Amendment_000010_Q As.pdf

HT9402-15-R-0002

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

AMENDMENT 000010

Question Number QUESTION RECEIVED FROM OFFEROR FINAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO OFFERORS

FPR-47 For items we have removed, should we leave the line item and zero the cost as to highlight the removal? Or, should we delete the line entirely?

For items removed, zero the cost and highlight the line item.

FPR-48

In response to question FPR-7, you referred to FPR-28 for the response. Although the latter does address almost all aspects of the original FPR-7 question, one item was not reconciled within the TOM, specifically: the RFP and TOM guidance regarding the Site visits/meetings with eMSM Managers are to be within 30 days following Transition Specification Meeting (T2017 Transition Update 2.6.1.1); site visits/meeting with MTF Commanders are to be complete within 100 days following Transition Specification Meeting (T2017 Transition Update Para.2.6.1.1). The timeline for meeting with each MTF Commander/eMSM Manager is within 60 days following contract award to develop an MOU with each MTF/eMSM (TOM Ch. 2, Sec 6, Para 1.1). Can the timeline for the latter be set at 100 days from the TRANSPEC which would allow for consistency with the meeting schedule requirements for both the eMSMs and MTFs?

The dates you referenced in TOM Chapter 2 Section 6 Paragraph 1.1 will not be revised.

FPR-49

The instructions indicate “With respect to the IMS, offerors shall submit one version only, a Microsoft Project version with additions and changes in a red bold font. Any deletions shall be indicated by the bracketed term “[Deleted],” and deleted text should not appear”. Please provide further guidance; it is unclear how the guidance specific to deleted tasks will not cause problems with the numbering sequence within the IMS.

The Government believes the entry of a [Deleted] item notation should not be problematic for number sequencing and the Government direction will not be revised.

owssvr