3_Apr_Q As.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8773-15-R-8007
About this file
Final Q As for IAFNOS 3 Apr 15
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 63 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
Q&A
| Reference | Question | Answer |
| The 690th COG appears to be a worldwide organization. I know the headquarters is based at Lackland Air Force Base, however we need to know all the sites that will be required to be covered as part of this contract. We also need to understand which sites require a physical presence and which sites can be covered remotely. | The contract covers all Air Force locations. All physical locations are listed in Appendix 4 of the PWS. | |
| Security clearance: Given that this is for a cyberspace operations group we need to make sure we understand how many of our employees will be required to have a secret security clearance and how many might need a top secret security clearance. It will be very challenging to ensure all of our employees have a security clearance if this is a large number of employees. However if we are managing this at the higher level than renewal of security clearances will be an issue we have to make sure we calculate into the proposal. If we need to hire people with security clearance and then going out to the soldiers coming off active-duty and airman coming off that we can probably get a lot of the right type of people with the right type of clearance. | The PWS posted with Amendment 0001 eliminated the requirement for Top Secret Clearances; all employees must have a secret security clearances. | |
| Do we know if we are standing this up as a contract for the first time or are we taking over a contract from someone else? If we are standing up for the first time it could be very complicated to do if we do put together the right team. If were taking over from another contractor then transition will be a key issue. | This requirement is a consolidation of three current contracts | |
| In the solicit solicitation document there's an appendix 64 certifications matrix. How common are these types of certifications for non-military personnel? | They should be common for non-military personnel since they are all industry certifications. | |
| The planned Industry Day was cancelled and the time available to industry to respond to the solicitation was compound by the solicitation being released earlier than anticipated? | There is no question to answer | |
| 1. Reference Document: Amendment 2 RFP, Section L paragraph E.1 states: 1. General. Each offeror shall submit Past Performance Information (PPI) no later than 1:00 PM CT 8 Apr 15 IAW the format contained in Attachment 6 of the RFP. This early submission shall include the seven copies outlined above in paragraph C.2. | Please clarify, is the Government requesting that we submit the EZ Tool Access database hard copies and CDs on 8 April, and the rest of Part II - PPI (cross-reference matrix, New Corporate Entities, consent letters, etc.) hard copies/CDs on 27 April? | The Government would like the complete Part II to be submitted by 8 Apr; however they will be accepted up to the closing date |
| 2. If one of our teammates or subcontractors will not be submitting a past performance for review; Are we required to include them in the EZ….as a part of the business relationships? | Yes, in order for the percentages to equal 100% | |
| 3. If one of our teammates or subcontractors will not be submitting a past performance for review; Are we required to include them at all in the EZ….? | Yes, in order for the percentages to equal 100% | |
| Reference to row 44 Q&A on RFP worksheet in QAs_24Mar15 | This Q stated "If an offeror is a subcontractor on a program and has extensive experience working on that program for many years, and the prime contractor's annual contract value is over $8M but the Offeror's (subcontractor) annual value is below $8M - can we use the prime contractor annual value as "Relevant" criteria?" Answer given was, "yes the prime contract value would be applicable". How can the previous effort performed by an offeror that served as a subcontractor be cited using their prime's value be established for the relevancy and performance under IAFNOS. Believe this was stated erroneously, as this would allow any offeror submitting a past performance under IAFNO serving as a subcontractor to claim credit on any prior contract performed by another contractor, was this your intent? | Correction from previous Q&As: To determine relevancy a contractor can only claim work they performed. |
| Reference to row 44 Q&A on RFP worksheet in QAs_24Mar15 | How can the Government specifically assess a subcontractor’s ability to perform work IAW the IAFNOS PWS when that subcontractor uses their prime contractor’s annual value as a relevancy factor? | Correction from previous Q&As: To determine relevancy a contractor can only claim work they performed. |
| Reference to row 44 Q&A on RFP worksheet in QAs_24Mar15 | If the government is allowing a Past Performance submission one submits while performing as a subcontractor to use the prime value on that specific past performance to qualify for a relevancy factor on IAFNOS, how does the government effectively evaluate their ability to meet the thresholds of the relevancy factors when it was another vendor that meets the requirements? Seems this opens the door for a sub to misrepresent work and relevancy when one should only evaluate the level and scope of work performed by that offeror while as the subcontractor. | Correction from previous Q&As: To determine relevancy a contractor can only claim work they performed. |
| PWS 4.2 | Transition Period. PWS states the contractor keep the government apprised of transaction activities during day 1 to day 59. Is it correct to assume that prime’s contractual responsibility and performance does not commence until day 60? | Due to the holidays the transition period is currently from 28 Sep 2015 to 30 Nov 2015 therefore the new contractor would be responsible starting 1 Dec 2015 |
| PWS 4.2 | Given above, will the government allow awardee’s incoming personnel to operate and manage devices prior to day 60? | No, since the incumbents will be responsible until transition has ended |
| PWS 4.2 | Transition Period. In order to properly plan and coordinate the most effective transition possible with the outgoing incumbent contractors, can the government provide the Transition Out plans for the current incumbent contracts (ENSA, AFIN, and ESD Contracts)? | There are no current Transition Out plans |
| PWS 4.2 | Are the three incumbent contractor Transition Out plans still applicable in scope and timelines? | There are no current Transition Out plans |
| Sect L Part II | Would the Government consider to modify the PP submission requirement into two parts to allow time for formatting and shipping the hardcopy requirement? |
Recommend the following separate PP submissions:
a. 8 April – Complete entry into the online PPI tool
b. 13 April – Receipt of Part II PP Vol hardcopy binders
| The Government would like the complete Part II to be submitted by 8 Apr; however they will be accepted up to the closing date | ||
| Last Q&A, row 8 referenced L-1.B.2 regarding compliance with the requirements of the entire PWS and the comment was stated that “The technical proposal should address the PWS in its entirety; however the proposal will only be evaluated IAW Section M” this is confusing as to what you are asking for the offerors to address in the page restricted proposal response. Please specifically clarify expectations and update the ITO. | Correction from previous Q&As: The technical proposal should only address the subfactors in Sec L | |
| In addition to above the ITO states, “:Offeror responses will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide the actual methodology the offeror will use to accomplish/satisfy these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By submitting its proposal, the offeror represents that its firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for the offeror to tell the Government so in its proposal.” This contradicts the previous comment and is looking for only the ITO and Section M, is this correct? | Correction from previous Q&As: The technical proposal should only address the subfactors in Sec L | |
| Exhibit A of the original citation contained the DD Form 1423-1 CDRLS. Attachment 7 of the original citation contained attachments to the DD Form 254. Would the Government please clarify which documents Offerors need to submit to comply with the instructions in L-1G.1 Section J – List of Attachments? | The Offerors should submit the DD Form 254, the 1423-1 CDRLS, the pricing table and the IAFNOS Labor Matrix | |
| Are subcontractors required to submit a sealed package? | If subcontractors do not want to provide the prime the information required for the Professional Compensation Plan they can provide the prime a sealed package with this documentation or they can submit the documentation directly to the Government. It must be received by the closing date. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .