EIAS_Industry_Q As.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Engineering, Information Assurance, and Administrative Support (EIAS) Competitive 8(a) Set Aside
- Solicitation number
- M67854-15-R-4802
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
EIAS Industry Q As
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
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
15-R-4802 QA's
| QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FOR SOLICITATION M67854-15-R-4802 (EIAS) | |||||
| SOLICITATION SECTION | DOCUMENT/PAGE/PARAGRAPH/ | ||||
| LINE NUMBER | VENDOR QUESTION | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | |||
| 1 | RFP | RFP/21/ | The explanation of FAR 52.212-2 says “the following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: See Addendum 1 to Evaluation Plan” yet there is no Evaluation Plan and there is no Addendum 1. Please clarify this reference. | Addendum 1 to Eval Plan is located right below FAR clause 52.212-2. Starts on Page 21 and ends on Page 37. | |
| 2 | RFP | RFP/21 | Under the explanation of FAR 52.212-2 (b) discusses “adding the total price for all options to the total price for the base requirement.” But, there are no options associated with this solicitation. Please clarify how total price will be evaluated. | This is the standard language in the FAR clause. Page 36, paragraph 1 of the RFP states: "Price will be calculated by adding up the total Task Order price for each SLIN (or CLIN if no SLINs) and ODCs/Travel. Next, only the lowest priced proposal will be evaluated for Technical Approach and Past Performance." | |
| 3 | RFP | Instruction to Offerors/24/4.a.i | The description of Section 1 of the Technical Volume requires the bidder state that they ACKNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTAND AND SHALL PERFORM a list of PWS tasks. But, several of the PWS tasks are not included in this list (e.g. 4.2.1 thru 4.2.9), please clarify. | The remaining PWS tasks are noted under 4a)ii), which states: "Within a 35 page limit, provide a technical approach in accordance with Exhibit C and D (Task Order Matrix and Task Order PWS) which demonstrates the offeror’s ability to meet the table of critical items in Figure 1 below." (See pages 25-27.) | |
| 4 | RFP | Instruction to Offerors/29/4.b.ii | The instructions for Section 2 – Customer Assessments places a “One Page Limit per customer assessment” but the Past Performance Questionnaire is a five page template. Would the Government please remove the One Page limit? | The instructions state: "The Offeror shall submit with its proposal a list of the customer POCs (with contact information to include phone number and email address) that received a Past Performance Questionnaire." The past performance questionnaire is not submitted as part of the customer assessment; therefore, the page limit of one page per customer assessment is appropriate. | |
| 5 | RFP | Instruction to Offerors/31/4.c.iii | The bold text on this page states “Labor rates are fixed for all contract year periods” yet no such periods are defined in the RFP. From the structure of the solicitation it appears the resulting IDIQ is a single 45 month period. Please clarify the use of contract year periods. | The ordering period has been clarified in the revised Attachment 1 and Exhibit D. The base ID/IQ is for 4 years and 10 months with the first ordering period a length of 10 months. | |
| 6 | RFP | Instruction to Offerors/33/4.d.ii | The directions regarding Section Two – Compensation Plan do not specify how to deal with subcontractor data. The data the Government requests is highly company proprietary and is normally provided through a separate submission directly to the government. Please provide a mechanism to protect subcontractor data and direction on how to deal with this within the stated page limit. | Subcontractors may submit their Compensation Plans directly to the Contract Specialist using the MCSC_ISI@usmc.mil email address. | |
| 7 | RFP | Evaluation Criteria/35-36/ | This section on Past Performance Evaluation states that an Offerer without a record of Past Performance will be given a Neutral rating. But, under the Instruction to Offerers, Volume 2, Section 1 requires that the prime Offerer submit two past performance citations as a prime. Wouldn’t a failure to do so result in a non-compliant proposal not a Neutral rating? Please clarify how an Offerer can be given a Neutral rating and still be compliant. | The Past Performance section has been updated. See revised RFP. | |
| 8 | RFP | FAR Clauses/58/ | In the text for 52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY (OCT 1995) (a) it refers to “the Schedule” but no such Schedule appears to be provided. Please clarify what Schedule this refers to. | The schedule refers to the CLIN schedule listed in the RFP. | |
| 9 | Exhibit D TO PWS | TO PWS//3.5/102 | This section contains the first of many references to CDRLs, yet the RFP does not contain any CDRL definitions. Please clarify. | CDRLs are not noted in the RFP. The Government is requesting actual deliverables. | |
| 10 | Exhibit D TO PWS | TO PWS//4.3.7/370-376 | This section requires a submission within the first 60 days after contract award and annually thereafter. This would seem to suggest that this task order has a period of performance greater than a year. Yet, a period of performance has not been defined for this task order. Please clarify | The document and page number referred to does not match the question. However, the ordering period has been clarified in the revised Attachment 1 and Exhibit D. The base ID/IQ is for 4 years and 10 months with the first ordering period a length of 10 months. | |
| 11 | SF1449 | SF1449/Page 4/Para. 1 | CLIN 0003 references Exhibit C. Exhibit C does not include a CLIN 0003. Is there supposed to be a CLIN 0003 on Exhibit C? | No, CLIN 0003 is not included in Exhibit C. The description for CLIN 0003 has been updated in Amendment 0001 and the reference to Exhibit C has been removed. | |
| 12 | SF1449 | SF1449/Page 4/Para. 2 | CLIN 0004 references Exhibit C. Exhibit C does not include a CLIN 0004. Is there supposed to be a CLIN 0004 on Exhibit C? | CLIN 0004 is an information CLIN only. No, there is no CLIN 0004 on Exhibit C, but there are SLINs under this Information CLIN on Exhibit C. The description for CLIN 0004 has been updated in Amendment 0001 and the reference to Exhibit C has been removed. | |
| 13 | SF1449 | SF1449/Page 6/Para. 1 | CLIN 0004AC on the SF1449 is titled MOS-MCTIMS. CLIN 0004AC on Exhibit C is titled MMAS. Please Clarify? | The SF1449 has been updated to match Exhibit C. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 14 | SF1449 | SF1449/Page 9/Para. 2 | CLIN 0004AK on the SF 1449 is titled MOS-SPS. On Exhibit C, there is no MOS-SPS, but there is SPS listed as CLIN 0005AG. Please clarify? | The SF1449 has been updated to match Exhibit C. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 15 | EIAS Task Order | Exhibit C | Some of the programs marked in blue on Exhibit C are not listed in the SF1449 even though Exhibit C has work identified for them. In particular, DCIPS and the IT Roadmap are not listed. Will the government be revising either Exhibit C or the SF1449? | The SF1449 has been updated to match Exhibit C. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 16 | SF1449 | SF1449/Page 4/Para. 1 | CLIN 0003 requests a firm-fixed-price for travel per Exhibit D. Exhibit D line 562 lists three trips to Kansas City, Missouri of four days each. Please define the number of travelers, the expected days of the week for travel, and the anticipated advanced notice of travel. | It is expected to be no more than three travelers per trip. Travel will be conducted during the work week (Monday through Friday). Anticipate at least 10 working days advance notice. | |
| 17 | SF1449 | SF1449/Page 24/Para. 1 | Paragraph 1 instructs offerors to submit in MS Office 2003 or newer format. Paragraph c states that the submission should be MS Office 2007 or PDF. What is the desired form of submission? | Microsoft (MS) Office 2007 format and/or PDF. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 18 | SF1449 | SF1449/Page 25 | The evaluation criteria states that the compensation plans will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. This FAR clause is not included in the list of incorporated FAR clauses on page 19 nor does it appear to have been incorporated by full text. Please clarify? | FAR 52.222-46 has been incorporated on Amendment 0001. | |
| 19 | RFP | Evaluation Criteria/34/// | This section establishes the Government’s intent to use an LPTA evaluation approach. In the 4 March 2015 USD(AT&L) letter to all Secretaries of Military Departments entitled “Appropriate Use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process and Associated Contract Types” USD(AT&L) states that “LPTA is the appropriate source selection process to apply only when there are well-defined requirements, the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, price is a significant factor in the source selection, and there is neither value, need, nor willingness to pay for higher performance. Well-defined requirements equates to technical requirements and “technical acceptability” standards that are clearly understood by both industry and government, are expressed in terms of performance objectives, measures, and standards that map to our requirements documents, and lend themselves to technical evaluation on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.” It does not appear that the requirements in this solicitation meet the USD(AT&L) definition of “well-defined” and therefore use of LPTA is not an appropriate source selection process. In light of this guidance and the lack of well-defined requirements will the Government consider changing the source selection process to best value? | While LPTA is not normally reserved for service competitions, it was decided (after heavy deliberation) the approach was sufficient for this competition due to: 1) The well-defined, succinct requirements; 2) The lack of any real discriminators within requirements to be accomplished ; and 3) the nature of the work itself is not very specialized. Research was conducted prior to finalizing this conclusion, to include the Frank Kendall 04 March 2015 Memorandum, “Appropriate Use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection process and Associated Contract Type”. Research of numerous previous ACSS solicitations and discussions with those Contracting Officers has provided in the majority of situations, that competition comes down to the Lowest Price. With the 04 March memo, while there are some guiding practices that point away from LPTA, the Memo also provides “LPTA is most appropriate when best value is expected to result from the selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price”. | |
| 20 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 1. Scope//22-28 | Can the Government clarify the differences in support requirements between “Managed” and “Supported” programs? | "Managed" and "Supported" are two different internal categorizations used within PdM TFITS to indicate the amount of effort needed in the management of the projects. For "Managed" projects, TFITS is responsible for all or most of the acquisition activities. For "Supported" projects, TFITS is only responsible for a limited amount of work (for example: Funding or Cyber Sercurity only). The provided Exhibit C, Task Order Matrix, and Exhibit E, Historical LOE, are provided to identify the expected work. | |
| 21 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | Scope//31-32 | Is the expected growth of two to three programs per year “Managed” or “Supported” programs? Will this growth be identified through a new TO? (Note: related to question above regarding differences in support requirements). | This will be accomplished through a new task order. | |
| 22 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.1.8//177-180 | Is the contractor required to host all meetings at the contractor facility? How many network connections will be required? | The Government is not authorized to procure contractor conference facilities though this contract. As part of "organizing", it is desired that the contractor not only identify where the meeting will be conducted but also coordinate the meetings in such a manner as to allow maximum attendance by IPT members. The Government has very limited meeting facilities and historically contractors have held a large number of meetings in either their own, a partner's, or the system integrators facilities. Network connections: 5-30 per conference room. | |
| 23 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.1.12//201-203 | Can the Govt specify the volume or quantity of Engineering and IA documentation that will require review and updates? | The volume or quantity of documents is variable and will be coordinated upon award. Staffing should be based on historical support estimates provided (Exhibit E). | |
| 24 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.2.1.1//213-215 | Will the Govt provide or specify the tool to be used for Requirements Management? | Government will utilize Microsoft (MS) Excel | |
| 25 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.2.1.2//217-224 | Can the Govt quantify the number of meetings requiring support for the seven SETR events listed? | Each of the 23 managed projects plan for quarterly releases. | |
| 26 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.2.1.10//257-258 | How many PPPs require development and how many must be maintained? | Three PPPs need to be developed and then be subsequently maintained. | |
| 27 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.2.1.11//260-262 | How many PESOHEs are complete and how many need to be developed? | One is complete. None are planned to be developed. | |
| 28 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.2.2.2//294-296 | What is the historical number of ECPs that require architectural artifacts on a monthly basis? | No history relating to ECP’s as driver of Arch products. Architectural is driven by various requirements including JITC, Waivers, ISP’s, IRB Certifications, etc. | |
| 29 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.2.3//317 | Is there a Government provided requirements management tool the contractor will use? | ECP’s will be maintained in Gov't ECP Tracker, Requirements will be maintained in MS Excel. | |
| 30 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.2.3.1//319-323 | Is this traceability analysis done for each of the TFITS managed programs? Is the contractor to maintain a Requirements traceability tool to make RTM updates across TFITS programs? | Yes. |
Yes, in MS Excel.
| 31 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.2.3.1//319-323 | Will the Govt provide the RTM tool to be used? | Yes. MS Excel. |
| 32 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.2.3.4//331-334 | Is this to support the PjM with breaking down the requirement or is this a more detailed analysis across the TFITS portfolio in line with 4.2.3.1? | This supports the requirement for annual review and update of TFITS ST&ES. |
| 33 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.2.5.1//383-386 | Can the Govt provide a historical estimate of the number of ECPs requiring review? | No, ECP volume is Project specific and based upon available funding. |
| 34 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.2.5.2//388-391 | Can the Govt specify the number of SI deliverables to be reviewed? | The tasks provided in the PWS are intended to indicate the type of work that the contractor shall perform; however, contractor pricing should be focused at the Project Level and based on the historical support estimates (Exhibit E). The number and complexity of deliverables will vary a depending on the complexity of the project and status of development efforts. The contractor will be expected to flex their support within their proposed staffing. |
| 35 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.2.5.5//402-404 | Will the Govt provide the CITDB tool and licenses? Will the Govt provide training on the tool? | CITDB resides in SharePoint. Access will be provided. CITDB management knowledge required. |
| 36 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.3.17.1//543-545 | Does the input to the "architecture diagrams" mean an interoperability on an TFITS enterprise level or only within the individual projects? | Individual Projects |
| 37 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.3.5//444-445 | Can the Govt clarify "into the TFITS SETR monthly"? Does it reference IA's coordination with each SETR event, processes and reports, once per month? | Yes. |
| 38 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.3.6//447-449 | Is the contractor responsible to coordinate and facilitate SI security architectures within the DoDAF requirements in section 4.2.2.2? | Yes. |
| 39 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.3.8//454-456 | With the requirement of "approximately 25 white papers," is it assumed that this is only 25 WP's for all "Managed and Supported" projects or 25 papers per project? | Total for all Managed and Supported projects. |
| 40 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.3.12//467 | In reference to "prepare PPPs," what detail construct would this tasking detail? Admin support, development? See PPPs through the complete process of validation? | The vendor will be responsible for developing the PPP (working with the Gov't Program Office Protection Lead), following it through the approval processes, and maintaining the PPP (updating). |
| 41 | Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS | 4.3.9//458-459 | Can the Govt specify the number of MOUs/MOAs/SLAs to be reviewed? | MOUs/MOAs/SLAs will vary. Please refer to the historical estimates provided (Exhibit E). |
| 42 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 2-Past Performance Volume;
i) Section One-Recent and Relevant Past Performance
| Solicitation / Page 28, Paragraph 2 | The solicitations states relevant/recent Department of Defense DOD Contracts/task orders and/or subcontracts. Would the Government accept Department of Homeland Security efforts as relevant? Will the Government accept U.S. Coast Guard contracts/task orders as relevant? | The Past Performance section has been updated. See Amendment 0001. Relevant/recent Federal, commercial or other customers' past performance will be accepted. |
| 43 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 2-Past Performance Volume;
i) Section One-Recent and Relevant Past Performance
| Solicitation / Page 28, Paragraph 2 | Solicitation states, * Relevant is defined as efforts worth at least $2M/year, with similar size, scope, complexity. Considering the SB size standards for prime vendors to bid this effort, we believe the 2M/year requirement for Past Performance is too high for SB bidders to qualify. Would the government considering relaxing the requirements with a lower dollar value or removing it altogether? | The size standard for the NAICS code selected was $27.5 million. That means $27.5M in average annual receipts. $2M is a realistic amount based on the anticipated award amount and historical performance provided and well within the bounds of the NAICS code selected. |
| 44 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 3-Pricing Volume;
i) Section One, A
| Solicitation/Page 29 | The Government is asking for separate lines in a T&M listing of labor category rates. Typically multi-year FFP contracts that use T&M rates for ceilings, the rates incorporated into the contract are to be used for the entire team. Having rates only for the company providing the specific category reduces flexibility as contract personnel turnover which inevitably occurs. This increases contract risk. Will the Government allow a single set of rates for the entire team (Prime and Subcontractors)? | The Government is not requesting T&M rates. This is FFP contract. Rates are requested for both the Prime and any Subcontractors. |
| 45 | Instructions to Offerors; and |
Instructions to Offerors;
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 4-Model Contract;
i) Section One, C Solicitation / Page 22 Solicitation /Page 33
| Page 22 indicates that the Government is requesting a 120 day validity period for proposals. Page 31 indicates the Government is requesting a validity period of 90 days. Will the Government confirm which validity period they would like proposals to have? | Page 21 has been corrected. Proposal shall be valid for a period of 90 days. See Amendment 0001. |
| 46 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 4-Model Contract;
i) Section One, G
| Solicitation page 32 | The Government is requiring that Offerors provide financial statements covering the organizations which will be performing the contract. Will the Government confirm how many years of financial statements are wanted from the Prime and how many from each Subcontractor? | Page 34 of the RFP has been updated as follows: "Submit copies of your latest available financial statement covering the organization(s), which will perform the contract. Multiple years of financial statements are not required or requested." |
| 47 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 4-Model Contract) Section Two, B;
| Solicitation page 32 | The Solicitation says the Government wants fringe benefits to be presented both as “an hourly rate as well as an itemized list”. Will the Government clarify if they want 1) The total fringe paid by the Offeror presented as a rate per hour and an itemized list of the components to fringe? Or 2) An itemized list of all benefits contained in the Fringe with the associated cost presented in an hourly rate. | The Government requests 1) The total fringe paid by the Offeror presented as a rate per hour and an itemized list of the components to fringe. |
| 48 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 4-Model Contract;
i) Section Two, B
| Solicitation page 32 | Will the Government confirm or provide how they want the hourly rate calculated, so that Offerors are providing the same calculated rates for evaluation? | The Government wants the fully burdened rate; specific break out is not required for price. However, the Government requires additional information when proposing compensation. Please see answer to Question #47. |
| 49 | Evaluation Criteria |
Applicable to the Compensation Plan
| Solicitation page 33 | The Government indicates that the evaluation criteria for the Professional Compensation Plan will be Pass/Fail. Will the Government provide some clarity as to what minimum criteria must be me to receive a pass and what criteria would cause a failure? | As stated on page 35 of the RFP: "An Acceptable Plan provides compensation levels that demonstrate a clear understanding of the work to be performed and indicates the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives and to meet the requirements of the solicitation." |
| 50 | Evaluation Criteria |
Applicable to Past Performance
| Solicitation page 34 | The Government indicates that non-DOD examples submitted will be reviewed as not relevant. In the next paragraph, the Government indicates that they reserve the right to use other sources to include Federal, State and local Government Agencies. Will the Government accept non-DOD past performance references if they relate to the work being performed under this solicitation? | The Past Performance section has been updated. See Amendment 0001. Relevant/recent Federal, commercial or other customers' past performance will be accepted. | x |
| 51 | ADDENDUM 1 TO EVAL PLAN |
Instructions to Offerors
Instructions for Content
b) Volume 2- Past Performance Volume consisting of two Sections:
EIAS RFP M67854-15-R-4802.PDF
Paragraph 1 Lines 1 – 2 “least two (2) of the Past Performance examples provided must be for the prime Offeror (as opposed to team members/major subcontractors).”
| Would the Government consider modifying this requirement to one (1) Past Performance for the Prime? | The Past Performance section has been updated. See Amendment 0001 |
| 52 | ADDENDUM 1 TO EVAL PLAN |
Instructions to Offerors
Instructions for Content
b) Volume 2- Past Performance Volume consisting of two Sections:
EIAS RFP M67854-15-R-4802.PDF
Paragraph 2 Lines 1 – 4 “*Relevant" is defined as efforts worth at least $2 million/year, with similar size, scope and complexity, and is representative of the company’s ability to deliver Program Management, Logistics, and Administrative support to multiple Department of Defense projects simultaneously.”
| Would the Government consider modifying the definition of ‘Relevant’ to be defined as efforts worth at least $2 million/year, with similar size and complexity, and is representative of the company’s ability to deliver Program Management, Logistics, and Administrative support to multiple Department of Defense projects simultaneously? | No. The size standard for the NAICS code selected was $27.5 million. That means $27.5M in average annual receipts. $2M is a realistic amount based on the anticipated award amount and historical performance provided and well within the bounds of the NAICS code selected. |
| 53 | ADDENDUM 1 TO EVAL PLAN |
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Instructions to Offerors
Instructions for Content
c) Volume 3- Pricing Volume consisting of two sections:
ii) Section Two - No Page Limit
C. Tab 3- Travel tab
EIAS RFP M67854-15-R-4802.PDF
Paragraph 8 Lines 8 – 13 “The Offeror (if proposing Travel) shall provide (on a separate tab) total price for travel for each SLIN and the breakdown per SLIN (or CLIN if no SLINs), of Travel to include departure and arrival locations, number of travelers, duration of trip, itemized transportation cost (i.e. airfare, luggage, rental car, POV, gas), hotel expenses, and any other projected expense.”
| Please provide the physical location of each of the twenty-eight (28) systems to be supported under this contract so that the Offeror can appropriately price any required travel per SLIN / CLIN. | See Exhibit D, TO PWS, para. 5, Table 1 for travel requirements and location. |
| 54 | ADDENDUM 1 TO EVAL PLAN |
EVALUATION CRITERIA
EIAS RFP M67854-15-R-4802.PDF
Paragraph 1 Lines 1 – 3 “The Government intends to make award to the offeror that results in the lowest total price and is technically acceptable to the Government. Technically Acceptable will be evaluated in terms of Compensation Plan, Technical Approach, and Past Performance.”
| Does the government consider a Compensation Plan rated as Acceptable, a Technical Approach rated as Acceptable, and a Past Performance rated as Neutral to be ‘Technically Acceptable’? | Yes. |
| 55 | ADDENDUM 1 TO EVAL PLAN |
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Applicable to Past Performance
EIAS RFP M67854-15-R-4802.PDF
Paragraph 1 Lines 1 – 3 “If the lowest priced Offeror is found Unacceptable, the Government will then progress through the remaining offerors based on the next lowest-priced (one at a time) until an offeror is determined to be Technically Acceptable.”
| Will the Government award the contract to an Offeror whose response is Lowest Price, does NOT contain any ‘Unacceptable’ elements, and has a Past Performance rated Neutral? | The Government intends to make award to the offeror that results in the lowest total price and is technically acceptable to the Government. | |
| 56 | 5. Facilities, Other Direct Costs (ODCs), and Travel Requirements: | EIAS Task Order – Exhibit D TO PWS.docx |
Paragraph 6 Lines 4-5 “While travel may be required to support the requirements of this Task, (See table 1) travel is expected to be limited.”
| Please provide the travel Destinations, Durations, and Frequency incurred on the current contract, so that the Offeror can appropriately estimate Travel Costs to include with our proposal. | See Exhibit D, TO PWS, para. 5, line 561. | |
| 57 | CLIN / SLIN | EIAS Task Order – Exhibit E Hist LOE.xlsx |
Worksheet: EIAS
| Is the overall LOE (18.5 FTEs) represented in the spreadsheet an accurate representation of the current contract LOE? | No. | |
| 58 | CLIN / SLIN | EIAS Task Order – Exhibit E Hist LOE.xlsx |
Worksheet: EIAS
| What is the current contract overall LOE? | The actual number has fluctuated with a maximum FTE of 24. | |
| 59 | CLIN / SLIN | EIAS Task Order – Exhibit E Hist LOE.xlsx |
Worksheet: EIAS
| Is the overall LOE (18.5 FTEs) represented in the spreadsheet an accurate representation of the minimum LOE for the new contract award? | No, the 18.5 FTEs represents a historical average based on similar support efforts. The actual minimum may vary. | |
| 60 | CLIN / SLIN | EIAS Task Order – Exhibit E Hist LOE.xlsx |
Worksheet: EIAS Is the overall LOE (18.5 FTEs) represented in the spreadsheet an accurate representation of the maximum LOE for the new contract award? No, the 18.5 FTEs represents a historical average based on similar support efforts. The actual maximum may vary.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .