Q A 4 Aug 10.doc

CIMTIC III, FA9201-10-R-0001

RFP QUESTIONS/RESPONSES

4 AUG 10

1. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 4-5, Does the Government prefer the books to be labeled PART I, PART II, PART III, PART IV, as stated in Section L Table 2.1, on page 5 of 42, or Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, Volume IV as stated in Section L paragraph 1 on page 4 of 42?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government prefers the books to be labeled “Volumes” and will change all references from “part” to “volumes” in Table 2.1, Proposal Organization, Para 2.2 Electronic Offers and 2.3 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms.

2. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 5, Table 2.1, The page limit for Volume I is 60 pages, but from the May 18, 2010 responses to Industry Day questions the page limit was set at 65. Which page limit is correct, 60 or 65?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The page limit is 60.

3. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 5, 2.1.2 a, There is no line spacing requirement. Will the Government specify a requirement for line spacing?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government hereby specifies line spacing of 1.5.

4. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 8, Subfactor 5.3 TA-1 Staffing/Qualification/Experience, the subparagraph 5.3.1 references that the Contractor will need to address Government proposed key technical and management personnel, qualifications, experience, staffing and team members using the Attachment L-6, Key Personnel Format. Where are the resumes of key personnel (Attachment L-6) to be included in our response? Are the resumes included in the 60-page limit of the Technical Volume?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Resumes will still be presented in Volume I, but are hereby excluded from Volume I page count. The Government will revise the language on Page L-6, Para 2.1.2 (b) to include resumes.

5. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 8-11, 5.3 through 5.7, Section 5.3 through 5.7 is a combination of guidelines and evaluation criteria for subfactors TA-1, TA-2, TA-3, TA-4, and TA-5. Why are evaluation criteria presented in Section L when these same evaluation criteria are repeated in Section M – Evaluation Factors?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Noted. This was the Government’s intent.

6. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 8, Para 5.3.1 - The first paragraph references Attachment L-6, the format for key personnel qualifications (e.g. resumes). In previous CIMTIC RFPs, resumes were excluded from the page count. Without that exclusion it is difficult to present the necessary key personnel to demonstrate to the Government the required skill set to meet the criteria presented in Subfactor TA-1 within the required page limit for Volume I – Technical Proposal. I understand the Government may want to limit the number of resumes.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government agrees and hereby excludes the resumes from the page count total of Volume I. See page L-6 for change in verbiage. Resumes will still be limited to one page as stated in Attachment L-6. There is no limit to the number of resumes that the offeror may submit.

7. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 10, 5.6 Even though Section 2.2 states Subfactor TA-4, Sample Delivery Order Response shall be addressed only in Volume IV; it is still included as an item in the major topic outline listed in Section 5.2, with no statement that it will be sufficient to cross reference Volume IV in Volume I. There is concern whether or not any words should be written in Volume I concerning the Sample DO response.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Utilize cross reference matrix designated in Para 2.2.

8. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 11, Subfactor 5.7 TA-5- Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan (OCI): Is the OCI Mitigation Plan to be included in the Technical Volume as Section L indicates? Is the OCI mitigation plan included in the 60-page limit for the Technical Volume?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: OCI Mitigation Plan is not included in the 60-page limit for the Technical Volume. OCI plan may be submitted as an addendum 1 to the Technical volume. The Government will revise Table 2.1, Proposal Organization.

9. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 11, 6.1 If the offeror has teamed several times with a proposed CIMTIC III team member, how many past performance examples are required? With regard to first-time members, are not the contracts listed as past performance examples in the main section of the Volume II sufficient enough?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The contracts that will be listed as past performance examples in the main section of Volume II are sufficient.

10. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 13, 6.4, Instructions in Section 6.4 are unclear with regards to the number of past performance submissions required for the offeror and any subcontractors/teaming partners and what affect this requirement has on the total page count of the Past Performance Volume II. Can the Government clarify?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government will remove the word “each” before the word “subcontractor” in the second paragraph.

11. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 13, 6.5. There are concerns with Attachment L-2, as stipulated in Section 6.5. The intent of L-2 is to map the subfactors to each past performance contract listed in Volume II. There should be little problem mapping TA-1 and TA-2 to the contracts because that is showing experience and capabilities – exactly what the past performance examples should do. The problem is with the mapping for TA-3, TA-4, and TA-5.

1) How is it possible to map a past performance example to a DO process that will be proposed?

2) Why is the mapping even necessary since the Sample DO is only an example that will never be funded?

3) How is it possible to map the OCI for CIMTIC III to a past performance contract which will have had a different OCI clause under which the work was performed?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government agrees and will revise Attachment L-2 and L-3 to reflect the deletion of subfactors TA-3, TA-4, and TA-5.

12. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 14, 6.7.2, Questionnaires will be sent out for each past performance contract listed in Volume II to the POCs in each Attachment L-1. The Government will have all POC information through these Attachment L-1s. Is this sufficient to meet the instructions in 6.7.2?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The intent of 6.7.2 is to reinforce that the names of the points of contact providing past performance information are to be provided on Attachment L-1. The information provided in the Attachment L-1 is sufficient.

13. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 14, 6.7.2, The last sentence in 6.7.2 states, “This contract information should be included in the Administrative Data sheet.” Should “contract” be “contact”?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This was a typographical error. The word should be “contact”.

14. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 18, paragraph 7.5.2, , does the mapping described in section L paragraph 7.5.2 suggest that the contractor map their internal labor categories to the categories as stated in Attachment L-7?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes.

15. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 40, Attachment L-8, requires a total price by CLIN. It is the Government’s intent for offerors to duplicate the prices shown in Attachment L-7? Or is it the Government’s intent for the offerors to provide their estimation of the prices shown in Attachment L-7 divided among the three CLINs. Please provide guidance on how the CLIN prices should be calculated.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Attachment L-8 has been revised to reflect only the total evaluated price for each year. All verbiage regarding CLIN’s has been deleted. A revised Attachment L-8 will be posted.

16. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 40, Attachment L-8, Under each CLIN there is a statement that reads, “Total price of all labor categories at hours shown for each year from Cost Format B.” There seems to be an error in this statement in that Attachment L-8 is Cost Format B and this statement references itself. Should the statement refer to Cost Format A instead of Cost Format B?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The verbiage in the statement should refer to Cost Format “A” instead of B.

17. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Section L, page 40, Attachment L-8, There are no instructions provided in Attachment L-8 on how to divide the hours and categories by CLINs as required in the attachment.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Attachment L-8 has been revised to reflect only the total evaluated price for each year. All verbiage regarding CLIN’s has been deleted. A revised Attachment L-8 will be posted.

18. INDUSTRY QUESTION: There are some minor variations between the DIDs referenced in a CDRL (Contract Data Requirements List) and the sections in the Statement of Work (SOW). Listed below are the variations found:

1. DI-MGMT-80368 was listed in CDRL A004 and DI-MGMT-80368A was listed in section.

2. DI-MISC-80508A was listed in CDRL A005 and DI-MISC-80508B was listed in sections.

3. DI-TMSS-80527A was listed in CDRL A006 and DI-TMSS-80527B was listed in sections.

4. DI-NDTI-80566 was listed in CDRL A007 and DI-NDTI-80566A was listed in sections.

5. DI-NDTI-80603 was listed in CDRL A008 and DI-NDTI-80603A was listed in sections.

6. DI-IPSC-814430A was listed in CDRL A017 and DI-IPSC-81430A was listed in sections.

7. CDRL A011 DI-MGMT-81024 did not list 3.30 reference*

8. CDRLs B001 & B002 did not list 3.26.1 reference

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government will update CDRL’s to match Statement of Work. *Note: The Government does not understand the discrepancy listed in Item #7.

19. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Since this is a firm fixed price contract, provide rationale for the requirement for a Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR), CDRL A029, DI MGMT 81468. The DID states the contractual application of the referenced DI-MGMT 81468 CFSR “will not be applied to firm fixed price contracts (as defined in FAR 16.202) unless unusual circumstances require specific funding visibility.”

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Noted. This CDRL will remain in case it is needed.

20. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Based on the type contract being Firm Fixed Price, will the invoicing to the Government by the contractor is based on progress payments/milestone payments?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: There are no progress payments or milestones associated with this effort.

21. INDUSTRY QUESTION: Does the government intend for the suspense of the submittal of Delivery Order proposals be in units of calendar days or working days?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government stated in this RFP “calendar days” for submission of delivery order proposals (see paragraph 2.1 of Attachment 3, Delivery Order Procedures).