ARES III - Final RFP QandA no 2.pdf

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Final RFP Question and Answers no.2

1. Reference: RFP, Section L, para 7.3.5.2

Feedback/Question: Per the response to Question #14 (from ARES III – Final RFP QandA), Non-Disclosure Agreements will not be required with submission of a response to the FRFP. In the updated FRFP document, section

7.3.5.2 was not changed. Will you remove the requirement from the FRFP to submit Non-Disclosure Agreements in Volume V Contract Documentation?

Response: The paragraph 7.3.5.2 has been removed and is now held in reserve.

2. Reference: RFP, Section L, para 7.1.5

Feedback/Question: The OCIMP is to be in accordance with AFMCFARS 5352.209-9003. Will you provide the full text of this clause on the solicitation site in FedBiz Opps?

Response: The AFMCFARS 5352.209-9003 has been changed to AFFARS 5352.209-9001. Para 7.1.5 in Section L has been changed from “7.1.5 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan (MP) Offerors are required to submit an OCIMP in accordance with AFMCFARS 5352.209-9003 as part of the Contract Documentation Volume.” to “7.1.5 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan (MP) Offerors are required to submit an OCIMP in accordance with AFFARS 5352.209-9001 as part of the Contract Documentation Volume.”

3. Reference: ARES III Final QandA Response, Section L, Attachment L-3

Feedback/Question: In the Final RFP Q&A Response, Question 3 indicates that Paras G and J are being moved to the end of Attachment L-3. In the Final RFP Amendment, paras H and J were moved. This creates some duplication as outlined below:

• Attachment L-3 Paragraph H in the amended final RFP addresses all technical/risk Subfactors, including scenarios.

• Paragraph M addresses applicability to the SOW, including language that is relevant under the program management Subfactor (overcome problems).

• This creates significant overlap between the 2 paragraphs in technical (SOW) and program management areas.

We suggest using:

• Paragraph H to address technical/risk “Subfactors 2-4 (Program Management, Subcontract Management, Personnel Recruiting and Retention) and adding the requirement for examples of “problems overcome” from Paragraph M.

• Paragraph M to addresses the citations applicability to the SOW paragraph 3.3 Research and Development Technologies Areas, while deleting the text on “problems overcome”.

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Final RFP Question and Answers no.2

Response: We have changed Section H and M per your suggestion. The following paragraphs were revised in Attachment L-3.

H. For each of subfactors 2-4 under the Technical / Risk factor in Section M, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that subfactor. In addition, include the offeror’s ability to overcome past problems and the effect of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified as they pertain to the ARES III requirement.

M. Illustrate how your experience on this program applies to the scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type, and contract environment of the ARES III requirement. Describe the functions performed under the submitted contract and how they apply to your proposed portion of the ARES III SOW requirement.

4. Reference: RFP, Section L, Attachment L-8

Feedback/Question: Attachment L-8, has a logical relationship between education and experience for the Senior Level Engineer/Scientist. We do not see a similar pattern between education and experience for the two other positions with multiple sub-levels (Mid Level Engineer/Scientist, and Basic Level Engineer/Scientist).

Was this the Government’s intent? Is there only eight positions to be priced or is there 3 levels for the senior and mid level engineer/scientist, and 2 levels for the basic level engineer/scientist?

Response: Yes, there are is only three levels for the senior and mid level engineer/scientist and two levels for the basic level engineer/scientist. However, the required minimum level of years of relevant experience has been corrected to the following:

FROM:

Mid Level Engineer/Scientist: PHD in Sci Eng 4 year, MS in Sci Eng 1 Years, BS in Sci Eng 1+ Years Basic Level Engineer/Scientist: MS in Sci Eng 1 year, BS in Sci Eng 0 years

TO:

Mid Level Engineer/Scientist: PHD in Sci Eng 1 year, MS in Sci Eng 1+ Years, BS in Sci Eng 4+ Years Basic Level Engineer/Scientist: MS in Sci Eng 0 years, BS in Sci Eng 1 year

5. Reference: RFP, Section L, Attachment L-8

Feedback/Question: Attachment L-8 does not include the mandatory Contractor Program Manager position. Will the Offeror be requested to explain the addition of the Program Manager (as required in 6.0 Volume IV-Cost/Price 6.3.1) since it is not included in Attachment L-8 although it is a requirement in Section 1 – Description of Services/General Information page 5 of 33?

Response: The SOW FTE includes technical personnel only. Management personnel are not included in the FTE’s.

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Final RFP Question and Answers no.2

6. Reference: RFP, Section L, Attachment L-8

Feedback/Question: Can the degree (education) requirements as outlined in Attachment L-8 be satisfied with equivalent experience?

Response: No.

7. Reference: RFP, Section L, para 2.2.1.1 (a) and (b), Page L-5 of 27, Page Size and Format; also ARES III – Final RFP QandA #52

Feedback/Question: The Technical/Risk Volume is limited to only 65 pages (excluding resumes). Having to double space tables and the text in figures, as indicated by Q&A #52, significantly impacts our ability to respond to all of the many Section L and other proposal requirements. Please note that PowerPoint text boxes and text inside shapes default to single-spaced text, which we assumed would be acceptable for our Oral Presentation charts; please advise if this is not the case. We request relief in the written proposal volumes and ask that either tables and text in figures be allowed to single spaced (which is the usual case for most proposals) or that the Technical/Risk page limit be increased to 100 pages.

Response: Information to Section L, para 2.1.5 was added. Paras 2.1.5.1, 2.1.5.2, 2.1.5.3 and 2.1.5.4 were established, with the following sentences added to para 2.1.5.1: “There is no page limit to the briefing charts to be presented at the oral presentation. Briefing charts should be sequentially numbered in the lower right center of the cover page”. The following information was added, “2.1.5.4 Except for the MIS demonstration, the Government will furnish the necessary computer / projector and/or overhead projector for the oral presentations. The offerors equipment may not be used.”

In Section L Table 2.2, the wording “Oral presentation charts are not included in the page limit. (Ref paragraph 2.1.5)” was added to the page limit cell under Volume II.

Please note, information provided in the Oral Presentation charts should augment the written proposal, as noted in Section L, 2.1.5.

8. Reference: RFP, Section B, CLINs 0003, 1003, 2003.

Feedback/Question: The cover sheet from Amendment One provided in Item C.1. that CLIN 0003 was changed from Cost Plus Fixed Fee to Cost. Section B shows CLIN 0003 as Cost, but states “Subcontract Labor utilizes Fixed Fee, but no performance incentive.” as does 1003 and 2003.

Response: The descriptive data “Subcontract Labor utilizes Fixed Fee, but no performance incentive” has been removed from CLINs 0003, 1003 and 2003.