FINAL_Att_P7_Question_Submittal_Form_cumulative_Amend2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N0001921R0027
About this file
This solicitation requests proposals for Program Management Knowledge Based Services Contractor Support Services to support the F-35 Joint Program Office. The services include contract management, program management, technical, analytical, acquisition, and operational support. The solicitation is for a single-award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity level-of-effort contract with cost plus fixed fee and cost only contract line items. The total performance period is five years with an initial task order period of one year plus four option years. The solicitation was issued by the Department of the Navy Naval Air Systems Command and is anticipated to be a total small business set-aside. Proposals are due within 180 days and questions are due within 10 days of issuance.
View the file
Other files
Show all 20
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
Sheet1
| N00019-21-R-0027 Question Submittal Form | |||||||
| Question Number | Date Submitted | Question Source (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.) | Page number and paragraph header from source | Question | Gov't Response | Solicitation Revision (Yes/No) | |
| 1 | 8/17/21 | RFP | page 113, Section M, Part B - SPECIFIC INFORMATION, paragraph 2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE | The table in Section M part 2.0 Past Performance indicates that Complexity will be considered relevant if a contract required simultaneous operations at 4 or more sites. Will the government consider reducing that number to 3 simultaneous sites in order to allow for contracts with similar scope but slightly fewer locations to be considered relevant? | See Draft RFP's QnA in amendment 1. Question#44. | No | |
| 2 | 8/17/21 | RFP | page 15, Section C - Descriptions and Specifications - STATEMENT OF WORK | Will support to the SCC and CHC be included in the task orders issued under this contract? | See Draft RFP's QnA in amendment 1. Question#45. | No | |
| 3 | 8/17/21 | RFP | page 109, Section L, Part B - SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, paragraph 3.6.2 Labor Hours | Labor Categories Agile Product Manager and Agile Product Program Manager have locations listed as Open in the table. Please clarify what Open means? | See Draft RFP's QnA in amendment 1. Question#46. | No | |
| 4 | 8/17/21 | RFP | page 109, Section L, Part B - SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, paragraph 3.6.2 Labor Hours | Please verify the Total FTE's in the table for Foreign Military Sales Program Analystt Senior and Foreign Military Sales Program Analyst Journeyman, as the totals based each of the chart should be 44 for Senior and 37 for Journeyman | See Draft RFP's QnA in amendment 1. Question#47. | No | |
| 5 | 8/17/21 | RFP | page 99, Section L, Part A - GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS, 3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT and VOLUMES, paragraph 3.3 Table | The cumulative 40-page limit for the Understanding of the Work and Management Approach sections does not allow adequate space to provide thorough detail for all SOW tasks including SOW sections 3.1 – 3.10 and all subparagraphs as well as all required areas of the Management Approach, including the Transition Plan and Small Business Utilization Strategy. Will the Government consider increasing the page limit to 25 pages for the Management Approach and 50 pages for the Understanding of the Work for a total cumulative limit of 75 pages? | Section L has been revised - the 40-page limit for the Technical Volume excludes Annex 1 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) | No | |
| 6 | 8/17/21 | RFP | page 103, Section L, Part B - SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, paragraph 1.3.7 Small Business Utilization Strategy, (2) SB Subcontracting Plans, Annex 1 | Management Approach Section 1.3.7 (2) requires a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, submitted as Annex 1. The current page limitation acknowledges that “Appendix” 1 is excluded from the page count, but does not reference “Annex” 1. Can the Government confirm Annex 1 does not count toward the page limits specified for Volume 1? | Section L has been revised - the 40-page limit for the Technical Volume excludes Annex 1 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) | No | |
| 7 | 8/17/21 | Attachment 2 Labor Categories and Minumum Qualifications | Page 3 - A.2.5 Labor Category (LC) Table, LC01 (Experience column) | The required experience for the IDIQ Program Manager specifically includes 4 years within the last 8 years managing a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP). Given the fact that contractors can’t manage an MDAP, this requirement severely limits the candidate pool to Senior Military Officers (e.g. a former F-35 PEO) and/or SES Civilians who have retired from managing an MDAP within the past 4 years, and who don’t currently have a legal obligation to abstain from performing work in support of this effort. The previous draft solicitation required 5 years in support of an MDAP. For the purposes of leading a contract effort, it seems much more applicable to require experience in support of an MDAP, than to require experience managing the entire MDAP. We request the Government consider going back to the previous wording, indicating that the experience be in support of an MDAP. | The Government will not revise the MDAP requirement for the IDIQ Program Manager. Personnel to be proposed are not limited to SMO's & SES's – personnel with management experience (to include contractors) within an MDAP may be proposed. | Yes | |
| 8 | 8/17/21 | Attachment 2 Labor Categories and Minumum Qualifications | Page 3 - A.2.5 Labor Category (LC) Table, LC02 (Experience column) | The required experience for the IDIQ Deputy Program Manager requires 4 years managing a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP). Given the fact that contractors can’t manage an MDAP, this requirement severely limits the candidate pool to previous Senior Military Officers (e.g. a former F-35 PEO) and/or SES Civilians, who don’t currently have a legal obligation to abstain from performing work in support of this effort. For the purposes of supporting a contract effort as a Deputy, it seems much more applicable to require experience in support of an MDAP, than to require experience managing the entire MDAP. We request the Government consider replacing the word “managing” with the word “supporting” in the IDIQ Deputy Program Manager experience requirement. | The Government will not revise the MDAP requirement for the IDIQ Deputy Program Manager. Personnel to be proposed are not limited to SMO's & SES's – personnel with management experience (to include contractors) within an MDAP may be proposed. | Yes | |
| 9 | 8/17/21 | RFP and Attachment P1 | Page 13, Page 36 and Attachment P1 | In the final RFP, all references to key personnel in the table on page 13 have been removed. Page 36, section 9 indicates that the ID/IQ Program Manager (PM) and Deputy PM are key at the TO level. Section L requires key personnel resumes be submitted with proposals and attachment P1 still indicates 11 key personnel. Can you please confirm that the 11 key labor categories in the P1 are considered key and require resume submission with proposals? | There are 10 Key Personnel in Year 1. For the full list of Key Personnel, see “Attachment P1 – Level of Effort spreadsheet,” Column I | ||
| No | |||||||
| 10 | 8/17/21 | Attachment P1 | Year 1 and Year 2 | Export Compliance Specialist, Senior (Key) - Please confirm that this key category isn't required in Year 1, and is expected only in Year 2 - Year 5. | Export Compliance Specialist is not a Key Position in Year 1 | ||
| No | |||||||
| 11 | 8/17/21 | RFP and Attachment P1 | page 109, Section L, Part B - SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, paragraph 3.6.2 Labor Hours and Attachment P1 | Please confirm if the labor category is Affordability Program Manager or Affordability Analyst, as well as verify the applicable BLS Code. | FTE table is corrected in Amendment 2 to align with Attachment P1. Labor Category is Affordability Program Manager. SOC is 11-1021 Program Manager. | Yes | |
| 12 | 8/17/21 | RFP and Attachment P1 | page 109, Section L, Part B - SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, paragraph 3.6.2 Labor Hours and Attachment P1 | There are several discrepancies in hours by labor category and level between the Labor Hours chart in the RFP under 3.6.2 and Attachment P1. These discrepancies are in the following labor categories: Acquisition Management Analyst (Mid - Arlington) (All years), Acquisition Management Analyst (Junor - Arlington) (All years), Affordability Analyst (Senior - Arlington) (All years), Affordability Analyst (Mid - Arlington) (All years), International Program Analyst (Senior- Arlington) (Year 2 - 5), Program Analyst (Senior- Arlington) (Year 2 - 5), Program Analyst (Mid- Arlington) (All years), and Requirements Management Analyst (Mid- Arlington) (All years), | Discrepancies are rectified in Amendment 2. Labor Hours table, attachment P5 & P6 are updated. | Yes | |
| 13 | 8/17/21 | Solicitation | General | Due to the substantial changes in scope from the 4 June 2020 Draft RFP to the final RFP release, would the Government consider a 3 week extension to the response due date? | The Government will not be extending the RFP an additional 3 weeks. | No | |
| 14 | 8/17/21 | Solicitation | General | Would the government please clarify if resumes are still required for key positions not starting until the out years? | Resumes are only required for Key Personnel starting in Year 1. | No | |
| 15 | 8/20/21 | RFP | Section C - 3.1.2 | SOW Paragraph 3.1.2 states “Business Operations – support CMO in managing acquisition documents, the Defense Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES), Secure Asset Reporting System (SARS), CPARS, and JPO Issuances.” Often, when DAES and SAR are referenced together, SAR refers to “Selected Acquisition Report.” Can the Government please confirm the intended definition of SARS? | SAR refers to “Selected Acquisition Report.” Revision to be included in Amendment 2. | Yes | |
| 16 | 8/20/21 | RFP and Attachment P5 | RFP - Section B and Attachment P5 Cost Summary Spreadsheet Tab and Summary Tab | Please confirm that on the Cost Summary Spreadsheet Tab that Labor Costs and Travel Costs do not need to be submitted at the CLIN level for each Contract Year in accordance with Section B. On the Summary Tab in the Attachment P5, do we need to complete that at the CLIN level utilizing the Excel Spreadsheet of Section B that will be provided in response to Section L paragraph 3.1.2? | The Summary Tab in Attachment P5 is the location for the CLIN breakdowns as mentioned in P5 'Instructions' tab Row #19. The CLIN format provided in Section B is what will be utilized in the summary tab. | No | |
| 17 | 8/20/21 | Attachment P4 | According to the answer to the 20th question listed, attachment P4 was provided as a Word document. However, it was provided as a .PDF. Will the government please provide a Word version of attachment P4? | MS Word version is provided under Amendment 2. | Yes | ||
| 18 | 8/20/21 | RFP | 2.0 Past Performance | ||||
| Page 114 | Are Offerors to address the four quality elements listed as evalution criteria in the “Relevant Work Description” area of the Past Performance Matrix, or should Offerors provide this information in a separate narrative within the Volume 2: Past Performance response? | The contractor should use the "Relevant Work Description" area to summarize Relevancy primarily. The anticipated method of evaluation for quality criteria is CPARS, other Federal Databases as necessary, & the Past Performance Questionnaires (attachment P4). | No | ||||
| 19 | 8/22/21 | RFP | Page 105 Part B Specific Instructions 3.1.1.1, 3.2.4 | Please confirm that minor subcontractors (non-principal subcontractors), who will perform less than 20% of total proposed price, do not need to be included in the Prime's price proposal nor is a sealed price submission required. | The offeror should include required pricing information for all subcontractors who are intended to perform on this contract at time of proposal. | No | |
| 20 | 8/22/21 | RFP | Page 97 Section L 1.5 | The Government states that "Throughout these instructions, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 20% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee), for the contract. Please confirm that this is also exclusive of Travel and ODCs. | Sections L & M provide guidance on how the Government will calculate the total proposed price/cost. | No | |
| 21 | 8/22/21 | RFP | Page 105 Part B Section 3.2.4 | The Government states "Unpriced subcontractors shall not be proposed". Please confirm that non-principal subcontractors mentioned in the technical volume are not required to be priced in the Cost/Price Volume. | The offeror should include required pricing information for all subcontractors who are intended to perform on this contract at time of proposal. | No | |
| 22 | 8/22/21 | RFP | Page 105 Section L 3.2.4 | If unpriced subcontractors are included in the technical volume, must offerors include pricing? | The offeror should include required pricing information for all subcontractors who are intended to perform on this contract at time of proposal. | No | |
| 23 | 8/22/21 | RFP | Page 107 Part B Specific Instructions 3.4.3 | "This paragraph includes the note: ""For purposes of the Total Compensation Plan, “professional” employees are those designated as “Senior” in Column H of Attachment P1, Level of Effort Spreadsheet."" |
| This is not necessarily consistent with 29 CFR 541. For purposes of the Compensation Plan to be submitted with this proposal, are offerors only required to include data supporting salaries that are designated as ""Senior"" in the LOE spreadsheet?" | Sections L & M provide guidance on how the Government will calculate the total proposed price/cost. | No | |||||
| 24 | 8/22/21 | RFP | Page 114-115 Section M 2.0 | Will the Government consider removal of the $25M magnitude requirement only for small business subcontractor past performance? There are many small business that have highly relevant past performance supporting the F-35 JPO that will be unable to utilize that past performance in this effort due to the magnitude requirement? With a NAICS code of 541611, a small business is less than $16.5M in annual revenues. It would be incredibly challenging for a small business to have a $25M contract and be below the $16.5M annual threshold. | Section M provides the evaluation methodologies which the Government will use for Past Performance. The Relevancy Ratings and scale will account for variances between offeror's past performance and the current effort. However, it should be noted that the $25M is a total contract value and not an annual requirement. | No | |
| 25 | 8/22/21 | RFP | Attch. 4 - DD 254 | Can the Government please provide the missing Addendum 1 to the DD254? If the Addendum 1 cannot be provided, can the Government please provide guidance or instruction to ensure we are in line with compliance with security requirements for the JPO? | Addendum is attached in the DD254 pdf. | No | |
| 26 | 8/22/21 | RFP | Page 57 - 5252.237-9501 | (d) All proposed substitutions shall be submitted, in writing, to the Contracting Officer at least thirty (30) days prior to the proposed substitution. Each request shall provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances necessitating the proposed substitution, a complete resume for the proposed substitute, information regarding the full financial impact of the change, and any other information required by the Contracting Officer to approve or disapprove the proposed substitution. All proposed substitutes (no matter when they are proposed during the performance period) shall have qualifications that are equal to or higher than the qualifications of the person being |
replaced.
| Request the Government remove the requirement for proposed substitutes to have qualifications that are equal to or higher than the qualifications of the person being replaced. The labor qualifications established in Att 2 should dictate the minimum regardless of the incumbent personnel's qualifications. This language imposes an unecessary burden on offerors to replace key personnel with progressively more experienced individuals than the original minimum requirement. | The NAVAIR Clause reflects the JPO's requirements. | No | |||||
| 27 | 8/22/21 | RFP | Attachment 2 - Tables A.2.3 and A.2.3.1 | With regard to the Minimum Education and Experience Tables found in A.2.3, and A.2.3.1. could the government please clarify the years of experience requirement for Senior level personnel possessing of an Associate’s degree in an applicable area? | Attachment 2 has been revised to remove A.2.3.1. See amendment 2's attachments. | Yes | |
| 28 | 8/22/21 | RFP | Attachment 2 - Tables A.2.3 and A.2.3.1 | With regard to the Minimum Education and Experience Tables found in A.2.3, and A.2.3.1. could the government please clarify the years of experience requirement for Senior level personnel possessing without a degree in an applicable area? For Example: If a candidate has 18 to 20 yrs of highly relevant experience matching the experience requirement, but but does not posses a degree, is the candidate considered compliant with the requirements. | Attachment 2 has been revised to remove A.2.3.1. See amendment 2's attachments. | Yes | |
| 29 | 8/23/21 | N0001921R0027_RFP_PM_KBS_CSS_20210813 | Page 105, Section L, Section 3.2.3, Ground Rules and Assumptions | RFP Sec L, 3.2.1 states certified cost or pricing data IAW FAR 15.403-1 is not required. FAR 15-404-3(c)(1) requires certified cost or pricing data to the Government for subcontracts that are either greater than $13.5M or 10 percent of the prime contractor’s proposed price. |
Since Prime Offerors are required to perform cost or price analysis on each proposed subcontractor’s price, would the USG consider an exception to the "subcontractor's providing the same information required for the prime contractor" (Sec L 3.2.3 and 3.4) for those subcontractors below the $13.5M or 10% of the prime contractor's proposed price over the 5.5 year POP that is being evaluated? FAR 15.404-3(c)(1) is not anticipated to be applicable as certified cost & pricing data is not currently required for either the Prime or Sub's IAW FAR 15.403-1(b)(1).
In the event certified cost & pricing data is required due to lack of competition IAW DFARS 252.215-7008 the Government will not consider an exception to the Sub-Contractor Certified Cost & Pricing Data Requirement.
| No | ||||
| 30 | 8/23/21 | N0001921R0027_RFP_PM_KBS_CSS_20210813 | Page 62, 252.225-7048 Export-Controlled Items JUN 2013 and Page 82, 52.209-13 VIOLATION OF ARMS CONTROL TREATIES OR AGREEMENTS--CERTIFICATION (JUL 2020) | To ensure full compliance with U.S. export control policies, will foreign-owned companies, bidding either as a prime offeror or subcontractor, be eligible to bid on this effort? |
| And if foreign-owned companies are allowed to bid, what type of FOCI reviews and compliance audits will the Government perform? | The Government will ensure that all offerors meet the requirements stated in the RFP, including the cited DFARS clause and Facility Clearance (FCL) requirements. | No | |||||
| 31 | 8/23/21 | RFP | Composite Fully Burdened Rates, Exclusive of Fee, P.13 | Table heading states "(Regardless of Clearance, Location, or Key)". Does this mean the offerors need to provide one average rate per labor category? | Yes, contractor's should provide 1 average rate per category. | No | |
| 32 | 8/23/21 | RFP | 3.5 Evaluation Option, p. 114 & 3.6 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE, P. 115 | Section 3.5 states: " The Total Evaluated Price will also include the six (6) month performance period permitted under the Clause to account for a situation where invoking of the Clause, in whole or part, becomes necessary. Specifically, the evaluated Price/Cost of this six (6) month period will be calculated by dividing the Government’s evaluated price for the final year by 12 to establish an estimated monthly amount. The monthly amount will then be multiplied by six to establish the estimated cost for the six-month option to extend services.” Section 3.6 states: "The Total Evaluated Price will be the sum of: the higher of the total Proposed Cost or Most Probable Cost (MPC) for Labor and Travel costs for the entire five-year ordering period; and the calculated 52.217-8 values for the Option to Extend Services period." A) Are offerors permitted to propose ODCs, if needed? B) Are offerors required to include the calculated amount for 6 months option to extend in total proposed cost? | Offerors are required to include ODC's as provided in Section L, Part B, Volume 3, 3.5.4.1. The 52.217-8 period will be evaluated as stated in Section M 3.5. | No | |
| 33 | 8/23/21 | RFP | 3.3 Proposal Volume Table | Section 3.3, Table, Volume Number 1.3, Annex 1, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Should this reference read: "Annex 1, Small Business Utilization Strategy"? Also, should the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be included under 3.7? | No, Small Business Sub-Contracting Plan is Annex 1. The Small Business Utilization Strategy is to be included in the offeror's Management Plan. | No | |
| 34 | 8/23/21 | RFP | 1.3.6 SB Utilization Strategy | Section 1.3.6 SB Utilization Strategy, states 20% of the total contract value inclusive of options. Are we to consider the six (6) months of Option to Extend Services under FAR 52.217-8 when calculating our 20% SB utilization? | Section M provides instructions on how the Government will calculate the total contract value. | No | |
| 35 | 8/23/21 | RFP | 3.4 Total Professional Compensation Plan | Under Section 3.2.3, it states that subcontractors shall provide the same informtion that as the prime provides. Under Section 3.4 Total Professional Compensation Plan, it is not clear if subcontractors and consultants are to provide a TCP? | All proposed individuals of "Senior" categorization are required to be included in the Total Professional Compensation Plan, this includes subcontractors. | No | |
| 36 | 8/23/21 | N0001921R0027_RFP_PM_KBS_CSS_20210813.pdf | |||||
| Att_P2_Past_Performance_Matrix_20210813.doc | Page 104, Past Performance 2.1.2 |
RFP Attachment P2 Attachment P2 Past Performance-Under instruction # 3. “Relevant Work Description,” provide a detailed description of the work pertinent to the solicitation and why it is relevant. The Government provided Attachment P2 in a " MS Word" document , however the Government states on page 104 "The Offeror shall provide a narrative in the Past Performance Matrix in the “Relevant Work Description” area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions specified in Section M of the solicitation" One of the relevancy factors under Section M is "The range of Program Management Knowledge Based Services (PM- KBS) consists of the tasks areas identified in Section C SOW 3.1 - 3.10". The column in the Government's provided template does not provide enough space to give a detailed description of the work to all SOW requirements as well as the other relevancy factors in Section M.
| QUESTION: Will the Government allow the offeror to slightly modify the table to add a row for "Relevant Work Description" under each referance to enable offerer to fully describe relevant work? | Changes to the layout of Attachment P2 are not permitted. | No | |||||
| 37 | 8/23/21 | Amendment 1 - Draft Questions and Responses #7 | Amendment 1 - Draft Questions and Responses #7 | As a follow-up to the response to Question #16, for the purposes of the small business subcontracting plan requirement, are only small businesses who are qualified under NAICS 541611 exempt from submitting this document, or are all small businesses (under $41.5M) exempt? | To be exempt from the SBSCP requirement you must be a small business under the applicable NAICS code (541611). | No | |
| 38 | 8.20.2021 | RFP | Pg. 24 para C-4.6, pg. 33 para C-7.1.11, pg. 103 L.1.3.5, | "The Government requires a minimum of 10-business days after submission of a proposed candidate to complete Government on-boarding actions for Contractor personnel (e.g., SAAR-N processing, security badge, IT assets, etc.). The Contractor shall ensure this timeframe is considered in its Transition-In Plan. " May the contractor submit newly hired incumbent personnel and other new hires before their actual start date as employees so the government can begin on-boarding. Starting personnel 10 days ahead of their actual need dates for contract requirements is a major expense that will raise the cost of this effort. | Contractor may submit new hires before their actual start date. The requirement is to provide a minimum of 10-day notice to the Government in order to complete on-boarding activities prior to the start date. | No | |
| 39 | 8.20.2021 | Att_P1_Level_of_Effort | Year 1 LOE tab | Attachment P1 (Level of Effort) has hours allocated to a Service Representative Program Analyst or Deputy (Senior), but did not include this labor category in Attachment P5 or Attachment P6. Can the government confirm that we are still to provide a rate for the Service Representative Program Analyst or Deputy (Senior) in Attachments P5 (B-1 Composite Rates tab) and P6 (Burdened Labor Rates tab)? | Discrepancies are rectified in amendment 2. Labor Hours table, attachment P5 & P6 are updated. | Yes | |
| 40 | 8.20.2021 | RFP | Pg. 30 para 7.1.1.1 Management Plan portion | Request clarification of item c. Task Dependencies and Interrelationships | Section C, Paragraph 7.1.1.1.c revision to be included in Amendment 2 | Yes | |
| 41 | 8.23.2021 | RFP | Pg. 104, para 2.1.1 | Will the government consider updating the format of Attachment P2 to accommodate 11x17 printing for ease of readability? | Printing is required in standard size 8.5x11 in. | No | |
| 42 | 8.23.2021 | RFP | Pg. 104, para 2.1.1 | When referencing IDIQ/BPA contracts and their nested task orders, will the government accept task order aggregation to meet complexity requirements, such as simultaneous operations? | Section M provides the evaluation methodologies which the Government will use for Past Performance. The Relevancy Ratings and scale will account for variances between offeror's past performance and the current effort. Section M requests offerors to submit contracts to be considered, which would be inclusive of subsequent task orders under the contract. | No | |
| 43 | 8.23.2021 | RFP | Pg. 113, para 2.0 | We request additional detail regarding use of key personnel as an evaluation component of relevancy - is there a specific metric tied to "support services with several key personnel in each ordering period" the government would like met? | Section M provides the evaluation methodologies which the Government will use for Past Performance. The Relevancy Ratings and scale will account for variances between offeror's past performance and the current effort. | No | |
| 44 | 8.23.2022 | RFP | Pg. 104, para 2.1.1 | Will the government accept interim CPARs? | The Government will pull the CPARS to be considered; all relevant CPARS will be considered. | No | |
| 45 | 8.23.2021 | RFP | Section M; Part B, Paragraph 2.0. | Q: The combination of evaluation requirements including JPO support, Program Size, Recency, Scope and especially the Complexity factors are severely limiting of competition. For example, the number of Joint Program Offices is much lower than the number of program offices that reside within a service, and lower even than programs that serve multiple services. Please confirm bidders will not be deemed non-compliant for PP citations that do not fully meet all criteria. | Section M provides the evaluation methodologies which the Government will use for Past Performance. The Relevancy Ratings and scale will account for variances between offeror's past performance and the current effort. | No | |
| 46 | 8.23.2021 | RFP | Section L, 2,0 Proposal Format, 2.1 | Are we correct that we include grids only for graphs? | Offerors may use Grids for either Graphs or Tables. | No | |
| 47 | 8.23.2021 | RFP | Section L, Part A, 2.0 Proposal Format, 2.1 | Are we correct that tables to be printed on 8.5" x 14" pages will still require 1" margins all around and will be counted as only 1 page? | This is correct, 1" margin is required to be considered 1 page. | No | |
| 48 | 8.23.2021 | RFP | Section L, Part A, 2.0 Proposal Format, 2.1 | For graphics, may we use a sans serif font? | No, Times New Roman throughout unless the Government form has a different font, you may use the font provided in the Government supplied template. | No | |
| 49 | 8.23.2021 | RFP | Section L, Part A, 2.0 Proposal Format, 2.1 | For graphics, may we use the GPO standard of 8 point as a minimum size? | No, 12 pt. font for all Proposal Documents. 10 pt. font is allowed on Graphs & tables. | No | |
| 50 | 8.23.2021 | RFP | Section L, Part B, 1.2 Key Personnel | Will the government please confirm that letters of intent are only required in Volume 3: Price/Cost? | Letters of Intent are now included in Volume 1 as Appendix 2. | Yes | |
| 51 | 8.23.2021 | RFP | Section L, Part B, 1.2 Key Personnel | In order to properly map the requirements in Attachment 2 - Labor Categories and Minimum Qualifications and SOW, would the government please consider increasing the page limits for resumes from 2 pages to 3 pages? | No, page limitations remain the same. | No | |
| 52 | 8.23.2021 | RFP | Section L, Part B, 1.3.1 (d) - Management Approach | Will the government please clarify what is meant by "task dependencies and interrelationships" specific to the Joint Program Office and the Statement of Work? | Section C, Paragraph 7.1.1.1.c revision to be included in Amendment 2 | Yes | |
| 53 | 8.23.2021 | RFP | Section M; Part B, Paragraph 2.0. | Will the government please confirm that for PP on task order contracts the aggregation of experience from multiple task orders is permitted? | Section M provides the evaluation methodologies which the Government will use for Past Performance. The Relevancy Ratings and scale will account for variances between offeror's past performance and the current effort. Section M requests offerors to submit contracts to be considered, which would be inclusive of subsequent task orders under the contract. | No |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .