FLSM_Q As_-_Final_RFP__28_Sep_15.pdf

FLSM Final RFP QTable 1

Subject Location Question Response 1 Section L Sec L, p. 11

L‐4.5 (font size for tables on 8.5x11)

L‐4.5 states: “Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document and any non‐narrative sections (e.g., tables, graphs, charts, figures, etc.), the text size shall be no less than Microsoft Word Times New Roman 12 point font, single‐spaced.” Would 10 point font Times New Roman be acceptable for tables, graphs, charts, and figures?

No. The font shall be no smaller than 12 point font Times New Roman for tables, charts, graphs and figures, etc.

2 Section L Sec L, p. 11 L‐4.5 (font size for 8.5x11)

Is a font size smaller than 12 point permitted for headers and footers? No. The font shall be no smaller than 12 point for headers and footers.

3 Section L Sec L, p. 13 L‐4.17

Would the Government allow the use of Excel and Word 2007 or later (2010) as long as it is compatible with 2007? Or if not, would the Government accept .pdf versions of all Volumes outside of the Pricing Spreadsheet?

Yes. The use of Excel and Word 2007 is acceptable, or 2010 as long as Excel and Word are compatible.

4 RFP Cover page of Solicitation The cover page of the Solicitation has a watermark “DRAFT” across it. Will MDA consider releasing an update version with the watermark removed for signature?

Yes. "Draft" watermark will be removed with an Amendment to the RFP.

5 PWS PWS page 27, and Solicitation H.14 PWS Sec 9.

Solicitation H.14

Key Personnel in the PWS includes Advanced Analysts, however in the Solicitation H.14 Key Personnel is defined and does not include Advanced Analysts. Please clarify which is correct.

All Advanced Analysts are Key Personnel. H.14 will be amended to reflect this.

6 PWS PWS page 27 If Advanced Analysts are considered Key Personnel, will MDA consider also making Advanced Specialists Key Personnel as well?

No. Advanced Specialists are not Key Personnel for the contract.

7 Section L Attachment L‐10 ‐ Labor Competency Descriptions

The current definition of the SME labor category limits our ability to bidding SMEs for only section 3.3 of the technical volume. Will MDA consider adding additional SME categories or making the labor description broader so we may bid SMEs in the other two technical sections?

No added SME labor category will be provided. However, the SME description will be revised to support the PWS in its entirety.

8 Section L Excel Pricing Workbook (EPW) (Attachment L‐07)

There are rates provided for JBER, which is not included in the list of locations, the PWS, or the products. There are however products listed for PMRF, but there are no ERI rates or labor categories for PMRF in the EPW. Will MDA update the EPW and change/update the labor categories and rates from JBER to PMRF?

Yes. The Government will update the EPW with an Amendment to the RFP.

9 Section L Attachment L‐03 & L‐04

Both attachments still list Ms. Michaela Simmons as the POC even though Section L has been updated to Mr. Lionel Nadeau as the POC. Are these attachments acceptable as is with Ms. Simmons as the POC? If not, we will need MDA to provide new attachments since they are PDFs.

Yes. Both attachments will be updated with the correct POC with an Amendment to the RFP.

10 Section J Attachment J‐16 – Incentive Plan Sec 3.0, p. 7

States “In those instances where the DPF Portal, ARCHIBUS, or Velocity is down for more than 4 hours in a day and the outage is not attributable to the contractor, the contractor shall not be held responsible for a “Less Than Satisfied” assessment associated with responsiveness; any such assessment will be removed from the annual calculation”. In an instance when the system(s) is/are down for less than four hours (at no fault of the contractor) and a “Less Than Satisfied” response is received, why would the contractor be punished by no fault of theirs? Suggest the sentence be revised to say: “In those instances where the DPF Portal, ARCHIBUS, or Velocity is down, and the outage is not attributable to the contractor, the contractor shall not be held responsible for a “Less Than Satisfied” assessment associated with responsiveness or systems failure; any such assessment will be removed from the annual calculation”.

The incentive plan will be amended to read: “In those instances where the DPF Portal, ARCHIBUS, or Velocity is down, and the outage is not attributable to the contractor, the contractor shall not be held responsible for a “Less Than Satisfied” assessment given based on the outage; assessments with this basis will be removed from the annual calculation”.

FLSM Final RFP QTable 1

11 PWS, Atch L-09, Cost Workbook

Atch L-09; PWS pages 2, 5 and 26; Cost Workbook Rates table.

There is a great deal of confusion regarding the differences of site locations found in the PWS and Cost workbook. First in Attachment L‐09, FLSM Historical Information it shows these 8 locations. However, in the PWS on page 2 it states the following: "...requirements are at geographically dispersed locations identified in this PWS. These locations include, but are not limited to, the National Capital Region, VA (NCR); Dahlgren, VA(DHL); Huntsville, AL (HSV); Fort Greely, AK (FGA); Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA (VAFB); Joint Base Elmendorf‐Richardson, AK (JBER); and Pacific Missile Range Facility, HI (PMRF)." It only shows 7 locations, Colo Springs is Missing. But then on page 5 of the PWS it states: "...locations. The potential exists for 24/7 support of building operations in response to catastrophic building or system failures. The tasks included in this PWS will be primarily performed in the following areas: National Capital Region, VA; Dahlgren, VA; Huntsville, AL; Fort Greely, AK (FGA); Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA (VAFB); and Pacific Missile Range Facility, HI (PMRF)." It only shows 6 locations, Colo Springs & JBER are Missing. On page 26 of the PWS you find this table, which repeats the same 6: [see Table 8.1 on page 26 of the PWS]. Then when you go [to] the rates table in the Cost workbook. It shows six, but omits Pacific Missile Range and Colo Springs, but re‐adds JBER.

Do you want us to ignore the PWS differences and only cost the six reflected in the Cost Workbook??

Colorado Springs is not a supported location. The contractor will provide support for JBER on an as‐needed basis. MDA plans such support once per quarter for one person for up to three (3) days (inclusive of travel) from Fort Greely, AK which is approximately a six hour drive from JBER. Thus the workforce impact will be minimal.