottom, "*Within the Specific Requirements section of this sample task order (Section 9), only the paragraphs annotated with an asterisk need to be addressed for technical evaluation purposes."

Question_Number: 23

Reference:

L.2.2 Table 1 2nd column, fourth text box from the top

Question:

Why is the capital "M" in Managemet highlighted in blue?

Answer:

Disregard the highlighted "M". There is no change in the text from the previous version.

Question_Number: 24

Reference:

Schedule of Changes

Question:

Does the Government intend for the Schedule of Changes to be a comprehensive list of all changes to the NetCents II soliciation? An example would be Section 2.2 Orginizations/Distribution/Number Of Copies/Page Limits in Section J, Exhibit B, B001 Page 2 of 5 (Page 79/253 in the PDF) States "Two soft copies should be delivered on CD‐R or DVD‐R, and must be virus free." however this change is not reflected in the schedule of changes.

Answer:

Item #24 in the Summary of Changes states as follows, "Exhibit B is revised to include updated addresses/office symbols, ensure paragraph 2.2 is in compliance with paragraph L2.2 (Section J, Attachment 8), and update the subcontracting plan chart." The Summary of Changes is intended to be comprehensive, however, each change is not identified word for word, items 23‐26 are examples.

Question_Number: 25

Reference:

Paragraph 4 of Clause H139 ‐ Small Business Graduate Transition

Question:

In order for a Small Business unable to recertify as a small business concern based solely on internal growth, is a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (in accordance with FAR 52.219‐9) required to be submitted with the Small Business Proposal?

Answer:

No, a SB Subcontracting Plan is not required to be submitted with the proposal. A SB Subcontracting Plan is required in order to receive award of the reserve (SB graduate) CLINS.

Question_Number: 26

Reference:

Paragraph L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling paragraph 4

Question:

How is "the Government assigned three‐letter offeror identifier" obtained

Answer:

Each email sent by the PCO contains the offerors three letter identifier followed by "‐ Source Selection Information ‐ See FAR 2.101 and 3.104" This is the three letter identifier offerors should use.

Question_Number: 27

Reference:

Cover_letter paragraphs 7 and 8 (Original proposals where received by the Government on 18 November 2010. The suspense for receiving hard copies of the revised proposal is 31 October 2012 12:00pm CDT. Answers to questions resulting from Amendment 0006 to solicitation number FA8771‐09‐R‐0019‐0006 "…will be published cumulatively on FedBizOpps on or about 18 October 2012").

Question:

The complexities involved in creating extensive revisions resulting from amendment 0006 to an elaborate proposal submitted almost two years ago coupled with these necessary revisions which in most cases require the answers expected "on or about 18 October 2012" to be correctly incorporated into the proposal will leave offerors with at most 11 days to accomplish this (The original suspense for proposal responses was 52 days). Will the Government consider extending the suspense for receipt of revised proposals to on or about 21 November 2012?

Answer:

The Government is not extending the due date/time for amended proposal receipt. IAW with the cover letter and instructions of amendment 0006 dated 5 October the amended proposals are due by 12:00 CDT on 31 October 2012. This is a five day extension from the date originally announced on 25 September 12.

Question_Number: 28

Reference:

L.2.3.1, Last Paragraph (File names shall begin with the Government assigned three‐letter offer identifier.

Question:

Our company name begins with a 3‐letter acronym; can we use that as our identifier? Or, have you assigned us a code which we should be using?

Answer:

Each email sent by the PCO contains the offerors three letter identifier followed by "‐ Source Selection Information ‐ See FAR 2.101 and 3.104" This is the three letter identifier offerors

Question_Number: 29

Reference:

L.2.2 Organization/Distribution/Number of Copies/Page Limits

Question:

The Government states that the "Virus free one‐time write CD‐Rs or DVD‐Rs (one volume copy per CD/DVD), shall be encased in a vinyl CD/DVD protector sheet for three‐ring binders." If offerors are required to submit revised proposals in classification folders, how would the Government like the CD protectors attached inside the folder?

Answer:

Vinyl CD/DVD protector sheets may be inserted into the volume folders in the same manner as an 81/2 " x 11" page; two holes in the top and secured with the attached fastener.

Question_Number: 30

Reference:

L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling

Question:

In which volume should offerors submit the "full set of CD‐R/DVD‐R proposal volumes" and the "written list of the disk contents with file names?"

Answer:

The Government requires one CD‐R/DVD‐R marked "original" and one marked "copy". Thus, the written list of disc contents and two CD‐R/DVD‐R discs should be submitted per volume.

Question_Number: 31

Reference:

L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling

Question:

Will the Government be providing the three‐letter offeror identifiers?

Answer:

Each email sent by the PCO contains the offerors three letter identifier followed by "‐ Source Selection Information ‐ See FAR 2.101 and 3.104" This is the three letter identifier offerors

Question_Number: 32

Reference:

L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling

Question:

Since tab indexing is required, how would the Government like offerors to split up the tabbed sections within the six‐part/two dividers in the classification folders?

Answer:

Offerors determine how to organize the tabbed sections within the six‐part/two dividers folder based upon the requirement for each volume. For example, L4.2.2 identifies the tabbed sections for the Technical Volume.

Question_Number: 33

Reference:

L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling

Question:

How would the Government like the pages of each volumes divided within each classification folder?

Answer:

The pages of each volume should be divided among sections in a way which allows the section and the six‐part folder to close completely and does not exceed its intended expansion capability.

Question_Number: 34

Reference:

L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling

Question:

Given the expense of reproducing the E‐sized horseblanket drawing, will the Government consider excluding this drawing from the submission of the revised proposals, assuming this drawing remains unchanged from the original submission?

Answer:

If you do not make any changes to the content the horseblanket, there is no requirement to resubmit the document.

Question_Number: 35

Reference:

Section L, Paragraph 2.3.1 . Section J Attachment 8 page 5

Question:

File names of electronic documents require a Government assigned three letter Offeror identifier. Where would we find this identifier?

Answer:

Each email sent by the PCO contains the offerors three letter identifier followed by "‐ Source Selection Information ‐ See FAR 2.101 and 3.104" This is the three letter identifier offerors should use.

Question_Number: 36

Reference:

L7.3.1 ‐ Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interest

Question:

Should the original “Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interest (SF‐328)” be re‐signed with the current submission date, even if there is no change?

Answer:

No. If there are no changes to the information originally submitted then there is no requirement to resubmit a re‐signed SF‐328 with the current submission date. However, an electronic version (original and copy) with all documents included in the proposal must be provided

Question_Number: 37

Reference:

Not Applicable

Question:

Does the Air Force plan to have a down select prior to award?

Answer:

Section J, Attachment 9, Evaluation Criteria outlines the Basis for Award in M1.1, Basis for Award.

Question_Number: 38

Reference:

General

Question:

Due to the significant changes of the amended RFP, and since the original proposal submission was based on data from 2010, kindly request a proposal extension to November 16, 2012.

Answer:

The Government is not extending the due date/time for amended proposal receipt. IAW with the cover letter and instructions of amendment 0006 dated 5 October the amended proposals are due by 12:00 CDT on 31 October 2012. This is a five day extension from the date originally announced on 25 September 12. The Government is NOT requesting entirely revamped responses based upon changes in personnel and/or technology which may have occurred since the original submission. Offerors should use technology (and prices/rates in the two STOs) available at the time of the original proposal submission.

Question_Number: 39

Reference:

L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling

Question:

Should the six‐part (2‐divider) pressboard classification file folder be Pocket Style or Open Style, or is either acceptable?

Answer:

The six‐part (2‐divider) folder should be Open Style. The Government prefers "top tabs" rather than "end tabs".

Question_Number: 40

Reference:

L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling

Question:

How can we determine or where can we find our Government‐assigned three‐letter offeror identifier to be used in submitted filenames?

Answer:

Each email sent by the PCO contains the offerors three letter identifier followed by "‐ Source Selection Information ‐ See FAR 2.101 and 3.104" This is the three letter identifier offerors should use.

Question_Number: 41

Reference:

Section L2.2, Organization/Distribution/Number of Copies/Page Limits on page 3 of 22

Question:

Was it intended to mention that "CD‐Rs or DVD‐Rs (one volume copy per CD/DVD), shall be encased in a vinyl CD/DVD protector sheet for three‐ring binders, and placed in each of their corresponding Volumes"? We ask, because the Government requests that the Volumes be submitted in six‐part (2‐divider) pressboard classification file folders.

Answer:

The Government requires one CD‐R/DVD‐R marked "original" and one marked "copy". Thus, two CD‐R/DVD‐R discs should be submitted per volume. The CD‐R/DVD‐R discs must be provided in a vinyl CD/DVD protector sheet which should be two‐hole punched at the top and bound in the six part classification file folder.

Question_Number: 42

Reference:

Section L2.2, Organization/Distribution/Number of Copies/Page Limits on page 4 of 22

Question:

We recommend that the Government move and combine the Table of Contents, List of Table and Drawings and Glossary and Cross Reference Matrix into one tab, since there are currently nine tabs, but we are supposed to submit the Volume in a six‐part classification folder.

Answer:

Offerors determine how to divide each volume amongst the six parts of the classification file folder. L2.2 excludes these items from the page count but does not state where they shall be located. Only the technical volume requires nine tabbed sections, see L4.2.2. Combining the Table of Contents, List of Table Drawings and Glossary and Cross Reference Matrix into one tab would be a logical distribution of information.

Question_Number: 43

Reference:

L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling, on page 5 of 22

Question:

In the referenced section, it says: “File names of electronic documents…shall begin with the Government assigned three‐letter offeror identifier.” May we elect to use our own three letter identifier or will the Government assign these in the coming days?

Answer:

Each email sent by the PCO contains the offerors three letter identifier followed by "‐ Source Selection Information ‐ See FAR 2.101 and 3.104" This is the three letter identifier offerors

Question_Number: 44

Reference:

Part IV – Representations and Instructions, under Section L – Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, in L2.3.7, Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms (Section J, Attachment 8, page 6 of 22)

Question:

Is the change matrix one single file that appears one time, or will it be an individual file appearing in each Volume? Also, where shall it be placed in the Volume(s)?

Answer:

A change matrix should be provided for each volume. The location of the change matrix is at the discretion of the offeror, but must be identified in the Table of Contents for the volume.

Question_Number: 45

Reference:

20121005_NOSB_Amend_0006_Cover_Letter.pdf ‐ Number 6

Question:

Please clarify the government's statement that "Offers are not limited in their response to revisions required by the amendment. Replacement data will supersede the previously provided information." Does this mean that offeror's can provide completely re‐vamped proposals?

Answer:

The Government is NOT requesting entirely revamped responses based upon changes in personnel and/or technology which may have occurred since the original submission.

Offerors should use technology (and prices/rates in the two STOs) available at the time of the original proposal submission. Yes, an offeror may choose to "provide a completely re‐ vamped proposal" provided the technology/rates were available at the time of the original proposal submission.

Question_Number: 46

Reference:

NOSB_Amend_0006.pdf ‐ "Page 7 of 61" Paragraph L2.1.5

Question:

Paragraph states "Two complete electronic sets and one paper copy…" Does the government intend for offerors to submit a complete paper copy of the entire revised proposal?

Answer:

Only change pages are required for the paper copy with the exception of Attachments 19 and 21 which shall be provided in their entirety. Change pages shall be printed on pastel green paper except Attachments 19 & 21 and the horseblanket which may be printed on white paper.

Question_Number: 47

Reference:

NOSB_Amend_0006.pdf ‐ "Section J, Attachment 8, Page 2 of 22," Section L2.1.5

Question:

Please clarify "two complete electronic sets." Does the government intend offerors to a) provide all the proposal volumes on 1 (one) CD‐R/DVD‐R (with a duplicate copy)? b) provide one proposal volume per CD‐R/DVD‐R (with a duplicate copy)?

Answer:

B is correct. The Government requires one CD‐R/DVD‐R marked "original" and one marked "copy". Thus, two CD‐R/DVD‐R discs should be submitted per volume.

Question_Number: 48

Reference:

NOSB_Amend_0006.pdf ‐ "Section J, Attachment 8, Page 5 of 22," Section L2.3.1

Question:

Please clarify "paper fastener compressor."

Answer:

Please Google "paper fastener compressor". They are used with the paper fasteners attached to the classification file folder to ensure the paper fasteners are not inadvertently opened and that papers are fastened securely.

Question_Number: 49

Reference:

NOSB_Amend_0006.pdf ‐ "Page 3, 4, 5 of 61"

Question:

Will the government issue a revised RFP that incorporates the changes to clauses in sections B, F, G, and H described in Schedule of Changes numbers 2 through 24?

Answer:

A conformed copy of the RFP through Amendment 0006 was posted on FBO.

Question_Number: 50

Reference:

L2.3 Proposal Format subparagraph (b)

Question:

Amendment 0006 states the requirement for offerors to submit amended volumes by the 10‐31‐12 due date. Please confirm that an offeror does not have resubmit a volume if there are no changes.

Answer:

Offerors must submit only an electronic version (original and copy) of volumes which were not changed.

Question_Number: 51

Reference:

L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling

Question:

Amendment 0006 states the requirement for offerors to provide each proposal volume in a six‐part (2‐divider) pressboard classification folder. If each divider has more than 50 pages, then Amendment 0006 requires the offeror to include a paper fastener compressor in the divider. This offeror has three questions concerning hole punching the paper: a) Should the pages be 3‐hole punched? b) Should the pages have holes in the top of each page so the sheets can be secured in the folder using the paper fastener? c) Should the offeror punch holes in the top (2‐hole) and side (3‐hole) of the paper? Please clarify.

Answer:

Offerors should place the proposal volume in the six part pressboard classification file folder in a logical manner appropriate to the offeror's proposal. a) There is no requirement that pages must be three‐hole punched. b) Yes, pages must be two‐hole punched in order to be secured in the folder using the paper fasteners. c) Only two‐hole punches on the top of the pages is required (to allow all pages to be secured in the folder using the paper fasteners).

Question_Number: 52

Reference:

L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling

Question:

Amendment 0006 limits the file names of electronic documents to 15 characters beginning with the Government assigned three‐letter offeror identifier. Please provide the three‐letter offeror identifier so we can comply with this requirement.

Answer:

Each email sent by the PCO contains the offerors three letter identifier followed by "‐ Source Selection Information ‐ See FAR 2.101 and 3.104" This is the three letter identifier offerors

Question_Number: 53

Reference:

Section J Attachments

Question:

Amendment 0006 adds Attachments 26 and 27 to Section J. Attachment 22 was the last attachment. Please confirm that the final amended RFP does not include Attachments 23, 24, or 25.

Answer:

Attachments 23‐25 were related to the NAICS code protest.

Question_Number: 54

Reference:

None

Question:

Will the Government please provide a conformed PDF copy of the RFP incorporating all Amendment 0001 through 0006 changes?

Answer:

A conformed copy of the RFP through Amendment 0006 was posted on FBO.

Question_Number: 55

Reference:

L2.3.1

Question:

IAW L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling ‐ …File names of electronic documents shall be limited to 15 characters and shall begin with the Government assigned three‐letter offeror identifier. How does an offeror obtain their “three‐letter offeror identifier?”

Answer:

Each email sent by the PCO contains the offerors three letter identifier followed by "‐ Source Selection Information ‐ See FAR 2.101 and 3.104" This is the three letter identifier offerors

Question_Number: 56

Reference:

L2.3.1

Question:

IAW L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling – “Each volume of the proposal should be separately provided in a six‐part (2‐divider) pressboard classification file folder. Staples shall not be used….” Is the proposal to be two‐hole punched and inserted into the file folder?

Answer:

Yes, the proposal is to be two‐hole punched and inserted into the file folder.

Question_Number: 57

Reference:

L2.3.1

Question:

XXX has researched and obtained the specified “six‐part (2‐divider) pressboard classification file folder.” It is our experience that these folders will accommodate approximately 1.5 inches of thickness. Given the direction “…and the folder shall not be thicker than its intended expansion capability,” for a proposal volume that exceeds the “intended expansion capability,” is it acceptable to use multiple file folders for a single proposal volume?

Answer:

Yes, offerors may use multiple file folders for a single proposal volume if required. Offerors should place the proposal volume in the six part pressboard classification file folder in a logical manner appropriate to the offeror's proposal.

Question_Number: 58

Reference:

Question:

Is this Amendment 6 considered a Final Proposal Revision (FPR)?

Answer:

No. Amendment 0006 requires revisions to the original proposal before initial evaluations can be completed. If discussions are entered, the FAR requires that they be closed with a Final Proposal Revision. This amendment (and the related Q&A) does not constitute discussions.

Question_Number: 59

Reference:

Cover Letter dated 8 Oct 2012, Paragraph 8.

Question:

The Government has provided all new pricing templates (attachments). Will the paper submission of these documents require printing on ‘pastel green paper?’

Answer:

No. Pricing attachments may be printed on white paper.

Question_Number: 60

Reference:

L2.3.8

Question:

IAW L2.3.8 Amended Proposals, subparagraph (d) Change Matrix – Is it a requirement to reference required changes, such as removal of LH Rates for FY10 to FY12 and insertion of LH Rates for FY20 to FY 23 to Attachments 19 & 21 in the Change Matrix?

Answer:

Yes. Please indicate where all changes made within the volume are located.

Question_Number: 61

Reference:

A06 Pg. 7 (L.2.1.7)

Question:

Communication (Email): There are two references that email communications must contain the FAR 2.101 and 3.104 in the subject line. Does this pertain to only when there is encrypted data or with every email?

Answer:

No. All email communications shall contain the "Source Selection Information ‐ See FAR

2.101 and 3.104" in the subject line.

Question_Number: 62

Reference:

A06 pg. 20 L.7.3.1

Question:

The Government added the requirement that offerors "may also be required to provide this information (Reps/Certs) at the task order level to include certification of subcontractors."

This appears to be a general requirement (for future TO responses) and not for the STO responses in our proposal? Please confirm.

Answer:

The requirement to provide an SF 328 applies to the IDIQ and future individual task orders.

For the STOs in the solicitation, SF 328 certification regarding subcontractors is not required.

Question_Number: 63

Reference:

SF30

Question:

The due date for this proposal revision is October 31, 2012. Would the Government consider issuing an extension of two weeks due to the volume of work required?

Answer:

The Government is not extending the due date/time for amended proposal receipt. IAW with the cover letter and instructions of amendment 0006 dated 5 October the amended proposals are due by 12:00 CDT on 31 October 2012. This is a five day extension from the date originally announced on 25 September 12.

Question_Number: 64

Reference:

L2.3.8 Amended Proposals

Question:

Does the Government require another complete submission of the proposal, or would the Government prefer only those section that have had changes with track changes clearly identified?

Answer:

The Government requires a complete electronic version (original and copy) of the proposal.

Only change pages (with changes clearly identified) are required for the paper copy, with the exception of Atchs 19 & 21 which must be submitted in their entirety. Submission of the amended proposals shall be IAW instructions provided at L2.3.1 Binding and Labeling and L2.3.8 Amended Proposals.

Question_Number: 65

Reference:

General Instructions

Question:

Given the additional requirements in NM/ND RAMS STO, we request an additional 7 pages in allocation for Sub‐Factor 3 and overall current technical proposal page limitations.

Answer:

No exceptions or additions will be made to the stated page count limitations.

Question_Number: 66

Reference:

General Instructions

Question:

Based on Section L, Sub‐Factor 3 requrements and the sufficient changes in Attachments 19 & 21, we request an additional 2 weeks extension to the currnet due date.

Answer:

The Government is not extending the due date/time for amended proposal receipt. IAW with the cover letter and instructions of amendment 0006 dated 5 October the amended proposals are due by 12:00 CDT on 31 October 2012. This is a five day extension from the date originally announced on 25 September 12.

Question_Number: 67

Reference:

Section L, Subsection 2.3.1 & L.2.2 ( c)

Question:

The government is specifically requesting a 6‐part 2‐divider pressboard classification file folder and as it relates to the CD‐R or DVD‐R, you have requested a protector sheet for a 3‐ ring binder. Please clarify preferred delivery means for the CD‐R or DVD‐R?

Answer:

CD‐R or DVD‐R shall be encased in a vinyl CD/DVD‐R protector sheet. The protector sheet should be 2 hole punched at the top and fastened in the corresponding volume.

Question_Number: 68

Reference:

Cover Letter/Proposal Instructions L2.3.1.

Question:

In paragraph 8 of the cover letter, we are required to provide change pages for the paper copy. In the instructions at L2.3.1 there is only the mention that the proposal is to be provided in classification folders, with no mention of the change pages. Is the copy to be provided in the classification folder only the volumes that have changed from the original submission? Or are we to provide new hard copies of all documents, whether the volume has changed or not?

Answer:

Only change pages are required except Atchs 19 & 21 which shall be submitted in their entirety. They shall be provided in the classification file folder for the appropriate volume along with the CD‐R/DVD‐R discs and change matrix. If a volume is unchanged, only the electronic version (original and copy) must be resubmitted.

Question_Number: 69

Reference:

General ‐ Proposal Instructions.

Question:

Which section of the six part pressboard classification file folder are we to post the volume?

Answer:

Offerors should place the proposal volume in the six part pressboard classification file folder in a logical manner appropriate to the offeror's proposal.

Question_Number: 70

Reference:

General ‐ Proposal Instructions.

Question:

Will an exception be made to page counts if new text causes a ripple effect in pagination which would exceed the stated page counts?

Answer:

No, an exception will not be made to page count limitations.

Question_Number: 71

Reference:

General ‐ Proposal Instructions.

Question:

If new text causes a change in pagination, do pages without new text but shifted to a new page need to be marked as a change and printed on green paper?

Answer:

Yes. A new page number is a change and the page shall be printed as a change page on pastel green paper.

Question_Number: 72

Reference:

Question:

Have technical evaluations already occurred or is the PMO looking for entirely revamped responses based on change in personnel and technology that have occurred in the time since original submittal?

Answer:

Initial proposal evaluations will be completed using the information provided in the amended proposal. The Government is NOT requesting entirely revamped responses based upon changes in personnel and/or technology which may have occurred since the original submission. Offerors should use technology (and prices/rates for the two STOs) available at the time of the original proposal submission.

Question_Number: 73

Reference:

Question:

Please confirm that only the change pages to offerors technical (other than price) submissions will be evaluated, i.e., that the Government will NOT be doing a full re‐ evaluation of proposals based on submitted changes. As small businesses, it is important that we correctly understand that this BAFO is solely for compliance purposes with the revisions in the RFP language, for updated pricing and for adjustment of past performance citations; and that the Government is not asking for extensive work to make an entirely new case for our selection as prime contractors.

Answer:

The Government has not used the term BAFO. It is the intent of the Government to evaluate any proposal revisions submitted on or before the time stated in the amendment as well as the impact of the changes on the entire proposal. Initial proposal evaluations will be completed using the information provided in the amended proposal.

Subject: BEQ

Question_Number: 74

Reference:

L6.2.2.4.1

Question:

It states in paragraph L6.2.2.4.1 that offerors shall separately provide the base rates build‐up for the BEQ Worksheet, yet there is a tab labeled Max Labor Hour BEQ Rate Buildup in the Price Workbook which is what pulls into the Max Labor‐Hour Rates – BEQ tab. This contractor’s assumption is we are to use that tab for the build‐up, please confirm.

Answer:

Yes. That is correct. Use the Max Labor‐Hour BEQ Rate Buildup tab for your BEQ rate buildup.

Question_Number: 75

Reference:

Attachment 21, Max Labor‐Hour BEQ Rate Build‐Up

Question:

Looking at the spreadsheet Max Labor‐Hour BEQ Rate Build‐Up, the government’s assumption is that for each Fiscal year a company can only insert one rate for OH, G&A, COM and Fee. With the way our company is structured and submits rates to DCAA, this is not possible for us. Based on the range of services being requested it goes across multiple business units and therefore requires us to submit rates built up based on varying rates that have been submitted to DCAA. Please advise as to how we can submit a compliant spreadsheet utilizing our DCAA submitted rates.

Answer:

The indirect titles/rates are provided for examples. The spreadsheet allows offerors to add/delete/change indirects (add/delete columns) and formulas in the tables with formulas that will yield the correct results in accordance with the offeror's rates, accounting system, and disclosure statement.

Question_Number: 76

Reference:

L6.2.2.4.1

Question:

Paragraph L6.2.2.4.1 states that “…base rates buildup (direct labor rate, fringe rate, overhead, G&A and profit as applicable”). The Max Labor Hour BEQ Rate Buildup worksheet does not include fringe in the buildup. This contractor’s assumption is that we are to combine fringe with OH. Please confirm.

Answer:

No, do not combine Fringe with OH. These are separate indirects. The indirect titles/rates are provided for examples. The spreadsheet allows offerors to add/delete/change indirects (add/delete columns) and formulas in the tables with formulas that will yield the correct results in accordance with the offeror's rates, accounting system, and disclosure statement.

Question_Number: 77

Reference:

Section J, Attachment 21 page 2 of 25

Question:

Are the labor category percentages (third column ‐ %) in the NETOPS and Infrastructure Solutions Labor Categories spreadsheet mandatory, suggested, or simply listed as an example for offerors to follow when filling in the information?

Answer:

These percentages illustrate the approximate utilization rate for each labor category during actual contract execution. They are estimates only and should not impact offeror rate submissions.

Subject: PCAG

Question_Number: 78

Reference:

Section L, paragraph L5.1.1; L5.1.1.3

Question:

In two instances, we cited multiple task orders on the PPIS, where we were the incumbent and, through re‐competition, re‐awarded the effort under a new task order number. In both cases, we only submitted the latest task order on the associated PPQ. Based on Amendment 6 guidance, which limits each PPIS to one task order, is submission of a revised PPIS necessary, assuming the Government has already completed past performance evaluations?

Answer:

The PPIS must be tailored to the specific task order cited. When multiple task orders under an IDIQ are cited in the PPIS, the government has no way to determine what work is associated with the task order cited on the PPQ. If the offeror wants the government to evaluate the citation, the offeror must submit a revised PPIS citing only one task order in accordance with Section L5.1.1, Tab 2 and NOTES.

Question_Number: 79

Reference:

L.5.1.1.3, Questionnaires

Question:

We cannot tell if we need to re‐submit all 10 past performance questionnaires to our clients and have them re‐send to the NetCents‐II program office ‐ please clarify. A) If we want to use the same 10 past performances, and they still meet the requirements, do we need to do the 10 again? B) If we decide we would like to change one, can we do that and then submit one additional questionnaire for your use? C) At one point you had received 8 of our 10 and requested that we make arrangements to provide the final two; can you tell us if you received the last two?

Answer:

A) No. The government is proactively contacting PPQ respondents to ascertain any updates to the previously submitted PPQs which were on‐going on 28 Sep 2010. Provided the POC responds, the period of performance considered will be adjusted for work validated through 28 Sep 2011. B) Yes, offerors may replace citations and submit new ones. Each offeror is still limited to 10 citations. C) The government will identify to each offeror those citations from the original proposal for which the government has not yet received Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs).

Question_Number: 80

Reference:

Section J, Attachment 13, 1 Atch Questionnaire

Question:

The amendment seems to indicate the submittal of Past Performance Questionnaires. If previously submitted, do we need to resubmit again with this amendment?

Answer:

Not unless the offeror revises or replaces a citation(s). The government is proactively contacting PPQ respondents to ascertain any updates to the previously submitted PPQs which were on‐going on 28 Sep 2010. Provided the POC responds, the period of performance considered will be adjusted for work validated through 28 Sep 2011.

Question_Number: 81

Reference:

L.5.1.1.3 Questionnaires

Question:

Can the Government please privately inform each offeror which of it's previously submitted Past Performance Questionnaires were received?

Answer:

The government will identify to each offeror those citations from the original proposal for which the government has not yet received Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs).

Question_Number: 82

Reference:

M.3.4 Recency

Question:

Does a new past performance with the same relevancy rating as a previously submitted past performance have a greater impact on the Government's Past Performance Confidence Assessment if it is more recent?

Answer:

Please reference M3.3. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level. More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment. Efforts showing a sustained track record and performance at locations worldwide will also have greater impact on Performance Confidence Assessment. The PCAG determines relevancy after reviewing the proposed citation.

Question_Number: 83

Reference:

Section M, Paragraph 3.4 Recency. Section J Attachment 9 page 5

Question:

The new verbiage indicates that he effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Since the original solicitation was issued on September 28, 2010 does that mean that any work performed from September 28, 2007 thru September 28, 2010 is considered to be recent?

Answer:

Yes. Performance that was started, ongoing or completed during 28 Sep 2007 and 28 Sep 2010 will be considered recent.

Question_Number: 84

Reference:

ATTACHMENT 13: Past Performance Information Sheet

Question:

Under Amendment 6, the Government provided a Past Performance Questionnaire that differs from the original RFP. If the Point of Contact (POC) in the original Past Performance Questionnaire is unchanged does the Government still require a resubmission?

Answer:

No. The government is proactively contacting PPQ respondents to ascertain any updates to the previously submitted PPQs which were on‐going on 28 Sep 2010. Provided the POC responds, the period of performance considered will be adjusted for work validated through 28 Sep 2011.

Question_Number: 85

Reference:

L5.1.1.3 ‐ Questionnaires

Question:

For past performance references where the offer performed as a subcontractor, Amendment 6 requires the offeror to use the prime contractor as the primary point of contact. This potentially presents a conflict of interest in cases where the prime contractor has also submitted a proposal in response to the NETCENTS‐2 solicitation. Will the Government give the offeror the option of using the Government point of contact instead of the prime contractor to mitigate this problem?

Answer:

Government officials do not have privity regarding sub‐contractors. The offeror should provide the POC for the prime contractor. The government will only discuss contents of the proposal in accordance with K004 (previously AFMC FARS 5352.215‐9007) and within the limitations identified by offerors in their proposals.

Question_Number: 86

Reference:

Page 14, L.5.1.1 last two paragraphs

Question:

Is the Government expecting industry to replace the PPIS that have been submitted by subcontractors that may not align with the definition of a 1st tier subcontractor?

Answer:

As a business decision you may change or replace any or all of your citations. You are still limited to 10 citations. Your evaluation will be based on the contents of your most recent proposal. Citations are to be representative of the offeror and their significant 1st tier subcontractors. Paragraph L3.1.1 requires each offeror to include a list of their 1st Tier subcontractor(s) as a part of the Executive Summary of the proposal. If the subcontractor associated with a citation(s) submitted in your proposal does not represent a 1st tier subcontractor identified in the Executive Summary, the citation will not be used in the Past Performance Confidence assessment. Paragraph L5.1.1 provides the definition of a Significant Subcontractor.

Question_Number: 87

Reference:

Page 14, L.5.1.1 last two paragraphs

Question:

Is the Government planning to discard all the PPIS submitted that are not from 1st tier subcontractors?

Answer:

Citations will not be discarded. However, those not from the prime or 1st tier subcontractor will not be used in the Past Performance Confidence Assessment.

Question_Number: 88

Reference:

Page 5, M3.4 Receny, Section J, Attachment 12, Past Performance Questionnaires, Section 1, "To Be Completed By Respondent"

Question:

Is the Government discarding all previous submissions and requesting our clients to complete the questionnaire? Or is the Government requesting the questionnaire be used to supplement the information already provided to show recency of the information?

Answer:

The offeror should only request clients submit a Past Performance Questionnaire for replacement citation(s), or for those citations which the government has not yet received a PPQ. The government is proactively contacting PPQ respondents to ascertain updates to the previously submitted PPQs which were on‐going on 28 Sep 2010.

Question_Number: 89

Reference:

Page 14, L.5.1.1 Past Performance Attachment 13, 1b

Question:

If a contract period of performance is completed and the company won the recompete, how can the vendor make reference to the continuity of that program without providing two different contract numbers?

Answer:

Paragraph L5.1.1 requires only one contract or task order be submitted per citation and each citation will be evaluated independently.

Question_Number: 90

Reference:

M3.6, Table3; Past Performance letter and questionnaire dated 5 October 2012.

Question:

What if the government POC who filled out a PP Survey Questionnaire for our original proposal submission is not available (retired, medical leave, etc.) to fill out the new questionnaire required by Amendment 6? A new POC may not have knowledge of the work performed as attested to by our original POC. In this case, the new POC might be forced to use the D= Do Not Know rating and this would adversely impact our evaluation. Is it the government's intent to disregard the original ratings received from the original POC if this situation arises? Would the government consider inclusion of the original POC's questionnaire response for experience areas that a new POC may not be well‐versed in if no changes were made to our PPIS citation?

Answer:

The PCAG will not discard previous PPQs received. In the event a previous PPQ provided ratings and a follow up PPQ is marked "D" the government will consider the previous rating through the time of the original PPQ submission (as validated by the government).

Question_Number: 91

Reference:

L5.1.1.3 Questionnaires

Question:

If past performance questionnaires have already been submitted by points of contact (POCs) using the PPQ in Section J, Attachment 12 of the Final RFP dated 28 Sep 2010 do we need to ask the POCs to resubmit the PPQ using the PPQ provided in Section J, Attachment 12 of Amendment 0006?

Answer:

No. The government is proactively contacting PPQ respondents to ascertain any updates to the previously submitted PPQs which were on‐going on 28 Sep 2010. Provided the POC responds, the period of performance considered will be adjusted for work validated through 28 Sep 2011.

Question_Number: 92

Reference:

M3.4 Recency

Question:

Section M, paragraph M3.4 indicates "An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Only that portion of the performance that has been performed during that window, to include any performance that continues through 28 September 2011 will be evaluated. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. " The past performance questionnaire indicates "NOTE: ONLY PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT

COVERS WORK PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR SHOWN IN PARAGRAPH “A” ABOVE FOR

PERFORMANCE BETWEEN 28 SEP 2007 – 28 SEP 2011." Please confirm that past performance that is ongoing or past performance performed during the period 28 Sep 2007 through 28 Sep 2011 (i.e. during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation) is considered recent for this proposal.

Answer:

In order to be determined recent, some portion of the work must have been performed during the 3 year window, 28 Sep 2007 ‐ 28 Sep 2010. The date on the PPQ allows the government to evaluate performance that began within the 3 year window which continued past 28 Sep 2010 up to 28 Sep 2011.

Question_Number: 93

Reference:

Section L5.1.1.2,…