Q A IV as of 15 Aug RFP FA9451-11-R-0224.pdf

Questions and Answers IV As of 15 August 2011

RFP FA9451-11-R-0224

Business Operations Support Services (BOSS)

Question: Some of the items required in the cost volume, i.e. labor category mapping, labor category rates, indirect rates, AFPAC, are developed at the contract level and then used for each task order. Does the government require duplicate pages, one for each task order? To reduce the size of the volume may we provide this data once, at the beginning of the section?

Answer: As indicated in the RFP, Section L-paragraph 5.0, a separate cost proposal must be submitted for each task order performance work statement and 30 day phase in transition plan. All cost proposal data must be provided for each respective task order, including any duplication.

Question: Task Order 13 implies that there are two potential positions (E217, E218) that are compartmentalized (SAR/SAP). The SAR/SAP required block was blank. All other blocks had “No” entered. Is SAR/SAP required since there is not a “No” entered?

Answer: There are NO Special Access Program (SAP) requirements for Task Order 0013 (RFP attachment 26 & 27).

Question: What does it mean when the RFP states, “text size shall be no less than 12 point”? (RFP Sec L, page 6, para 1.2.2 Page Size and format)?

Answer: Point is defined as Font Size, e.g. Times New Roman 12.

Question: I believe there is a discrepancy between the response provisions specified in Section L for Subfactor 1 and Section M: Evaluation Factors for Subfactor 1. I am proceeding with the assumption that “Quality” is the correct word and Section M simply has a “typo” error in the referenced paragraph.

All other references in Section M refer to “Quality”.

Answer: Correct, the RFP page M-3 should read as follows:

(i) Subfactor 1: Corporate Experience-Personnel Qualifications - All proposals will be evaluated to determine how suited the offeror is to execute the contract. Specifically, the following will be examined:

experience, expertise, and qualifications of the proposed key personnel relevant to the proposed effort;

the quality and relevancy of the offeror's corporate experience as it relates to the proposed effort, and

Question: Reference the BOSS RFP FA9451-11-R-0224, Section 1.3.5.4 General Training Manager.

• Does AFRL currently have a training section/branch? If so, what are the current manning requirements? Are those positions currently being filled by government, military, or contractor personnel?

• Answer: The AFRL site at Kirtland has a General Training Manager that oversees all training.

The division/branches may have someone overseeing their training and reporting back to the site General Training Manager. The General Training Manager position is currently filled with a contractor.

• Will this contract require a single Training Manager or the entire training section?

• Answer: This contract requires a single General Training Manger for the site and may require incidental oversight at the division/branch level.

• Does this position(s) support all task orders/CLINS?

• Answer: Yes, this position(s) supports all tasks orders/CLINs.

• If task order driven, then what percentage of time/FTE is on each task order?

• Answer: The General Training Manager is 100% under Task Order 0010, RVO. The division/branches decide what level of support they will require if any.

• Would it be appropriate for the Deputy PM to manage and conduct the training?

• Answer: No, it would not be appropriate for the Deputy PM to conduct training. The deputy PM manages the contractor staff and contract oversight. They are not assigned to a Task Order and therefore is not funded through a Task Order.

The Deputy PM is paid through G&A. The General Training Manager manages a training program and does not actually conduct training.

Question: I would like to request that the government consider an extension of the Proposal due date for this effort on behalf of an interested vendor. I am aware that an extension was given at the end of July; however, there are items in need of clarification that will require additional response time. Section L.4.2….Each offeror is requested to submit Volume III – Past Performance 10 days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals. Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in offeror disqualification, however, the past performance volume will be subject to the late proposal rule.”

Please confirm that the “late proposal rule” will be applied to past performance volumes submitted after the proposal due date of 25 August 2011.

Answer: There is not another planned extension at this time. If the past performance volume is not received by the 25 Aug 2011 date set for receipt of proposals, it will be considered late and subject to the late proposal rule.

Question: In Section F001, and as amended in Amendment 0002, the final performance period is specified as “1 February 2015 through 31 August 2015 (anticipated Option Six Month Ext)". The specified timeframe (1 Feb thru 31 Aug) actually represents a 7 month period. Should we price the final period performance as 6 months or 7 months?

Answer: The date should be 1 Feb 2015 to 31 Jul 2015. The option should only be priced for 6 month period.