RFP_QAs_24_Mar_(2).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8773-15-R-8007
About this file
Final Q As to the RFP
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
PWS
| Reference | Question | Answer | Actions Required |
| PWS Section 3.4.1; Appendix 6 | Why are you requiring 75% of personnel to obtain MCSA (Windows |
Server 2012) certification if they are never going to utilize that knowledge in any way. This drives the costs up due to having to hire a more senior technician than what is really needed and will increase turnover because the more senior person will not be performing senior level tasks and will leave
| to go do so somewhere else. | The Government requires a capability at the APCs to load, restore, and enable remote management of operating systems. The IAFNOS PWS Section 3.4.1 is updated with tasks that require MSCA Windows Server 2012 and the certification requirement in Appendix 6 is reduced to 40%. | PWS v1.2 and App 6 v1.2 is updated with the following changes. | |
| PWS Appendix 3 | Are the Approx 2,000,000 change requests and incident ticket numbers in Appendix 3 - Workload representative of all tickets AFNET Enterprise wide, to include those tickets that are worked and solved at the tier-0 and tier-1 levels? | The number of change requests and incident tickets in Appendix 3 is indicative of the number of tickets processed by each area in the PWS per year and does not necessary show every request or ticket for the AF Enterprise. | |
| PWS Appendix 3 | Are the change requests and incident ticket numbers in Appendix 3 - Workload representative of only those tickets that have been escalated from Tier-0 and Tier-1 to the 690 COG ? | Yes, this is the estimated workload the contractor is expected to address. | |
| PWS Appendix 3 | Will the Government provide the percentage of the expected ticket count by % of tickets assigned to Tier 0, Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3? | The Government provided the estimated workload by PWS Section to allow the offerors to address each section. The requests and tickets in Appendix 3 mostly represent Tier 2 requests and tickets. | |
| PWS Appendix 3 & 4 | To enable the offerors to most effectively size the work force in order to properly staff the INOSC/ESUs will the Government provide the current daily ticket volume per AFNET base? | The Government initiated a queue system within EITSM that enables contractors to work tickets from across the Enterprise. The Government expects offerors to distribute their workforce evenly between Langley and Peterson AFB based on the staffing limitations identified in Appendix 4. The Government recommends that offerors use data from Appendix 3 to size their workforce. The base from which tickets originate is not relevant when ticket resolution occurs at the locations identified in Appendix 4. | |
| RFP Question and Answers posted on 24 March 2015, PWS Tab, Row 7 | Q&A, PWS tab, row 7 – it is indicated there were 60 positions per shift @ Langley and 40 positions per shift @ Peterson. The workload data provided by the Government in Appendix 3 indicates a requirement that exceeds the number of positions available. Does the Government have a solution? Or, is the Government looking for a recommendation from the contractor? |
The contractor is expected to develop a staffing solution that meets the requirements in the PWS, and Appenidx 3 and 4 of the PWS. By the Government's calculations the number of personnel per shift will not exceed 40 persons based on workload data provided in Appendix 3.
RFP
| Reference | Question | Answer |
| The government has stated in the Q&A (released 24 March 15) that “Government will accept PPQs up to the closing date, however, we would prefer to receive them by the revised PPI due date of 8 April 2015”. In amendment 2 – Attachment 5 (PPQ Cover Letter) states “IAFNOS’ schedule is extremely tight and the 38th Contracting Squadron appreciates your written response no later than 30 March 2015”. | Can we update the letter to use the revised PPI due date “IAFNOS’ schedule is extremely tight and the 38th Contracting Squadron appreciates your written response no later than 27 April 2015, however, we would prefer to receive them by the revised PPI due date of 8 April 2015”? | A revised letter was posted on 26 Mar 2015 |
| A question and answer released as part of Amendment 2 states “Question: 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: Yes, the prime contract value would be applicable.” | Please clarify what portion of a prime contract a subcontractor is executing can be claimed as relevant. Is it only the portion of the prime contract the subcontractor is performing, or the total value of the prime contract? For example, if a subcontractor is performing with one FTE valued at $100K on a $10M prime contract, can the subcontractor claim $10M as their contract value to meet the relevance criteria or only the $100K portion they are performing? If the answer is the subcontractor can claim the full prime contract value, it appears that could provide an unfair advantage to a company that is clearly not responsible for execution on a high value contract. | Correction from previous Q&As: To determine relevancy a contractor can only claim work they performed. |
| We have reviewed on the latest amendment that the PPQ Cover Letter was edited to remove the watermark. However the date on the Cover Letter still reads a due date of no later than 30 March 15. This contradicts the other statements in the amendment indicating that date to be 8 Apr 15. Could you please advise on which document holds the true due date? | A revised letter was posted on 26 Mar 2015 | |
| Per the Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter (Attachment 5) of the referenced solicitation, released with Amendment 0001 on 24 March 2015, Past Performance Questionnaires are due back from our references No Later Than 30 March 2015; However, the due date for PPI was extended to 08 April 2015. | Per the Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter (Attachment 5) of the referenced solicitation, released with Amendment 0001 on 24 March 2015, Past Performance Questionnaires are due back from our references No Later Than 30 March 2015; However, the due date for PPI was extended to 08 April 2015. | A revised letter was posted on 26 Mar 2015 |
| Amendment 0001 provided a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter in Attachment 5. The due date in the letter reads 30 March 2015. Will the government please confirm that the past performance questionnaire which is part of the Part I: Present/Past Performance Information volume is due 8 April 2015? | Yes, the past performance questionnaire is due 8 Apr 2015. A revised letter was posted on 26 Mar 2015 | |
| FAR 9.104-1(a) requires the contractor to have adequate financial resources to perform the contract while FAR 9.104-1(b) requires the contractor to comply with the delivery and performance of the program with adequate resources and financial backing. How will the Air Force require the WOSB demonstrate financial responsibility for a potential $254M effort? | Contractors will be evaluated IAW DFARS 209.104-1 | |
| Section L. F. PART III – PRICE PROPOSAL, section 6. | ||
| It is not an issue to provide this information for the prime. However, it is not possible to provide this information in the proposal for the teammates/subcontractors. They will not provide this information to the prime since it is sensitive company proprietary information. Options are: 1) provide this information for the prime only, 2) provide it for the teammates via sealed packages to accompany the proposal, 3) provide it for the teammates via sealed packages mailed directly to the Government. Please advise. | ||
| Subcontractor information can be submitted via sealed packages to accompany the proposal or provide it directly to the government; if submitted directly it must be received by the closing date. | ||
| Section L. D. PART I - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, Subfactor 2, Transition | ||
| For purposes of the transition schedule, what date should we assume transition begins? | 28-Sep-15 | |
| What is the contract award notification date? This may or may not be the same as the Transition-In start date, the PWS or previous Q&As do NOT specify. Transition-In start is Sept 14, 2015 as noted within the Q&A. | 28-Sep-15 | |
| On what date will the government make available materials, office space, system access, etc…to the contract award recipient? For example, will it be at award date, transition start date, or some other date? | The Government provided items will be available at Transition Start Date. The Government provided material, office space, system access etc. will be shared with the incumbent during the transition period. | |
| 1. Please confirm that the following are the proposal deliverables required by the Government. |
Part I – Technical Proposal
• Original + Copy 1 + 5 additional copies = 7 binders containing Part I information
• One CD in the Original copy containing Parts I, II, III, IV and all PPI tools
• A second CD in the Original copy containing the IAFNOS Labor Matrix
• All Part I submissions are due 27 April 2015
| Correct | |
| Part II – Past Performance Information |
• Original + Copy 1 + 7 additional copies = 9 binders containing Part II information
• One CD in the Original copy containing Parts I, II, III, IV and all PPI tools
• A second CD in the Original copy containing the IAFNOS Labor Matrix
• The 7 additional copies (copies 2-8) are due on 8 April 2015
• Original + Copy 1 and both CDs are due 27 April 2015
• Questionnaires are due on 8 April 2015, although the Government will accept until 27 April 2015
| Correct | |
| Part III – Price Proposal |
• Original + Copy 1 = 2 binders containing Part III information
• One CD in the Original copy containing Parts I, II, III, IV and all PPI tools
• A second CD in the Original copy containing the IAFNOS Labor Matrix
• All Part III submissions are due 27 April 2015
| Correct | |
| Part IV – Contract Documentation |
• Original + Copy 1 = 2 binders containing Part IV information
• One CD in the Original copy containing Parts I, II, III, IV and all PPI tools
• A second CD in the Original copy containing the IAFNOS Labor Matrix
• All Part IV submissions are due 27 April 2015
| Correct | ||
| 1. Section L.-1.E.7 (Organizational Structure Change History). Does the Government require a statement from only the prime contractor or statements from each team member? | This information is required for all team member | |
| Q&A, RFP tab, line 44: Will the Government consider providing evaluation criteria or clarification regarding applicable “extensive experience”? | The term "extensive experience" was used by an offeror not the government so the government can not define what they meant. However, there is a correction to the original response. Correction from previous Q&As: To determine relevancy a contractor can only claim work they performed. | |
| • Amd 0001 M-1 B.4.a.(3)(c)i Performance Confidence Assessment. The text states: |
o In evaluating confidence, Integrated Network Operations and Security Center (I-NOSC) is the most important area, followed by Enterprise Service Unit (ESU), Operations and Mission Area Support and AMAC all three being approximately equal and Area Processing Center (APC) being the least important.
The previous requirement listed AFIN and AMAC separately. Please confirm that AMAC includes AFIN.
| Yes, the "A" in AMAC stands for AFIN | ||
| Q&A, RFP tab, row 8 – Will the Government be amending the Sec L to include the requirement to address the PWS in its entirety? And if so, would the Govt consider increasing the page count for Part I to 100 pages to account for this additional material being addressed? | Correction from previous Q&As: The technical proposal should only address the subfactors in Sec L | |
| L-1.D.3.a Subfactor 1 specifies that the Staffing/Management approach shall not include employee names or resumes. Please clarify if this means that names are not required or if names are not allowed ( i.e., naming the personnel that will be involved in contract transition or providing an organization chart to show management staff that will be supporting the effort). | Names are not required | |
| Amd 0001 L-1.E.1 – Past Performance volume - The requirement is to include a cross-reference matrix identifying the PWS references and the team member(s) proposed to that function. Please clarify if it is the Govt’s intent for the entire PWS to be mapped to the team or just the Performance Requirements under PWS 3. What level of the PWS should the matrix reflect? | The offeror should address the lowest level in the PWS in the cross-reference matrix. | |
| Amd 0001 L-1.C.4 – Technical Proposal - The requirement if for the offeror to provide a cross-reference matrix indicating the PWS paragraph number and the corresponding proposal paragraph. What level of the PWS should the matrix reflect? | The offeror should address the lowest level in the PWS in the cross-reference matrix. | |
| Q&A, RFP tab, line 43 – Are subcontractors to provide salary information as part of the Compensation Plan, or will the Prime contractors information constitute a compliant response since the Govt contract will be with the Prime? If subcontractors are required to provide their salary information, can they submit that information as a sealed package directly to the Govt given that it is sensitive cost and pricing information? | Subcontractor information can be submitted via sealed packages to accompany the proposal or provide it directly to the government; if submitted directly it must be received by the closing date. | |
| The PPI tool for the subject RFP is not allowing me to SAVE after I enter the Current End Date of the Period of Performance. Do you have a help-desk or support center to assist with this problem? I’ve tried to input different dates and it is still not allowing me to save to move to Printing the Report. | The tool looks like it is not accepting the date but all the |
contractor has to do is press the Save button. Again it will appear that it is not accepting the date but then have the contractor press the Close button. A system message may appear asking if they want to save, select Yes (or OK).
| 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? | Both the DD Form 1423s and the DD 254 should be returned with the applicable information filled-0ut |
| RFP Sect. L-1.C.1 Number of Copies/Page Limitations and L-1.F Part III-Price Proposal. Does the government want subcontractor pricing to be submitted by sealed package? | Subcontractor information can be submitted via sealed packages to accompany the proposal or provide it directly to the government; if submitted directly it must be received by the closing date. |
| FBO.gov shows that Amendment 1 was issued on March 13. This amendment was not accompanied by an SF 30 form. How should offerors confirm acceptance of this amendment? Will an SF 30 be issued for this amendment? | |
| FBO.gov shows the latest amendment, issued on March 23, as Amendment 2. The SF 30 for that amendment identifies it as Amendment 1. Will the Government provide a corrected SF 30 for this amendment or otherwise clarify how offerors are to confirm acceptance of this amendment to distinguish it from the earlier Amendment 1. | There is only one Amendment to the SF33. When the government corrected a posting error on 13 Mar 15, it inadvertantly was shown as an amendment versus an update. |
| Amendment 1 revised the SF 33 Section B CLINs. Does the Government plan to issue Section B revision pages to be filled in and submitted with our final proposal? | The only pricing document required to be filled out is the Attachment 2 Pricing Table. |
| Amendment 2 Q&As RFP Tab Line 44 - - The answer to this question is confusing in that it appears to indicate an offeror (prime or subcontractor) could claim the value of past performance it did not perform themselves. Please clarify the following "Section M Evaluation Factors and Subfactors Step 2: Assess performance confidence for each offeror” means for an offeror, prime or subcontractor, to be rated Relevant or Somewhat relevant on its past performance that entity must meet ALL corresponding requirements in the final Relevancy matrix. A subcontractor would NOT be able to claim annual dollar value for the prime contract holders program value. Below Is the Q&A in question. | Correction from previous Q&As: To determine relevancy a contractor can only claim work they performed. |
| The SF30 released with Amendment 2 still states Amendment 001, could the government please provide a corrected SF30 | There is only one Amendment to the SF33. When the government corrected a posting error on 13 Mar 15, it inadvertantly was shown as an amendment versus an update. |
| Will the Government be updating the final solicitation with tracked changes and change bars so there is one final solicitation for offeror’s to respond to. Being that there is a cross reference matrix (CRM) required with the proposal it would be extremely complex task for all bidders to have to map multiple documents into the CRM. It also poses a huge compliance risk for bidders as they are preparing their responses as proposals are based on responding to the final solicitation documents. | The Government did not provide track changes between the draft RFP documents and the RFP documents posted on 13 Mar 15. However, the revised documents posted in association with amendments have a black line on the left side of the page indicating the changed area or if unable to annotate with a change line, the change is described in the description of the amendment. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .