Pre-Proposal_Forum_Questions.docx

ITEM #

Is now posted in FBO as Attachment 5

2.

4.9.7 Attachment 6 to Volume I: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

4.9.7.1 “The Offeror shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan as Volume I, Attachment 3 that meets the requirements addressed in FAR 19.704 and 52. 219-9, as supplemented. If the Offeror has an approved master subcontracting plan (see FAR 19.704(b) and 52.219-(f)) or an approved comprehensive subcontracting plan (see DFARS 219.702), the Offeror shall submit a program specific addendum as Attachment 3 covering any additional information required by this solicitation. The addendum shall incorporate the master or comprehensive plan by reference and the Offeror shall include the master comprehensive plan as an attachment to Volume IV. If the offeror is a small business, no plan is required.”

Question: Please clarify if it is Attachment 6 or Attachment 3.

This should state “shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan as Volume I, Attachment 6”.

Question: The Section L references 2 documents and provides exhibit identification. But these document templates were not released with the final RFP. Can the government provide Exhibit D and Exhibit E for format and content requirements?

Changed Section M Para 5.1.4 to “This requirement is met when the offeror’s submitted Attachment 5, Small Business Subcontracting Commitment Document, as well as a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Attachment 6), if the offeror is a large business, meets or exceeds…”. Additionally, Identified that SubFactor 4 is submitted under Volume I and does not count towards overall page limitation.

Volume II, Table 3 is the Volume organization according to the solicitation. Will the Government confirm that it requires offerors to also provide Factor I – Past Performance (Volume III) as part of Volume II – Technical.

Past Performance is submitted under Volume III and will not be evaluated under Volume II. The Factor is identified for completeness and it is annotated to be in Volume III. No past performance information should be in Volume II.

PWS states when vacancy occurs the 30 day period begins (See PWS 6.1.1(5)).

The Draft RFP CRM Item 42 states that this issue was corrected in Section L, now para 4.9.7.1, but it reads the same.

As identified above Sub Factor 4 supporting documentation is submitted under Volume I and does not count towards overall page limitation in Volume II.

The Draft RFP CRM Item 51 states that 8 point font is fine for tables and graphics, Section L, para 3.2.2, but it reads the same.

Para 3.2.2 has been revised to allow 8 point font for tables/graphics and identifies Times New Roman as the correct font.

The Draft RFP CRM Item 54 states that the reference to Factor I – Past Performance has been removed from Table 3, but it reads the same.

Past Performance is submitted under Volume III and will not be evaluated under Volume II. The Factor is identified for completeness and it is annotated to be in Volume III. No past performance information should be in Volume II.

The Draft RFP CRM Item 56 states that the second “section 4” in L, para 7.1.1 would be changed to section 5, but it reads the same.

Revised, Cost Attachment should be Section 5.

The Draft RFP CRM Item 80 states that the second para 6.2.1.1 in L has been corrected, but it reads the same.

Corrected to read 6.2.1.3.

Para 4.8.7.2 Sec M Para 5.1.4

The Draft RFP CRM Item 13 states that the language in L and M were aligned, but they still read the same.

Both documents state 8% is the minimum requirement. Term goal was revised to read requirement.

Item P.

The Draft RFP CRM Item 86 states that WR-ALC was changed to SMC, but it reads the same.

Revised to read Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC)

As the FACTS sheet itself is over five pages long before any information has been added, is it the Government’s position that the FACTS and related information is effectively 8 pages?

The Relevance table instructions also allows two pages for the relevance table, making the information effectively 10 pages?

Given that past performance is the most important factor in the overall evaluation will the government consider removing the severe page limit restrictions and allow 12-15 pages for each FACTS Sheet and associated information?

1. Item 1, Nature of Business Area(s) involved. What is the difference between this area and paragraph J.1. Brief Description of Effort?

1. Item 2. Required Levels of Technology. What is the government looking for?

1. Item 3. Materials and Production Processes. Why is this being asked for a services contract? Is the government looking for something specific?

· In lieu of a Bachelors Degree, 4 additional years of experience or an Associates degree and 2 years of additional experience are required.

· In lieu of a Masters Degree, 6 additional years of experience or a Bachelors and 2 years additional experience is required.

Will revise PWS - Permitting combination of degree(s) and relevant experience. Experience values: Associates Degree = 2 years, Bachelor’s Degree = 4 years, Master’s Degree = 6 years

1. If a contractor is not going to get incentive fee for any other incentive fee criteria for a security violation then a single violation could deter reporting of a violation, and if a violation is adjudicated within the beginning of an option year it could deter the contractor from controlling costs for the remainder of the year. Would the government consider changing the security violation penalty from not forfeiting all available incentive fee to only forfeiting the security portion of the incentive fee pool for that period?

20.

Please provide an updated Section L.3.2.2 to reflect the response to item #27 of the Draft RFP Q&As, which states that Times New Roman is the required font type.

Please provide an updated Section L.3.2.2 to reflect the response to item #28 of the Draft RFP Q&As, which states that font type for tables and graphics is Times New Roman, and font size is no smaller than 8 point.

Please confirm that we can include a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms in the front matter of each volume.

Please provide an updated Section L.3.2.1 to reflect the response to item #36 of the Draft RFP Q&As, which states that the List of Tables is excluded from page limitations.

Please provide an updated Section L.3.2.6 to reflect the response to item #41 of the Draft RFP Q&As, which states that this requirement has been removed.