FA9453-11-R-0287 - Responses to Questions on Draft RFP - SVAT.docx

Space Vehicles Advance Technology (SVAT)

FA9453-11-R-0287

Draft Request for Proposal Questions/Comments from Industry and Government Answers 22 Feb 2012

Questions

1. Reference CLINS – Please clarify what is to be included in the CLIN price to be submitted as part of our model contract. Since we are only pricing Task Orders, should the CLIN prices reflect only the sum of our prices for the sample Task Order? There doesn’t seem to be any basis for CLIN pricing, since we’re only pricing Task Orders. There is no way to capture costs or proposed prices for the remainder of the contract. It’s understandable that the price evaluation will be conducted based on Task Order prices, but what information is to be included in Section B of the model contract to comply with the requirements for Volume IV: Contract Documentation (paragraph L.6.1.2)?

ANSWER: The Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract will not have priced CLINs since there is no work done under the basic contract. It is the vehicle which allows the Government to place Task Orders up to the stated ceiling in the basic contract. Each Task Order will have priced CLINs based on the effort being proposed and that is negotiated for the individual Task Order. The lines located under the Unit Price Total Item Amount in Section B of the RFP will be removed in the final RFP for clarity purposes – since there is no effort priced on the basic contract, only a stated ceiling amount. The Task Orders are to be priced in Section B for Task Orders 0001 through 0006, in the Cost/Price Volume. Any language in the draft RFP that implied inclusion of CLIN pricing to be submitted as part of an Offeror's model contract has been removed.

2. CDRLs – Is it the Government’s intention that all financial reporting requirements will take place at the Task Order level, or are one or more financial reports intended to be provided at the master contract level? Please specify any reports that are required at the Master Contract level.

ANSWER: All CDRL reporting will be tied to the Task Orders issued. There will be no data reports to be delivered for the Basic Contract IAW answer #1 above.

3. CDRL A010, Cost Performance Report and A011, Integrated Master Schedule – Should the final submission be at Task Order completion or contract completion? Our concern is for Task Orders that may end before the end of the contract.

ANSWER: These two CDRLs, like all other CDRLS, will be applied to the individual Task Orders, when a given CDRL is required, identified, and attached to the Task Order as Exhibit A. The reports will correspond to the dates as determined in the individual Task Order and each attached CDRL submission requirement. The CDRL submission requirement is identified in blocks 10 through 16 of the DD Form 1423-1, SEP 97. If a Task Order has an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) as part of Exhibit A, the IMS final submission will be IAW the Task Order and CDRL submission requirements. There may be instances where an IMS is due prior to the completion of the ID/IQ period of performance.

4. Statement of Work Exhibit 1: Compliance Documents – please provide guidance on where we can locate all of these documents.

ANSWER: The Compliance Documents are publicly available (e.g., (1) www.e-Publishing.af.mil; (2) http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI91-207.pdf).

5. Statement of Work Exhibit 2: Reference Documents – please provide guidance on where we can locate all of these documents ANSWER: Same answer as #4 above.

6. Task Order, General – Are the Task Orders included in the draft RFP sample tasks for proposal purposes only, or is it the Government’s intention to issue these Task Orders based on our submitted SVAT proposal?

ANSWER:

Some or all of these Task Orders will be awarded along with the basic ID/IQ contract and depending on Government needs at time of award (see Final RFP for evaluation criteria of Task Orders). Each basic contract awarded will also be awarded at least one (1) Task Order. Only one (1) each of Task Orders 0001 through 0006 will be awarded. Because this is an anticipated multiple award, ID/IQ, an SVAT Contractor may be awarded more than one Task Order (e.g., Task Orders 0001 and 0002 and another SVAT Contractor may be awarded the other Task Orders). All Task Orders, 0001 through 0006, will be evaluated equally. The Government fully intends on awarding between two to four basic contracts (meeting the minimum guaranteed ordering amount) but reserves the right to award one or no SVAT awards due to unforeseen circumstances.

7. Task Orders, General – The Task Orders seem to define requirements to provide sustaining support for research and technology initiatives. The sample Task Orders do not include any workload volume metrics, task deliverables or milestones, or any other information that would enable us to size the volume of work required by the Task Orders. We recommend you either provide workload metrics suitable to enable bidders to properly size the effort, or provide the estimated staffing required for each Task Order.

ANSWER: The SVAT effort is NOT sustaining support. This solicitation is for Research and Development (R&D) efforts in basic research through advanced technology. By its very nature, R&D does not lead to a simple workload model. The proposed approach to solving a problem (in the areas stated in the SVAT basic Statement of Work) dictates the required workload as determined by the Offeror and based on the Offeror's solution. The Government has revised the Task Order Statements of Work (SOWs) to better state the required R&D objectives, deliverables, etc. for Task Orders 0001 through 0006, providing the Offerors a better understanding of the Government's SVAT requirements and to provide enough information to optimally scope and price the SVAT Task Orders.

8. Section L, Paragraph 5352.209-9001, Potential Organizational Conflict of Interest – Please clarify what is meant by the requirement in paragraph (a)(2) to provide information on any previous or ongoing work “That is in any way associated with the contemplated acquisition.” Does this mean any work done for AFRL? Any work done on the technology areas covered by the SOW and sample Task Orders? Any work done at Kirtland AFB? Other?

ANSWER: As stated in the AFFARS clause, 5352.209-9001(a)(2), "As a part of the proposal, the Offeror shall provide the Contracting Officer with complete information of previous or ongoing work that is in any way associated with the contemplated acquisition", work the Offeror is/will be engaged and that ties to any SVAT requirement. In addition, and as referenced in Section I, AFFARS 5352.209-9000, the Government has identified the possible OCI situations that need to be addressed, if applicable, through an Offeror provided mitigation plan that does/would potentially exist, for any awarded SVAT work. These are: 1) AFFARS 5352.209-9000 Alt. III (OCT 2010), AFFARS 5352.209-9000 Alt. IV (OCT 2010), and AFFARS 5352.209-9000 Alt. VI (OCT 2010). These clauses may be reviewed, in entirety, at http://farsite.hill.af.mil, located within the -AFFARS link.

9. Section L, Paragraph PRS-L001, Proposal Preparation Instructions – Paragraph 2.1.3 encourages bidders to subscribe to FBO to get real-time updates on procurement information. We have noticed that AFRL has not always posted updates to the same announcement, with the result that real-time updates are not provided. For example, the Q&A document that included the deadline for Site Visit registration was posted to a different SVAT announcement than the announcement containing the Draft RFP and the basic Site Visit information. We request that AFRL be consistent in using the same announcement so that we can take advantage of FBO’s real-time update feature.

ANSWER: AFRL will continue posting all solicitation information under FA9453-R-11-0287.

10. The ordering & numbering of the Task Orders is different than the ordering & numbering given in Section L, page 10 – please clarify?

ANSWER: This has been corrected and will be reflected in the Final Request for Proposal to be published.

11. May the key personnel be different for each Task Order?

ANSWER: Yes. Per the wording stated in the last two sentence in Section M, Subfactor 2, Page M - 2 of 4, "In addition, the proposal must demonstrate that the combined experience of proposed key personnel cover all SOW technical areas. The proposal will be evaluated on the qualifications of personnel allocated to each Task Order to include security, experience, and education". What the Government is seeking is for the Offeror to propose the key individuals with overall responsibility for the entire SVAT effort as well as the key individuals responsible for each of the Task Orders.

12. May we include additional resumes besides the PM, Deputy PM and Chief Engineer for each Task Order? If so, do the additional resumes count in the page count?

ANSWER: Each Offeror may include and structure its proposal any way it chooses to satisfy the RFP requirements and information requested by the Government, per the SVAT RFP. Per the RFP, resumes for staff OTHER than those for the PM, Deputy PM, and Chief Engineer are NOT required. The Government will only use its stated evaluation criteria, for the basis of its evaluation of proposals. The Final RFP will clearly state that resumes are not included in the page count limitation.

13. What OCI concerns exist and must be addressed?

ANSWER: See answer to #8 above.

14. Is TS/SCI required versus TS?

ANSWER: For some of the effort a TS/SCI will be required.

15. Will the Executive Summary be evaluated?

ANSWER: Yes, per the RFP.

16. Does the Solicitation Cross-Reference Matrix count towards the page count?

ANSWER: No.

17. Will the Task Orders be modified for the Final RFP?

ANSWER: The Task Orders will be revised, as stated in question #7 above, as well as to revise any identified typographical errors.

18. How many copies of the subcontractors fully-disclosed Cost Proposal will be required?

ANSWER: Per the RFP, one original, two copies, and one CD-R.

19. Synopsis and Draft RFP: The synopsis indicates that the procurement is a small business set aside; however, we cannot find that stated n the DRFP, itself. Nor are there any reps and certs that deal with small business status. Please clarify.

ANSWER: All Offerors are required to complete the Online Representations and Certifications (ORCA) and the offers must certify their small business status as part of the ORCA registration. Also, see Section I clause FAR 52.219-06 and other FAR 52.219 clauses that distinguish SVAT as a small business set aside. In addition, see Section K, FAR 52.204-08(a)(2) and FAR 52.204-08(a)(3).

20.

(a) Ref: Part I Page 12 of 28: G002 Program Manager; Part I Page 17 of 28; H095 Contractor’s Program Manager; Part IV; Page L-11 or 24, L.4.2.3.2 Subfactor 2: Key Personnel and Qualifications, second paragraph: (a) This paragraph states that the desired qualifications and key positions are listed below. Is the Government’s intention that these three Key Positions be bid for each Task Order proposal, and/or also for the Basic SOW proposal? The Key Position titles of “Program Manager” and “Deputy Program Manager” seem to imply that these are contract-level (I.e. overall program) positions, rather than Task Order positions (which might be titled, Task Manager and Deputy Task Manager). However, G002 and H095 do state that the Program Manager is to be established with each individual Task Order. Since the contract is IDIQ, with multiple awards, we are confused as to how the contract-level Program Manager is to be established with each Task Order since the number, scope, and size of Task Orders can vary over time. Please clarify.

ANSWER: It is up to the Offeror in how it proposes to best meet SVAT requirements for each Task Order. The three individuals listed as the Key Personnel may be proposed to work on one, more than one, or all Task Order requirements. Therefore, and regarding the statement made by Industry, "we are confused as to how the contract-level Program Manager is to be established with each Task Order since the number, scope, and size of Task Orders can vary over time", each Offeror that proposes must determine the best proposal approach for SVAT. In accordance with the SVAT RFP, the proposals will state which Task Orders (one, some, all) the Key Personnel will work on, if awarded a contract. For instance, an Offeror may propose the same Program Manager for each Task Order, or it may choose to propose one particular Program Manager to work on a certain Task Order and another Program Manager to work on another, etc.

(b) Are these three Key Personnel positions to be direct charges or indirect personnel? Please clarify.

ANSWER: How the Key Personnel are charged (direct or indirect) is each Offeror’s decision, charging structure, etc.

(c) Should the title references in item (vii and Viii) in L.4.2.3.2(b), Resume, refer to “program” or “Task Order” level? Please clarify.

ANSWER: This refers to the Task Order level. See answer 11 and 20(a) above. This depends on how the Offeror chooses to propose.

(d) On, page M - 2 of 4; Section M002(b); Subfactor 2, the next to the last sentence states that the combined experience of proposed key personnel cover all SOW technical areas. However, if Key Personnel are only being proposed for each Task Order, then the qualifications of those Key Personnel may not cover all SOW technical areas of the Basic SOW, rather just the technical areas required by the Task Order SOWs. Please clarify.

ANSWER: As stated above, the Key Personnel are to be proposed per Task Order. Proposals that are evaluated by the Government and, that result in being assessed to satisfy the Key Personnel criteria for all Task Orders, will be determined to have proposed a combined experience of proposed Key Personnel covering all SVAT SOW (basic and Task Orders) technical areas.

(e) On, page M-2 of 4; Section M002(b); Subfactor 2, the last sentence states that ”personnel allocated to each Task Order” are to be evaluated; but this sentence does not state that this applies to Key Personnel. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Key Personnel will be evaluated IAW with the SVAT RFP. Additionally, each Offeror will be evaluated in its technical approach and associated cost for overall personnel to be utilized to satisfy Task Order requirements.

(f) Can the Government please clarify the overall proposal instructions regarding bidding Key Personnel on a task basis versus at the overall contract/program level and the related proposal preparation instructions?

ANSWER: The Government has answered this question above.

21. Ref: Part IV; Page L-8 of 24; L.2.2.4, Cross-Referencing; last sentence; Place the Cross Reference Matrix after the Table of Contents within each volume.” Part IV; Page L-11 of 24; Volume III Cost/Price, Section L.5.1, Section 1: Section 1 of the Cost Volume is to include: Table of contents, summary description of estimating, purchasing and accounting system". Should the Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix and Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms, along with the Table of Contents, be included in SECTION 1 of the Cost/Price Volume?

ANSWER: The purpose of the Cross-Reference Matrix is to provide the Government Source Selection Evaluation Team an understanding of how the different proposal volumes are interrelated and identify where the related information is located. The Cross-Reference Matrix should only be placed in proposal volumes where there is a cross-reference to another volume. Instructions to Offerors in Section L M states "to the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal".

22. Ref: Part IV; Page 8 of 24, L.2.2.4 Cross-Referencing, last sentence; Part IV; Page L-24 of 24; L.6.3.1.2.2, Applicable Documents, Attachment #15, Sample Cross Reference Matrix: Is the Cross Reference Matrix, to be placed after the Table of Contents within each volume, intended to be a matrix for the entire proposal or just for the volume in which it is included?

ANSWER: Per the RFP, the matrix should be included in the appropriate Volume (Technical, Cost/Price, etc.).

23. Ref: Part IV; Page L-9 of 24, 3.0 Volume I Executive Summary, 3.1 Narrative Summary: Since the Technical Proposal consists of seven individual proposals (one for the Basic SOW and the six (6) Task Orders), we suggest that the Executive Summary page allocation be changed to ten pages; three pages for a general summary and one page each to summarize the Basic SOW and six Task Order proposals.

ANSWER: The Executive Summary page limits will not be changed.

24. Ref: Part IV; Page L-9 of 24; L.4.2.1 Technical [Format and Specific Content]: The first sentence of this section states “In the technical volume, address your technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirements of each technical subfactor.” However, the remainders of the paragraphs in this section (L.4.2.1) provide proposal preparation instructions, yet these instructions are separate from the descriptions of the two subfactors which are provided in sections L.4.2.3.1 (Subfactor 1) and L.4.2.3.2 (Subfactor 2). The proposal preparation instructions in the section L.4.2.1 seem to overlap the details of the subfactors. This makes it difficult for us to determine the expected outline of the technical proposals. Can the Government please clarify the proposal instructions that are provided in Sections L.4.2.1, L.4.2.2 and L.4.2.3 and the apparent overlap?

ANSWER: Section L.4.2.1 requests the Offeror to provide technical proposals for each of the Task Orders identified (Task Orders 0001 through 0006), as well as an overall statement of what information is to be addressed. Section L.4.2.2 addresses the structure of the proposal. Finally, section L.4.2.3 provides much more detail on what the Government will be evaluating and how each of the subfactors should be addressed.

25. Ref: Part IV; Page L-9 of 24; L.4.1; Volume II: Technical Volume, general, fourth sentence; Part IV; Page L-10 of 24; L.4.2.3.1; first paragraph, Subfactor 1, Technical and Programmatic Approach: The Basic SOW is just over 7 pages of requirements, in 10-point font, single-spaced; this is equivalent to well over 8 pages of requirements in Time New Roman, 10-point font. However, the Government has instructed Offerors (in L.4.1) to apply the subfactors (especially Subfactor 1, L.4.2.3.1) and in our proposals, demonstrate our understanding of the Basic SOW technical requirements, our approaches and capabilities, as well as our ability to plan, organize, staff, direct, and control … the requirements in less than 10 proposal pages. This seems to be unattainable. Please clarify or modify the proposal instructions. For example, have us just respond to the Basic SOW Program Management requirement within the 10 pages; or provide a much larger allocation for us to respond, in detail, to each technical requirement.

ANSWER: The Technical Volume page limitations have been modified to 100 pages for all Task Orders, 0001 through 0006.

26. Ref: Part IV; Page L-10 of 24, L.4.2.1, Technical, first paragraph: This paragraph (sentence) reads, “In the technical volume, address your technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement of each technical subfactor” (emphasis added). We would like to make sure we are clear; the Government’s technical requirements are provided in each SOW. The proposal Section L instructions and Section M evaluation criteria are organized in accordance by the subfactors. Please clarify, are the technical solutions to address the SOW technical requirements or the Section L and M subfactors, or both?

Answer: The Offeror should address meeting the technical requirements. Sections L & M refer to Instructions to Offerors and how the Government will evaluate Offeror proposals. The Offeror should keep this in mind when addressing how the technical requirements will be accomplished. Sections L and M, as well as the requirements identified in all SOWs, are tied together to evaluate the information requested and to be provided by an Offeror in how it meets the technical requirements identified in the Task Order SOWs and all other requirements of the RFP.

27. Ref: Part IV; Page L-10 of 24, L.4.2.1, Technical, second paragraph and L.4.2.2, Volume Organization, first paragraph: (a) The following sentence in L.4.2.1, “The Technical proposal shall consist of individual proposals for the Basic Contract Statement of Work (SOW) and each of the Task Order Statements of Work identified below”. This seems to imply that the Technical Proposal should consist of separate sections for the Basic SOW and each of the six TO SOWs. However, the following sentence in L.4.2.2, “The Technical volume shall be organized to include each of the six items of L.4.2.2. Another interpretation is that L.4.2.2 take precedence and there is only one TOC, one List of Figures, one Glossary, one Cross Reference Matrix, for the Technical Volume and then the Basic SOW proposal and each of the TO proposals follow and are to separately address Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Section L.4.2.2 is being rewritten to require a total number of pages to address the entire technical approach, for all Task Orders.

(b) The second paragraph of L.4.2.2, “Each individual proposal making up the technical volume will be organized according to the provided outline.’ This relates to the question above; please clarify the reference to “each individual proposal” and “the provided outline”.

ANSWER: See answer 27(a).

28. Ref: Part IV; Page L-10 of 24, L.4.2.1, Technical, fourth paragraph, second sentence: This sentence reads, “The proposals should describe how report requirements and any other pertinent information will be accomplished in accordance with the overarching SOW and each Task Order identified.”

a. Please clarify, does “report requirements” refer to the contract CDRLs?

ANSWER: Yes, it refers to report requirements identified, by CDRL, and required per Task Order.

b. Can the Government elaborate on the instructions to “describe how … any other pertinent information will be accomplished…”? Does the Government have something specific in mind for the phase “any other pertinent information” ANSWER: The word "pertinent" has been removed to avoid confusion.

29. Ref: Part IV; Page L-10 of 24; L.4.2.3.1 Subfactor 1, first sentence: This paragraph begins with “(q)”. We assume this is a typographical error.

ANSWER: The paragraph should read (a) not (q). This has been corrected and will be reflected in the Final Request for Proposal to be published.

30. Ref: Part IV; Page L-10 of 24; L.4.2.1, Technical, fourth paragraph; Part IV; L.4.2.3.1 Subfactor 1, second paragraph: The last paragraph of L.4.2.1 contains proposal preparation instructions regarding the content of the proposal. This information is similar to but different than the proposal instructions provided in the second paragraph of L.4.2.3.1. Since the specifics and order of times in L.4.2.1 are different from the instructions of L.4.2.3.1, can the Government please clarify the priorities of these two sections (or delete the last paragraph form L.4.2.1.)

ANSWER: These two paragraphs (L.4.2.1 and L.4.2.3.1) are consistent. Where the first paragraph L.4.2.1 states the top level expectations, and paragraph L.4.2.3.1 states in greater detail what the Government requests Offerors regarding proposed approach to accomplishing the effort.

31. Ref: Part IV; page L-10 of 24; L.4.2.3.1 Subfactor 1, Technical and Programmatic Approach; second paragraph; first sentence: Should this sentence read, “… including any analyses, experiments, …” instead of “… including analyses, experiments, …” since all of the items in that list may not be required for each Task Order.

ANSWER: The wording in paragraph 4.2.3.1 is correct. The Offeror must provide a detailed statement of the proposed approach. The statement should include how the Offeror intends to use analysis, experiments, simulations, tests and facilities for SVAT R&D purposes. This is required for all Task Orders.

32. Ref: Part IV; Page L-10 of 24; L4.2.3.1 Subfactor 1, Technical and Programmatic Approach; second paragraph; third sentence: This sentence reads, “The Offeror should demonstrate, in the context of each Task Order, its capability to plan, organize, staff, direct and control performance…” This implies that our capability to plan, organize, etc. is to be demonstrated with our response for each Task Order proposal. However, this will lead to a great deal of repetition across all of the Task Order proposals, within a page limited environment. Furthermore, with regard to the remainder of this sentence, “… to assure compliance with requirements of multiple Task Orders that require concurrent effort: this clause seems to also apply to management capabilities at the program level (i.e. managing multiple Task Orders) which is “above” the level of the individual Task Orders. To avoid duplication and conserve pages can program-level and individual Task Order management capabilities be demonstrated just once in the proposal? Please clarify.

ANSWER: The Offeror should demonstrate how, for the particular Task Order, it intends to plan, organize, staff, direct and control performance for that Task Order. This should not duplicate the overall management of the entire effort. Rather it should supplement the overall management approach. This is addressed in related questions above. Dependent upon how an Offeror chooses to propose, there are a number of approaches an Offeror may propose to best "demonstrate, in the context of each Task Order, its capability to plan, organize, staff, direct and control performance".

33. Ref: Part IV; Page L-10-11 of 24; L.4.2.3.1 Subfactor 1, Technical and Programmatic Approach; third paragraph: This paragraph addresses potential conflicts of interest. Is this topic to be addressed within the Basic SOW and also within each Task Order proposal or is the topic to be addressed just once in the Technical Volume? If so, where within the volume organization is the response to be placed?

ANSWER: The potential for conflicts of interest must be addressed, when applicable. Depending on what other work an Offeror is performing/anticipates performing on, may result in an OCI for SVAT performance. This potential OCI must be identified by each Offeror. The potential OCI may apply to one Task Order SOW, more than one Task Order SOW, etc. If there is an overarching OCI for a given Offeror, it is only necessary to address the OCI/Mitigation Plan once in the Technical Volume. If there is/expected to be a potential OCI for multiple Task Orders, the OCI/Mitigation Plan should be addressed in the applicable Task Order Technical Volumes and should, at minimum, summarize individual Task Order OCI existence/potential and mitigation plans on how the OCI will be addressed. The response should be placed where most appropriate within the Technical Volume, most likely at the beginning of the applicable subfactor area. Mitigation plans ARE NOT included in the page count restrictions.

34. Ref: Part IV; page L-11 of 24, L.4.2.3.2 Subfactor 2: Key Personnel and Qualifications; Part IV; Page L-7 of 24: L.2.2 Organization/number of Copies/Page Limits: Is the response to Subfactor 2 included in the page limits for the Basic SOW and Task Order proposals? Are resumes included in the page limits?

ANSWER: The response to Subfactor 2 is included in the page limits for Task Order proposals, but the resumes are not. The Final RFP will clearly state that resumes are not included in the page count limitation.

35. Ref: Part IV; Page L-11 of 24, L.4.2.3.2 Subfactor 2; Key Personnel and Qualifications; (a) Technical Expertise; fourth sentence: This sentence, “The Offeror must indicate what month and year the individuals will start work and the percentage of time each individual will dedicate to this program.” is redundant with items vii) and viii), in (b) resumes, below. We suggest that the first references be eliminate to avoid and response redundancy.

ANSWER: The Government agrees with this suggestion. The statement will be removed in 4.2.3.2(a) and will remain in vii) and viii) in the Final RFP.

36. Ref: Part IV; Page L-9 of 24, L.3.2 Table of Contents: Is the Master Table of Contents included within the 5-page limit of Volume I? We suggest that the Master Table of Contents not be included within the page limit of Volume I.

ANSWER: The Master Table of Contents will not be included in the page limit for Volume I.

37. Ref: Part IV; Page L-11 of 24; L.4.2.3.2(a), “Identify specific additional personnel required for full program staffing, subcontract, or consultation with sources where they will be obtained.” Part IV; Page L-11 of 24: L.4.2.3.2(a). “Identify specific additional personnel required for full program staffing, subcontract, or consultation with sources where they will be obtained.” Are “specific additional personnel required for full program staffing” required to be named? We suggest that personnel be “identified” by job description and required qualifications, rather than by name.

ANSWER: The “identify specific additional personnel required for full program staffing, subcontract or consultation ….” is requesting the Offeror to provide information on how it will fulfill the requirements through staffing resources (job category, etc.). Individual names are not being requested here, but rather skill sets that each Offeror proposes to utilize in order to satisfy and complete the requirements defined in the Task Order SOWs.

38. Ref: Part IV; PRS-M001; SOURCE SELECTION, (b) Number of Contracts to be Awarded: This paragraph indicated that between 2 and 4 contract are to be awarded. Please clarify, is each bidder required to respond to the Basic SOW and to each of the six TOs or do bidders have the option to just propose for the Basic SOW and for selected TOs?

ANSWER: Clause PRS-M001 paragraph b indicates that it is the Government’s intent to award between 2 and 4 basic contracts but reserves the right to award one or no SVAT awards due to unforeseen circumstances, as also stated in question and answer #6 above. The contracts referred to in this statement are the basic ID/IQ contracts. Each Offeror must be able to demonstrate it can meet all Task Order requirements (Task Orders 0001 through 0006). These six (6) Task Orders cover the breadth of SVAT requirements, as stated in the basic SOW. Therefore, each Offeror must propose to ALL Task Order SOWs attached to the RFP, and demonstrate how it can meet ALL Task Order requirements. Again, only one (1), each, of Task Orders 0001 through 0006 will be awarded, as well as one (1) award, each, for future requests for Task Orders for those technology areas defined in Section 1.1 of the basic contract SOW. All Contractors awarded an SVAT basic contract will be awarded a minimum of one Task Order at award. (See above regarding process for determining which RFP TO will be awarded to which successful Offeror).

39. Ref: Section F, F003, Page 10 of 28: Section F003(a) makes reference to the SF26; however, the solicitation uses SF33. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Clause F003(a) will be used in each of the Task Orders. Each Task Order cover page will be the Standard Form 26 (SF 26). Therefore the reference to the SF 26 is correct.

40. Ref: Exhibit A, CDRLs A001 and A006: Block 16 of CDRL A001 and CDRL A006 states that e-mail transmittal is not permitted. However, other CDRLs (e.g., A004 and A005) state that unencrypted or unsecure e-mail submission is not permitted. Irrespective of Section L037, which states that Offerors may recommend substitutions of stated data requirements, we respectfully request that Block 16 of CDRLs A001 and A006 be revised to allow e-mail submission via encrypted or secure e-mail.

ANSWER: The Government agrees with this request and block 16 will be changed to allow e-mail submission via encrypted or secure e-mail.

41. Ref: SVAT SOW, Section 4.1.4, page 5 of 10: The last sentence of the paragraph states (emphasis added): “The Contractor shall prepare and Environmental Health and Safety Plan that documents this effort.” Please confirm the first “and” in the sentence should be “an” instead.

ANSWER: The word “and” should read “an” and will be corrected and reflected in the Final RFP.

42. Ref: SOW for Task Order 0003, Section 5, page 3: Section 5 States: “Tasks/Technical Requirements in accordance with section 0.” Please clarify “section 0.”

ANSWER: This error will be corrected and reflected in the Final RFP.

43. Ref: SOW for Task Order 0006, Section 5.3, page 3: The End of the Technical Period of Performance is 31 December 2012 and the End of the Contract Period of Performance is 31 March 2012. Please confirm that the end of the Contract POP should be 31 March 2013 (instead of 2012).

ANSWER: The end of the contract period of performance should read 30 June 2013 in the Statement of Work for Task Order 0006. This was an error. Also, the tentative SVAT award schedule is now revised to the summer of 2012 rather than the end of March 2012. Dates will be corrected and reflected in the Final RFP.

44. Ref: Section I: We respectfully request that FAR 52.227-14 (Rights in Data – General (Dec 2007)) be included in Section I.

ANSWER: The Department of Defense uses its Date Rights clauses (252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014) and not the FAR clause 52.227-14.

45. Ref: Section L.I.A, 52.232-38, Page 1 of 24: Which proposal volume should contain the Offeror’s electronic funds transfer information?

ANSWER: This information is to be included in the Cost Volume of the proposal.

46. Ref: Section L.II.C, L029(a), Page 3 of 24: Subparagraph (a) makes reference to Section M Clause PRS-M002. Please confirm the PRS-M002 is the same as M002 (evaluation Criteria) on page 1 of 4 in Section M.

ANSWER: Subparagraph (a) should refer to Section M Clause M002. This will be corrected and reflected in the Final Request for Proposal.

47. Ref: Section L.II.C, L035(e), Page 4 of 24, and Section L.II.C, PRS-L001, Paragraph 5.1.1, subparagraph 2.c, Page 13 of 24: L035(e) states, part: “Provide your review and cost/price analysis of all subcontractor proposals over $1,000,000 or over $500,000 and 10% of your proposed cost.” Paragraph 5.1.1, subparagraph 2.c, states, in part: “Perform and provide evaluation results of cost/price analysis for each subcontract proposal.” Please confirm that evaluations results for cost/price analysis are only required for subcontractor proposals over $1,000,000 or over $500,000 and 10% of the Offeror’s proposed costs.

ANSWER: FAR 15.404-3 “Subcontract pricing considerations” requires the Prime to conduct cost or price analysis on all proposed Subcontractors. In addition, for those Subcontractors above the stated limits in L035, the Prime is also responsible for providing cost or pricing data for these Subcontractors. Thus, when the proposals are received, applicable proposals should include the Prime's cost or pricing analysis for all Subcontractors and for those Subcontracts exceeding the limits stated in clause L035. Each Offeror is responsible for ensuring the Government receives cost and pricing data for the Subcontractor(s), either by the Prime or directly to the Government from the proposed Subcontractor.

48. Ref: Section L.II.C, PRS-L001, Paragraph 2.2.1, Page 8 of 24, and Section L.II.C, PRS-L001, Paragraph 4.2.3.1, Page 11 of 24: The last sentence of Paragraph 2.2.1 states: “Each page shall be counted except the following…” The last sentence of Paragraph 4.2.3.1 states: “If there is a Potential Conflict of Interest, then a mitigation plan shall be provided to the Procuring Contracting Officer by the Offeror.” Please confirm that the mitigation plan, if provided with the proposal, is not included in the page limitations identified in Paragraph 2.2.

ANSWER: In the event of a potential conflict of interest is identified prior to the submission of an Offeror's proposal, a Mitigation Plan will be required as part of the Technical Volume. This plan should be a separate document and WILL NOT be counted as part of the page count.

49. Ref: Section L.II.C, PRS-L001, Paragraph 2.2.5, Page 8 of 24 Please confirm that there should be a period between the words “volume” and “Tab” (i.e. Paragraph 2.2.5 consists of two sentences, not one).

ANSWER: There should be a period between the word volume and Tab. This will be corrected and will be reflected in the Final Request for Proposal.

50. Ref: Section L.II.C, PRS-L001, Paragraph 4.2.1, Page 10 of 24: The Task Order titles identified in Paragraph 4.2.1 do not match the Task Order titles identified in Section C or J. Please confirm that the titles identified in Sections C and J are correct.

ANSWER: The titles for the various Task Orders will be correctly matched in Sections C, J and L (paragraph 4.2.1) in the Final Request for Proposal.

51. Ref: Section L.II.C, PRE-L001, Paragraph 4.2.3.1, Page 10 of 24: Please confirm that the subparagraph in Paragraph 4.2.3.1 should be (a) instead of (q).

ANSWER: The first paragraph in 4.2.3.1 should be marked (a) instead of (q) and will be corrected in the Final RFP.

52. Ref: Section L.II.C, PRS-L001, Paragraph 5.2.2, Page 15 of 24: There is no Paragraph 5.2 or 5.2.1. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Paragraph 5.0 to paragraph 5.2 should read as follows:

5.0 Volume III: Cost/Price

5.1 General Instructions

5.1.1 Cost or Pricing Data Requirements

In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. Data shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the Offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

5.1.2 Rounding

All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. All labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

5.2 Cost Proposal Instructions

This information will be correct in the Final Request for Proposal.

53. Ref: Section L.II.C, PRS-L001, Paragraph 6.1.1, page 23 of 24: Paragraph 6.1.1 states: “The “original” copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without and punched holes.” Is there a word missing between the words “without” and “and”?

ANSWER: This is a typographical error the word “and” should read “any”. This will be corrected and reflected in the Final Request for Proposal.

54. Ref: Section L.II.C, PRS-L001, Paragraph 6.1.2, Page 23 of 24: Paragraph 6.1.2 states: “Completed pricing information in Section B of the model contract.” Section B CLINs 0002, 0003 and 0004 are not separately priced. Please clarify the pricing information that needs to be included in CLIN 0001 (e.g., is it the total of all six sample Task Orders?).

ANSWER: See answer to question #1 above.

55. Ref: Section L.II.C, PRS-L001, Paragraph 6.3.1.1, Page 24 of 24: Paragraph 6.3.1.1 states: “The Government plans to provide the items listed in Attachments 10 and 11 of the solicitation as Base Support.” Attachments 10 and 11 cannot be found. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Since the list of items to be provided as Base Support were not completed at the time the Draft RFP was posted, the Base Support information could not be provided at that time. The Base Support attachment will be included with the Final Request for Proposal.

56. Ref: Section L.II.C, PRS-L001, paragraph 6.3.1.1, Page 24 of 24: The last sentence of Paragraph 6.3.1.1 reference Table 6. Please clarify the reference should be to Table 6.3 instead.

ANSWER: The last sentence of Paragraph 6.3.1.1 should reference Table 6.3. This will be corrected and reflected in the Final Request for Proposal.

57. Ref: Section L.II.C, PRS-L001, Paragraph 6.3.1.2, Page 24 of 24: There is no Paragraph 6.3.1.2.1 before Paragraph 6.3.1.2.2. Please clarify.

ANSWER: This is a numbering error and paragraph 6.1.3.2.2 should read 6.1.3.2.1. This will be corrected and reflected in the Final Request for Proposal.

58. Ref: Section L.II.C, PRS-L001, Paragraph 6.3.1.2.2, Page 24 of 24: Paragraph 6.3.1.2.2 reference an annex to the SOW. Please confirm the reference should be to SOW Exhibits 1 and 2 instead. (There is no annex to the SOW.)

ANSWER: The term “Annex” should be “Exhibits”. This will be corrected and reflected in the Final Request for Proposal.

59. Ref: Section M, M002, paragraph (c), Page 2 of 4: Paragraph (c) states: “The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated at prices proposed for the initial Task Order and by the Most Probable Cost (MPC) computed by the Government for the basic requirements". Please clarify (1) what is meant by “initial Task Order", and (2) what is meant by “basic requirements.”

ANSWER: As stated above, some or all of these Task Orders will be awarded along with the basic ordering contract. All Task Orders, 0001 through 0006, will be evaluated equally. "Initial Task Order" and "basic requirements" refer to Task Orders 0001 through 0006 requirements.

60. Ref: General: Are any/all of the Task Orders called out in the Draft/Final RFP to be awarded upon contract award or soon thereafter? If yes, what are the criteria to be used to award the TOs?

ANSWER: The criteria listed in the solicitation states what the Government will use in its evaluation in determining Task Order awards. Again, some or all of these Task Orders will be awarded along with the basic ordering contract. All Task Orders, 0001 through 0006, will be evaluated equally (see above concerning specific TOs awarded with basic contracts).