Final RFP Industry Questions Answers - 20120723.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Pre-Solicitation Conference (Industry Day)
- Solicitation number
- FA8823-12-R-0004
About this file
GCS Responses to Comments Received from Potential Offerors
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 118 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
Sheet1
| Item # | Section/Source | Paragraph | Page | Question: | Government Response: |
| 1 | Attachment 2 and Bidders Library | All | The PWS on page 2 specifically states that “The scope of this contract does not include LADO”; however, on the first tab of file "GFE_BMOSC_GSF_TSTS_06202012 for BL.xlsx" (copied for use as Attachment 2) there are listed 187 LADO items, 4 LADOBU items and 114 LADOTR items. Please confirm that it is now the Government's intent that these 305 LADO items are to be maintained as part of the OCS work scope. | No. All references to LADO equipment are incorrect. Those pieces of equipment will be maintained and sustained on a different contract. The GFE list in the RFP will be amended to remove all LADO items. | |
| 2 | Bidders Library | NA | File "IIF Contract Attachment 6A.doc" concerns the space segment. As such, is it safe to assume the Ground Control Segment Sustainment contractor will not be required to use/maintain anything related to this document or other Bidder's Library documents that concern the space segment tools and infrastructure? | Correct. The Bidder's Library is a repository for informational purposes provided to assist the potential offeror in the view of the work required to accomplish the contract. If the potential offeror does not believe a particular file or piece of information is of value in their preparation, then they may feel free to disregard. | |
| 3 | Attachment 3 | 8 | Table 2 of Attachment 3 lists monthly T1 line leases from Colorado Springs to both Huntington Beach, CA and Gaithersburg, MD. These appear to be lines between incumbent contractor facilities and incumbent contractor and subcontractor facilities. Please confirm that it is the Government’s intent and requirement that the successful contractor, if other than the incumbent, maintain these same T1 lines. If so, is the Government specifying the use of Sprint or are alternative carriers permissible? | No. The lines from Colorado Springs, CO to Gaithersburg, MD will not be maintained under this contract. The Government will update Attachment 3 to delete the references to the Gaithersburg connections. The Government will publish an amended Attachment 3. The Government expects the line from Colorado Springs, CO to Huntington Beach, CA to be maintained by the successful contractor. The Government will not specify which carrier the contractor employs for this circuit. | |
| 4 | Section B | 2-12 | With respect to CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002, and 5002 the statement is made “The estimated annual value of this CLIN (including all ODCs) is $3M ($3,000,000.00)”. Please confirm that it is now the Government’s intent that all bidders use this as a Government stipulated price for the aforementioned CLINs and that such figure is to be entered by all bidders for those CLINs in section B. | Correct. | |
| 5 | Section M | Paragraph 2.1.4.1 | 9 | Please confirm that the cost type CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002, and 5002 are not included as part of the Total Evaluated Price. | Correct. |
| 6 | Section M | Paragraph 2.1.4.2 | 9 | How does the Government intend to use the price reasonableness evaluation performed pursuant to this paragraph when paragraph 2.1.4.1 of Section M states that the total evaluated price is the price proposed by the offeror? | Price reasonableness is addressed as stated in Section M, Paragraph 2.1.4.2.1. |
| 7 | Section B | 11 | Please explain the purpose of CLIN 5005 as there is very little descriptive data. Is this intended to be a placeholder for options beyond option year 5 (also see Section I, FAR 52.217-9(c) which appears to limit the contract to 6 years total)? Lastly, are bidders to propose any pricing for this CLIN or are we directed to leave it blank? | Section L, paragraph 3.3.5 clearly states the potential offeror is to fill out Section B and Table 2, GCS Proposed Pricing, for all options, to include CLIN 5005. The descriptive data for CLIN 5005 references FAR 52.217-08 which provides for up to six months extension. | |
| 8 | CDRL A013 | NA | Please provide all current ATO and IATO dates applicable to GCS. | Agreed. The Government will provide current ATO and IATO dates applicable to GCS and post to FBO; however, as stated during previous question and answer sessions those dates may change multiple times prior to contract award. | |
| 9 | ATT 3 |
Section L ATT 3
Paragraph 2.11.2.3 5,12
| These pages in Attachment A require an estimated cost for specific CDRL items; however, all data and reports CLINs in Section B are designated “NSP”. Does the Government still require cost data on Attachment 3 if the purpose of Attachment 3, as stated, is to identify the rights that the US Government will acquire? | Yes. All costs for CDRLs should be part of CLIN XXX1 series. | ||||
| 10 | Section L | General | NA | Will the Government allow contractors to engage Ogden ALC to participate in their proposal development (beyond provision of their labor rates and review/execution of SPA, PA, and IA)? | That is up to the Ogden ALC. Ogden ALC should be treated no differently than any other subcontractor for this effort. |
| 11 | Section L | Paragraph 3.1.4 | 9 | What does the Government consider to be the difference between the small business participation plan and the small business subcontracting plan? Aren’t these supposed to be one and the same? | In response to a solicitation requiring the submission of a subcontracting plan (above $650K), all offerors (with the exception of small businesses and those large businesses who are participants in the DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan (CSP) Test Program) must submit either a master plan with goals for the instant procurement or an individual plan for the instant procurement. Small businesses are exempt while those in the CSP submit a copy of that document which is negotiated annually with the DCMA. The CSP consolidates all the performance data across the participant's entire suite of DoD contracts. Whereas the individual and master plans provide requirement-specific data on how well the prime is meeting his/her small business participation obligations, the CSP does not. To obtain this type information, the DoD has implemented use of the "participation" plan. There are no prohibitions from requesting this information from small businesses and those in the CSP. The information provided is basically the same. In fact, the numbers in the subcontracting plan, should be mirrored in the participation plan. Whereas only large business is required to provide a subcontracting plan (whether it be of the Individual, Master or CSP variety), when implemented, ALL offerors (regardless of size) must submit a participation plan. |
| 12 | Section M | Paragraph 2.1.4.1 | 9 | In the response to DRFP Question 193, the Government stated the following “The Government intends to evaluate the offeror's plan to transition those requirements as outlined in PWS 3.8; however, any transition costs associated with the potential move of those assets is not evaluated as part of the Total Contract Value.” Review of the final RFP in Section M, Paragraph 2.1.4.1 indicates that there is no provision to remove transition costs proposed as part of the Section B, CLIN 0001 price and, therefore, such transition costs would end up being included as part of the Total Evaluated Price. Will the Government revise Section M to accommodate their intent to exclude transition cost from price evaluation as clearly stated in the response to DRFP Question 193? | All tasks in PWS 3.8 are for transition purposes only. The work associated with sustaining, maintaining and operating those assets are clearly defined in other task within the PWS. The potential offeror should not include the price associated with transition tasks in PWS 3.8 in their total evaluated price; however, for clarity the Government is expecting labor hours and an estimate price associated with PWS 3.8 as part of their phase-in plan and will not be evaluated. The Government will update Section L, paragraph 3.1.1 to read: "The Offeror shall provide a single integrated phase-in plan with schedule milestones that will be placed on contract as binding upon award. The plan shall address all phase-in requirements in the PWS as described below. The plan shall include labor hours and an estimated price for each transition task which may be put on contract after award." The Government will also update the descriptive data in section B to exclude PWS 3.8 from the total evaluated price and amend the RFP. |
| 13 | Section L | Table 1 (Volume Matrix) | 4 | Should the attachments listed after Volume IV, Price Volume be included at the end of Volume II, Technical? | Yes. The Government is adding clarification in the VM table to show which attachments are for the Technical Volume. |
| 14 | Section L | Paragraph 3.1.2.1 | 7 | This requirement directs the offeror to provide job requisitions. Please confirm that offerors may provide a single set of unique job requisitions in support of the entire list of PWS tasks (with each unique requisition provided only once). The alternative would result in the provision of many duplicate job requisitions for technical positions. Furthermore, what information does the Government require be provided within each individual requisition (e.g. position number, position title, required experience and education, etc.)? | Correct. The Government will accept job requisitions for each unique position only once if the potential offeror can meet the evaluation criteria outlined in Section M, paragraph 2.1.2.2. The Government will not dictate what information the potential offeror provides to prove they meet that criteria. The potential offeror can be as detailed as necessary to meet the requirements. |
| 15 | Section L | Paragraphs 3.1.3.6 through 3.1.3.10 | 8-9 | Attachment 3, when completed, will be 16 pages long. Is this to be included as part of the Technical Volume or as a 7th technical process approach attachment. In either case, will the page count be adjusted to accommodate addition of Attachment 3? | Thank you for pointing this out. First, this will be added to Section L, Table 1 - Volume Matrix, as an additional Technical Process Approach and the page limit will be updated to include these 16 pages. The Government will post an updated Section L to FBO. |
| 16 | PWS | Paragraph 3.4.6 | 21 | This states in part “Contractor will ensure problems accounted with ClearQuest are documented and corrected as needed”. Is this standard referring to all GCS PRs that are accounted for within the CQ database or to all problems encountered with the ClearQuest tool itself”? | Thank you for pointing this out. The Government will update the standard within PWS 3.4.6 to read: "Contractor will ensure problems encountered within ClearQuest are documented and corrected as needed" because this task was specific to maintaining the ClearQuest tool vice GCS system PRs. |
| 17 | Section L | Paragraph 2.8 | 3 | Format for proposal Parts II and III: Line spacing is not prescribed. Does the government want open text double-spaced? Can text in charts, tables and diagrams be single spaced with font size smaller than 12 point? | The Government will update Section L, paragraph 2.8.3 to provide clarification for the potential offeror. This update will include line-spacing expectations and font size regarding charts, tables and diagrams. The potential offeror must ensure legibility at all times. |
| 18 | PWS | Paragraph 2.8.7 | 5 | Language only requires ACA with Raytheon corporation. Is ACA required with Boeing and Lockheed SV contracts to obtain current CML and OOH information for GPS IIF and GPS III vehicle or will that data be delivered as GFP? | No. The Raytheon ACA is the only required ACA. Any other ACA(s) in which the potential offeror chooses to enter is at the discretion of the potential offeror. |
| 19 | Section L | Past Performance | Verbal Question via Telephone Call: Mr. Cournoyer was the PCO on a former contract. Should we send the questionnaire to him? | Yes. He will forward the questionnaire to a responsible party to provide the response. | |
| 20 | Section L | Table 1 (VM) 3.1.3.2 3.1.3.3 and answer to Question #19 | May we assume that you wish to have all plans as appendices to the technical volume: ? CTE Relocation, GA Test Asset Transition, GSIMS Transition, Personnel facilities, ClearQuest/ClearQuest transition, Configuration Mgt, Software Development, and EDLM/UDLM, Small Bus Contracting, SPA for GCS SW maintenance, PA for GCS SW maintenance, and Public-Private Implementation agreement | Yes. The Government is adding clarification in the VM table to show which attachments are for the Technical Volume. | |
| 21 | Section L | 3.2.4 | Is it correct to assume that the government desires the past performance letters of consent to be attached to the Past Performance Volume III rather than the Technical Volume II? | Yes. The Government will update the VM table to include this as an attachment. | |
| 22 | Section L | 3.1.3.6-3.1.3.10 | Can we assume that Attachment 3 is not considered part of the 50 page total for the technical volume? | This will be added to Section L, Table 1 - Volume Matrix, as an additional Technical Process Approach attachment and the page limit will be updated to include these 16 pages plus an additional 4 pages for contractor use. The Government will post an updated Section L to FBO as an amendment. | |
| 23 | Section L | 2.8.5.3 & Table 1 | Guidance from Section L Table 1 indicates a total page count for Volume III, Past Performance not to exceed 30 pages (10 x 3), but there is no provision for an introduction, a list of contracts, and rationale for relevancy, only individual PIF pages. Can the Offeror use content within the 30 pages of Vol III for an introduction and summary information on past performance citations? | Yes. The potential offeror can use the 30 pages as they see fit. 30 pages is a not to exceed number. | |
| 24 | Section L | 3.1.2.2 | Is the intent of the direction in 3.1.2.2 for us to state our process and plan for issuing contingency offers to GCS candidates and adhere to the intent of 52.222.46? | Yes. | |
| 25 | Section L | 3.1.4 Subfactor 4 | For the purposes of this submission, may we assume that the 20% small business based upon TCV is equivalent to the FFP CLIN x001? | Yes. | |
| 26 | Section L | 1.2; 3.1.3.6 | Regarding Attachment 3, Data rights, is it correct to assume that this attachment is part of the Executive Summary/Contracts Volume I? | No, it is an element of the technical volume. The Government has updated the VM table for clarity. | |
| 27 | Section L | 3.1.1 | Can the Gov clarify to what level "specific steps" is deemed acceptable? As an example, one cannot provide detailed steps such as disconnect W# from J# on equipment A# without engineering drawings. | The acceptable level of "specific steps" may be defined as that which is measurable proof that the offeror can provide distinctive and unmistakable evidence to execute the plan. | |
| 28 | Section L | 3.1 | May we assume that the technical risks requested is only applicable to Subfactors 1 through 3? | Yes. | |
| 29 | Section M | 2.1.2.1.3 | PWS 3.8.3 calls out that GSIMS will be moved in 5 or 15 calendar days rather than section M 30 or 60 days. Which is correct? | Section M 2.1.2.1.3 calls for a GSIMS transition plan within 30 or 60 days. PWS 3.8.3 calls for the actual transition period of GSIMS in 5 or 15 days. | |
| 30 | Section M | 2.1.2.3 | Can the Gov elaborate on the definition of what is considered acceptable "clear understanding" related to all plans? | "Clear understanding" may be defined as proof that the offeror can provide distinctive and unmistakable evidence to support the contract plans. It is up to the potential offeror to convince the Government in any means necessary they can meet this requirement. | |
| 31 | PWS | 2 | Can the Gov elaborate on what is meant by "All ambiguities in this PWS shall be construed against the contractor"? | The Government will remove this sentence as it is ambiguous and will publish an update PWS to FBO. | |
| 32 | PWS | 3.3.1 | Is it correct to assume that the reference to use TMO is for AMC flights only and any commercial flights may use the companies standard travel processes? | Yes. | |
| 33 | PWS | 3.4 | May we assume that all currently used licenses are grandfathered and approved regarding the text in paragraph 3.4? | Yes. | |
| 34 | Section L | 3.1.1 | Given that the RFP defines no potential or known ongoing activities that will run into 2013, our assumption is that the transition of any ongoing modifications and software release activities, if any, is not addressed within the requested phase-in plans. Is this a valid assumption? | Yes. | |
| 35 | PWS | 3.11.10 | Can the Government identify the product of preference? If so, please identify? | The current product being used is RETINA. An acceptable alternative may be chosen off of the SCAP product listing provide by DISA. However, the DOD may replace RETINA with NESSUS in the future. | |
| 36 | Section M | 2.1.2 | The rating guidelines for “Acceptable” and “Unacceptable” do not define the “acceptable” risk level. Please define acceptable risk. For example, is an acceptable risk level where the risk of unsuccessful performance is low or is it where the risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate (low/moderate as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 3)? | We will not define acceptable risk. It is defined as written in Section M. | |
| 37 | Attachment 3 | The costs for data rights are allocated to cost reimbursable CLINs and is not considered as part of the total evaluated price (FFP CLINs: At the total price proposed). Unlike COTS and sparing costs, data rights and their costs are potentially unique for each offeror. Therefore, we recommend the government include the data rights cost as part of the total evaluated price as the true indicator of offeror specific prices. | The costs for data rights are not part of the total evaluated price. The Government wants the information in Attachment 3 to validate our cost reimbursement estimate of $3M. | ||
| 38 | Section B | Will additional CLINS be added to the model contract post award to handle transition (PWS 3.8) and modifications (PWS 3.9 & 3.5.4) costs? | Yes, when applicable. | ||
| 39 | Section B | CLIN0001 | To have Section B consistent with response to Question 193 and as included in the option year x001 CLINS, we suggest the following be included in the CLIN0001 description: This period CLIN excludes PWS paragraph 3.8. | The Government will update the descriptive data in section B to exclude PWS 3.8 from the total evaluated price and amend the RFP. | |
| 40 | Attachment 4 | PP Questionnaire | The attachment doesn’t have a place to identify the Company or Contract ID. Can we add two lines page 1 of the questionnaire to include this information request? | Yes. | |
| 41 | Attachment 4 | Cover Letter | Can the email address for Mr. Rodney Houser be clarified as ending with a 1 (one) or an L? | The character in question is the number 1, not an alpha "l." | |
| 42 | PWS | 3.4 | 19 | As per PWS 3.4"The contractor shall ensure that there is no functionality in the reusable software component that would inhibit operation unless explicitly specified and approved by the Government. This provision includes, but is not limited to, the periodic need to enter in a license code or the presence of a physical key or similar device to enforce licensing conditions." Do all existing software products currently used on the program meet this requirement? 2. What process is in place to get Government approval should the need arise? | Yes. The process is for the contractor and Government software representatives to resolve any issues that arise. If the need arises for purchase, update or replacement of licenses this would be handled under the cost reimbursable part of the contract. |
| 43 | PWS | 2.8.1 | 9 | Section 2.8.7 of the PWS only lists Raytheon for ACA. The draft RFP had a longer list of ACA's called out. Is Raytheon the only one required? Does ACA need to be executed prior to contract award on upon contract award? What about agreements with other contractors to cover Boeing GPS IIF & IIA, and Lockheed Martin GPS IIR-M? Will those agreements be pursued in the future? | The Raytheon ACA is the only required ACA. Any other ACA(s) in which the potential offeror chooses to enter is at the discretion of the potential offeror. The ACA with Raytheon SHALL be in place no later than contract award. |
| 44 | PWS | 3.11.9 | 38 | As per the DRAFT RFP Q&A, 3.11.9 had two releases per year independent of the software releases in 3.4.5 is this still true? | Yes. |
| 45 | PWS | 3.7.2 | 28 | The standard for section 3.7.2 of the PWS indicates that the TAT2, MOW and Almanac PC in MOD 17A hardware and software must be consistent and compatible with providing a high fidelity replica of the existing operational system 100% of the time. Does the existing system meet these requirements? |
| Yes. | |||||
| 46 | Section L | 3.1.2.1 | Section L 3.1.2.1 states "Provide the job requisitions for the technical and management staff..." As per the Draft RFP Q&A, are the job requisitions required for Subfactor 2 still an attachment to the Technical Volume and not part of the 50 page technical volume? | Yes. The Government has updated the VM table to reflect these as attachments to the technical volume. | |
| 47 | Section L | 3.1.2.2 | Section L 3.1.2.2 States "Provide clear evidence (hiring procedures, retention statistics, contingency offers to potential employees, etc.) that demonstrates the Offeror has the ability to obtain the proposed staff to accomplish the skills required to perform all the tasks in the PWS." Does the Government wish the copies of the hiring procedures, retention statistics; contingency offers to potential employees, etc. attached as a new appendix to the Tech volume not covered by the page counts already defined? | Yes. The Government is adding clarification in the VM table to include additional attachments for critical staffing for the Technical Volume. | |
| 48 | Section L Section M | 3.1.3.10 2.1.2.3.6 | 9 | Section L 3.1.3.10 States "To ensure that the parties will maintain proper configuration control of all licenses throughout the performance of the resulting contract, the contractor shall create an “Appendix A‖ to GCS Attachment 3 with a separate tab for each vendor listed in Table 2." Is this an attachment to the Technical Volume or Model contract and doe this apply to the other tables required under Attachment 3? | The potential offeror should treat this as an attachment to the Technical Volume and follow the updated VM table for page counts. |
| 49 | Section L | 3.1.3.1 | 6 | SMC-S-012 Section 6.5 , Tailoring Guidance indicates that the standards and DIDs should be tailored to the specific requirements of a particular program, program phase, or contractual structure. It also states that care should be taken to eliminate tasks that add unnecessary costs and data that do not add value to the process or product. Will the government be providing tailoring guidance for SMC-S-012? Will the government accept suggested tailoring, will that be allowed? | |
| No, the Government has already provided tailoring guidance in the PWS. However, the Government will welcome any suggested tailoring from potential offerors up until 10 August 2012. The Government reserves the right to approve/disapprove any suggestions. | |||||
| 50 | Section L | 3.2.3 | 10 | Section l 3.2.3 states "If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, the Offeror shall provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past relevant contracts." Where Is this attachment to be placed ? | This attachment shall be placed as part of the Past Performance Volume. The Government will update the VM table to include this attachment. |
| 51 | General | As per the Q&A from the draft RFP, Can graphics, Tables, Job Descriptions, etc. still be as small as 8 point font? | The Government will update Section L, paragraph 2.8.3 to provide clarification for the potential offeror. This update will include line-spacing expectations and font size regarding charts, tables and diagrams. The potential offeror must ensure legibility at all times. | ||
| 52 | Section B | 2-10 | Section B has a reference to Clause H104. Did the Government intend to reference Clause H 102, Travel, Material, Licenses, Service Contracts, Warranties, and Subscription Services? | Thanks for pointing this out. The Government also recognized this discrepancy and will update the descriptive data for H002. | |
| 53 | Attachment 3 | 13 | Attachment 3, page 13, paragraph d. (2) refers to CDRL A019. Did the Government intend to reference CDRL A016, Software Release Packages rather than CDRL A019, Small Business Participate Report? | Thanks for pointing this out. The Government will update Attachment 3 will replace CDRL A019 with CDRL A016. | |
| 54 | H-8 | SMC-S-012 | SMC-S-012 Section 6, Schedules and activity network, of the SDP Template found in Appendix H of SMC-S-012 calls for a schedule identifying the activities in each build along with other activities. Would the government accept a reference to the sample schedule call out in section L & M as fulfilling this requirement? | Yes. | |
| 55 | PWS | 4.1 | 41 | PWS Section 4.1 System Safety states "… A draft version of Task 102 in accordance to DID-SAFT-81626 presented in contractor format shall be included with the proposal for review…" Is this attached to the Tech volume and a new attachment? | Yes. The Government has updated the VM table to reflect these as attachments to the technical volume. |
| 56 | Section M | 2.1.2.1 | Will the government clarify that the Phase-In activity begins at Authority to Proceed/Contract Start Date, not award date? | Yes. | |
| 57 | Section I | 29 | The H115 special OCI Clause was deleted from the Final RFP, but the AFFARS 5352.209-9000 ALT VI OCI provision "precludes" the Contractor "for the life of the 'system' from award of a DoD contract to supply the 'system' or any of its components." On its face, this SETA-like clause appears appropriate perhaps for the Government Technical Group, but not the Contractor or Subcontractors performing Operation & Maintenance work in the Control Segment, according to the PWS. The AFFARS OCI clause is also inconsistent with the DFARS 252.209-7009 (Dec. 2010) policy disfavoring avoidance. Further, 5352.209-9000(a)(1) defines the "system" as "the system that is the subject of this contract." Please define the term "system." Please also confirm that the Government does not define the term "system" to encompass the entire GPS enterprise, and that the Contractor would not be precluded from future GPS enterprise competitions in the Space, Control, or User Segments, upon an approved mitigation plan if required. | The Government will remove this AFFARS clause and amend the RFP. | |
| 58 | Section L | 4 | Section L, Table 1 Vol Matrix calls out the Small Business Plans and the PPP agreements to be submitted. Please clarify where this plan should be located. | Those shall be attachments to the technical volume. The Government will update the VM table to reflect this change. | |
| 59 | Section B | 11 | Can the government please clarify the intent of CLIN 5005 "Option to Extend Services" and define the POP and value that should be placed in the Total Item Amount column? | Section L, paragraph 3.3.5 clearly states the potential offeror is to fill out Section B and Table 2, GCS Proposed Pricing, for all options, to include CLIN 5005. The descriptive data for CLIN 5005 references FAR 52.217-08 which provides for up to six months extension. | |
| 60 | Section B | 2 | The government has provided an estimated annual value of $3M for the cost reimbursable basic ODC CLIN 002 and all follow on option ODC CLINs 1002 through 5002. If the contractor detail pricing produces a different amount, should that value or the Government estimate be utilized in the proposal response? | It is the Government’s intent that all bidders use $3M as a Government stipulated price for the aforementioned CLINs and that such figure is to be entered by all bidders for those CLINs in section B. | |
| 61 | Section M | 8 | Paragraph 2.1.4, Price Factor, indicates that the Government evaluation on price will only be against FFP CLINs. There could be a substantial variation of material/ODC estimates between bidders based on their understanding of the RFP requirements, program execution approach and each bidder's ability to obtain the lowest pricing for this program. Please provide the Government's rationale for not including the price estimate of material/ODCs as part of the basis of this LPTA award. | The Government decided to remove the ODC CLIN from the Total Evaluated Price because the Government must pay all reimbursables that the potential offeror incurs. The $3M is a Government estimate to be used by all potential offerors. | |
| 62 | Section L | As per the Q&A from the draft RFP, Can graphics, Tables, Job Descriptions, etc. still be as small as 8 point font? | The Government will update Section L, paragraph 2.8.3 to provide clarification for the potential offeror. This update will include line-spacing expectations and font size regarding charts, tables and diagrams. The potential offeror must ensure legibility at all times. | ||
| 63 | Section B | “The government has provided an estimated annual value of $3M for the cost reimbursable basic ODC CLIN 002 and all follow on option ODC CLINs 1002 through 5005. If the contractor detail pricing produces a different amount, should that value or the Government estimate be utilized in the proposal response?” | It is the Government’s intent that all bidders use $3M as a Government stipulated price for the aforementioned CLINs and that such figure is to be entered by all bidders for those CLINs in section B. | ||
| 64 | Bidders Library | While attempting to obtain License, Warranty, and Maintenance costs from the list provided by the Government in the Bidder’s Library, it was brought to our attention that additional data is required for some vendors to adequately cost said Licenses etc. Additionally, other vendors recognized that this was for GPS and indicated that the quantities aren’t accurate according to their current records. To expedite a compliant proposal response to the Final RFP, would the Gov consider allowing the $3M annual material allotment to be a plug number whereby all offeror’s bid the same $3M material cost? | It is the Government’s intent that all bidders use $3M as a Government stipulated price for the aforementioned CLINs and that such figure is to be entered by all bidders for those CLINs in section B. | ||
| 65 | Attachment 3 | Table 2 | Would the Gov consider that Table 2 of the Attachment 3, Data Rights be filled out within 30 days of contract award given one cannot currently obtain vendor quotes without all necessary data? | No. The Government would like for the potential offeror to fill out Table 2 as required. If the winning contractor has to update that information post contract award the Government and winning contractor will address the issue at that time. | |
| 66 | Section I | C | With respect to AFFARS 5352.209-9000, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCT 2010) - ALT VI (OCT 2010), from the Hill website, the text reads "Interim Change: see OCI Policy Memo 10-C-15." Is this the document we are to reference for OCI considerations rather than the Oct 2010 clause? | Yes. 5352.209-9000 will be removed from the amended RFP. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .