A23 Attach 12 RFP QA Amendment 3.pdf
PDF 59 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HQ003420R0089
- Issued by
-
DOD Washington Headquarters Service
About this file
This document contains answers to questions from potential offerors on a final request for proposal for analytic and technical support services. The performance work statement encompasses administrative management and general management consulting services as well as professional, scientific, and technical services. The primary place of performance is within the National Capital Region, including the Pentagon and Mark Center, with individual task order statements specifying performance locations. Requirements will come from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment as well as other Acquisition Directorate customers and Department of Defense Fourth Estate agencies. The response date remains unchanged despite a request to extend it by one week. Offerors are permitted one page for a teammate overview and executive summary in their proposals.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ATSS IDIQ-R Final RFP
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Amendment 3
Question 256: In response to Question 240, the Government revised the RFP in M-5 under Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance, Relevancy Assessment, from “A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon similarity in scope and complexity to the requirements outlined in the PWS.” to “A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon similarity in scope and complexity to the requirements outlined in the applicable Factor A tasks areas.” To allow sufficient time for offerors to address this change, would the Government consider a one week extension to the Solicitation due date. Further, in answering Question 240, the Government included the following in response: “Section L in the unrestricted pool covers PWS Sections 4.1 and 4.2;
therefore, past performance for the unrestricted pool will be related to both of those PWS Sections.” This statement, in context, appears to contradict the Section M-5 change referred to above. Will the government please clarify why this statement was included in response to Question 240?
Answer 256: The RFP is correct in stating, “A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon similarity in scope and complexity to the requirements outlined in the applicable Factor A task areas.” In the unrestricted pool Factor A task areas include tasks in PWS Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.6, 4.2.7, and 4.2.8; therefore, these tasks are related to PWS Sections 4.1 and 4.2. See the Amendment for the revised proposal due date.
Question 257: Would the Government to allow for 2 pages for the Executive Summary and Teammate Overview?
Answer 257: The RFP remains unchanged, allowing for 1 page for the teammate overview/executive summary.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .