H98210-10-R-0006 MOD 2.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Q1. Is the resulting contract subject to the requirements of the Service Contract Act?

A1. In accordance with FAR Part 22 and Part 541 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, this requirement is not subject to the Service Contract Act.

Q2. If so, why is Clause 52.222-41 not included in the list of "Clauses Incorporated by Reference" at page 43 of the RFP?

A2. See A1.

Q3. If Clause 52.222-41 was intentionally omitted from the list of "Clauses Incorporated by Reference," then why is Clause 52.222-41 listed as a mandatory "flow-down" provision at Clause 52.212-5(b)(1)(viii), at page 61-62 of the RFP? How can a prime contractor “flow down” a clause that is not in the prime contract?

A.3 FAR provision 52.212-5 (Deviation) informs offerors that if any of the clauses listed in at 52.212-5(b)(1) are included in the prime contract – then those clauses must be “flowed down.” FAR clause 52.222-41, Service Contract Act, is not included in this solicitation by reference or full text. Therefore any resulting prime contract will not include 52.222-41 and there will be no flow down requirement for this clause

Q4. If the resulting contract is subject to the requirements of the Service Contract Act, and the Government has identified all possible places of performance, then does the Government acknowledge that it is required to provide the wage determinations for those locations pursuant to FAR 22.1009-3?

A4. See A1.

Q5. Does the Government intend to comply with FAR 22.1009-3 by suspending the due date for receipt of proposals so that the Government can request and provide wage determinations for all locations of performance? If not, why not?

A5. FAR 22.1009-3 does not apply, however the due date is extended.

Q6. In question A.4, offerors asked for the top 10 city pairs for each location. The Government's response was that it would not provide that information because the information was "fluid". That response is unacceptable. The "fluidity" of a location's top 10 city pairs is no more, and probably far less, than the "fluidity" of the number of transactions and the mix of DTS v. CTO-Assist transactions. More importantly, given the Government's definition of a DTS Transaction and the Government's insistence that even transactions that cannot go through DTS because an airline, such as SW and others, do not participate in certain GDSs, must be counted as a DTS Transaction, it is imperative that an offeror be able to estimate the number of such transactions that they may be called upon to service but not get paid adequately for so that they can staff adequately. Having the top 10 city pairs for each location will allow an offeror to determine who the top city-pair contractors are for that location, and then they can determine whether the majority of transactions will be Southwest or another non-GDS airline. Staffing and pricing for such a location is far different than a location where the top city pairs are with airlines that are all participating in the GDSs and, therefore, in DTS. The Government has the requisite information for each location. Offerors are willing to take their chances with the alleged "fluidity" of the top 10 city pairs for each location. They are NOT willing to take their chances with preparing staffing and pricing estimates based on "top 10" globally. Will the Government reconsider its refusal to provide top 10 city pairs by location? If not, why not?

A.6 See attached data for the top ten origin/destinations for each of the sites in TAs 1-6. DTMO is unable to obtain data for DISA at Tinker (TA 3) for it is lumped in with Tinker in TA 5, the same applies to Arnold (TA 5) who is lumped into Scott AFB (TA 6). DTMO has no data for Dyess AFB, and could only obtain the combined data for Hill (TA 5), Malmstom (TA 1), Fairchild (TA 6) and Mt. Home (TA 4). Otherwise, all others accounted for.

Q7. In question A.30, is the Government saying that it is going to use the percentages in Att. 3 to perform the pricing evaluation, but offerors should use the percentages in Att. 4 to prepare their staffing plans?

A7. No. Attachments 3 and 4 are provided to Offerors as information to assist with preparing price proposals and so you can demonstrate how you derived at your transaction fee.

Q8. With regard to the A.30 response, how is the pricing evaluation going to be performed, particularly if no pricing model is provided?

A8. Price proposals will be evaluated to ensure price reasonableness for the services being provided to the government, considering the specific terms and conditions and relevant commercial practices.

Q9. With regard to completion of the SF 1449 (Schedule B) for each travel area , if Offeror A uses the percentage mixes and quantities in Att. 3, Offeror B uses the percentage mixes in Att. 4, and yet Offeror C uses some combination of the two, how will the Government evaluate and compare their pricing proposals?

A9. Commercial pricing compares the bottom line price, not the methodology, when there is adequate price competition. Also see response to Qs 7 and 8 above.

Q10. The Government's response to Q.78 regarding the establishment of a baseline says to refer to the response to Q.11. Question 11 has nothing to do with the establishment of a baseline for equitable adjustments. So we will ask the question again. Will the Government include a requirement that offerors establish baseline pricing data for purposes of future equitable adjustments?

A10. We apologize for the oversight. A firm fixed price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract. This contract types places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss. It provides maximum incentive for the contractor to control costs and perform effectively and imposes a minimum administrative burden upon the contracting parties. If an out of scope change to the contract occurs, refer to DFARs 252.243-7002, Requests for Equitable Adjustment.

Q11. Please advise if your department will be affected by the Shut Down, if so, will the proposal due date be extended? Will there be a suspension of the due date for receipt of proposals until the Government reopens? Will there be contracting personnel available every day next week to receive proposals in the event of a shutdown?

A11. See answer to Q5.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 13-Apr-2011 02:00 PM to 18-Apr-2011 02:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. NOTES TO OFFERORS: OFFERORS SHOULD NOTE THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

· Offerors shall not merely restate the requirements of the PWS, but demonstrate and provide convincing detail of how they will meet the requirements of the PWS.

· CCR: Any Offeror that submits a proposal in response to this solicitation must be registered in the Central Contractors Registration (CCR), in accordance with FAR Clause 52.232-33 and DFARS Clauses 252.201-7000 and 252.204-7004 Alt A, prior to contract award. Registration information can be found at https://www.bpn.gov/ccr/default.aspx.

2. Communication: Solicitation information and amendments will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website at www.fbo.gov. Offerors may email written questions requesting clarification of the Request for Proposal (RFP) to the Contract Specialist, Larry Helton, at: Larry. Helton@osd.pentagon.mil. No information concerning this solicitation or requests for clarification will be provided in response to telephone calls. Questions will be received up to 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on March 23, 2011. Questions received after this time and date may not be answered.

3. Proposal Submissions: All proposal submissions in response to this solicitation must be received no later than 2:00 PM EST on April 18, 2011. No electronic submissions will be accepted. Submit proposals to the address below:

DHRA PSO

Attn: Larry Helton H98210-11-R-0006

4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 120

Arlington, VA 22203

Proposal: Offerors proposal shall be separated into the following three volumes. Each volume shall be submitted in individual folders/binders:

A. VOLUME I – Business Proposal: Offerors shall submit one hard copy of Volume I. This volume shall include:

i. Signed copy of the Standard Form 1449, with blocks 17 and 30 completed.

ii. Signed copy of the Standard Form 30 of any amendments issued against this RFP.

iii. Offeror’s DUNS number, Cage Code, and Tax ID number.

iv. Completed Representations and Certifications of Offeror (FAR Clause 52.212-3 Alt I and DFARS Clause DFARS 252.212-7000).

v. All completed clauses that require an offeror’s response.

B. VOLUME II – Technical Proposal/Past Performance (No more than 35 pages): Offerors shall submit the original, three hard copies and one CD of their technical proposal. There is a possibility of up to six awards for this Solicitation. Offerors may submit proposals for any or all of the six Travel Areas. A separate technical proposal must be submitted for each Travel Area being proposed. This volume(s) shall include:

i. Technical Proposal: This section shall address the technical requirements of the PWS and Evaluation Factors (See Attachment A).

For Past Performance References (ii) and Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaires (iii) below, Offerors only need to submit one set of past performance references/questionnaires regardless of the number of Travel Areas being bid.

ii. Past Performance References: Offerors shall submit 3-5 relevant and recent past performance references. All references shall address current projects or those completed within the last three years. The Past Performance reference information shall include the following:

· Name, email, and telephone numbers for points of contact

· Project Name

· Date of Contract

· Type of Contract

· Dollar Value of Contract

· Period of Performance

· Description of services/supplies provided

· Description of the relevance to the current requirement being solicited

iii. Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire: Offerors shall complete and include a Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire for each reference being submitted (See Attachment B).

Should the offeror possess no relevant past performance, a written statement shall be provided by the offeror so indicating. In this case, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance but will be assigned a rating of Unknown Confidence.

C. VOLUME III – Price Proposal: Offerors shall submit the original and one hard copy of Volume III. A separate price proposal must be submitted for each Travel Area being proposed. This volume shall include:

i. A completed Schedule for the Base and all Option years. The Schedule shall reflect per unit pricing by CLIN. All items listed in the Schedule must have a price, or be marked “NSP” for “Not Separately Priced” or “NC” for “No Charge.”

ii. As supporting documentation to the prices proposed in the Schedule, offerors shall provide the labor categories proposed for completing the tasks of this requirement, fully burdened labor rates, and proposed hours for the Base and all Option years. Each labor category proposed for this contract shall be clearly defined.

(End of Instructions to Offerors) (End of Summary of Changes)