Q A Posted to FedBizOpps - 1 thru 21.pdf

AVMI – SOLICITATION N00421-11-R-0055 – QUESTION COMPILATION

1. All documents posted in FedBizOpps pertaining to RFP N00421-11-R-0055 are shown as drafts, when does the government anticipate these going final? Or are these in fact the final RFP and attachments? Please clarify.

Government Response: It was the Government‟s intent that the RFP and attachments that were published in FedBizOpps on 2 Jul 2012 made up the final

RFP for the AVMI effort. As a result of the potential miscommunication of some of the documents being labeled draft, the Government is extending the required due date for proposals from 2:00 PM local time on 6 August 2012 to 2:00 PM local time on 20 August 2012.

2. Reference RFP pages 49 and 50, and page 99 Table 1. The RFP pages 49 and 50 identify

Systems Engineer and Structural Engineers as key labor categories and therefore require resumes. Table 1 on page 99 estimates two man-years for each of these positions. Are two resumes for each of the positions required?

Government Response: Per paragraph 2.1.1.4 in Section L of the RFP “For Key

Personnel provide a resume of the work assignments, training, etc., that demonstrate the experience and specialized qualifications of each key person proposed.” As a result, a resume is required for each key person proposed.

3. Reference RFP Page 87, Paragraph 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes. Table states

Volume 1, Executive Summary has a 4 page limit. Does that include the Offeror

Summary Table, SF33 and Reps and Certs too? Please clarify.

Government Response – Amendment 0001 will updated Section L paragraph 3.0

(Proposal Content and Volumes) to clarify that neither the SF33 or the signed

Representations, Certifications and Acknowledgements or On-Line Representations

Certifications Applications (ORCA) count toward the page limit associated with

Executive Summary, Volume I. In addition, the page limit associated with Volume

I, Executive Summary is being increased from 4 pages to 6 pages.

4. Reference RFP Page 88, Paragraph 4.0 Proposal Submission. RFP states “submit copies of Volume (3) Past Performance information in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 and Volume I, Executive Summary “Offeror‟s Summary Table”, 1.0 (ii) two weeks (or another time frame as deemed appropriate for the instant requirement ) prior to the submission date/time specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP.” Is Volume 3, Past

Performance to be submitted on July 23rd? –

Government Responses: The RFP will be revised to state that the Past Performance

Volume shall be submitted no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of

Standard Form 33 of the RFP. The RFP will also be revised to state that Volume I, Executive Summary “Offeror‟s Summary Table” 1.0 (ii) shall be submitted one week prior to the submission date/time specified in Block 9 of the Standard Form 33 of the RFP. Amendment 0001 will address these revised submittal requirements as well as establish the new proposal due date in Block 9 of the Standard Form 33.

5. Reference RFP Page 86, Section L, 1.0 General and Page 92, Section L, 3.0 Past

Performance. Page 86 defines a "principal subcontractor" as one who provides at least

20% of the proposed total price/cost. It also defines a "critical team member" as one that performs a critical function ........and/or have important roles in any high or medium risk areas identified in the proposal. Page 92 asks us to "provide five of the most relevant contracts for each critical team member and two for each principal subcontractor. " Based upon the definitions provided on Page 86, it seems to us that this requirement is reversed and we should be providing five contracts for each principal subcontractor and two for each critical subcontractor. Please clarify.

Government Response: Paragraph 3.1 under “Volume 3: Past performance” is accurate as stated. It should be noted that the statement in the RFP that the question refers to does start out with the words “When possible, these contracts should include…..”.

6. Reference RFP page 99, Table 1. A Technical Writer IV with an occupational code of

30364 is included in the table. The Attachment 2 – DOL WD Maryland does not contain this category. Please clarify. –

Government Response: Technical Writer IV does not have an occupational code in the wage determination. As result, this occupational code will be removed from

Table 1 on page 99 of the RFP and replaced with N/A. Amendment 0001 will address this revision.

7. Reference RFP Attachment P4, Past Performance Matrix. Attachment P4 was included as part of RFP package, however it is not referenced in Section L or Section M. Is this to be included in the Past Performance volume? Please clarify.

Government Response: Section L, paragraph 3.1 under Volume 3: Past

Performance, will be revised to include a reference to Attachment P4, Past

Performance Matrix. The revision will be addressed in Amendment 0001.

8. Reference RFP Attachments P5 and P8 Past Performance Questionnaire. There are two

Past Performance Questionnaire Attachments to the RFP; Attachment P5 and Attachment

P8. Please clarify which Questionnaire we are to forward to our customers?

Government Responses: Attachment P8 will be deleted in its entirety. Offerors shall utilize Attachment P5 for the Past Performance Questionnaire. Amendment

0001 will address this revision.

9. Reference RFP CDRL A003 Contractor Inventory. CDRL references two SOW paragraphs 5.0.3.6 and 5.7.1, neither of which exists. Please clarify.

Government Response: Statement of Work paragraph 5.7.1 does exist. Statement of Work paragraph 5.0.3.6 will be added to the Statement of Work in the form of tables. This will be revised in Amendment 0001.

10. Reference RFP Page 90, section 1.0.v. Affirmation of no Exceptions, Deviation or

Waivers if Volume 5 is not being submitted as part of the proposal. There is no Volume

5. Please clarify.

Government Response: There is no Volume 5 required in the RFP. The RFP will be revised to delete any reference to Volume 5.

11. All documents for the AVMI Final RFP are marked as DRAFT on FedBizOps and there is information missing. Do you plan on issuing an updated RFP? –

Government Response: See Government response to Question #1.

12. Was the RFP posted yesterday a draft? Or is this the final solicitation? The

FBO post says it’s a draft, but I see no draft watermark or such. –

Government Response: See Government response to Question #1.

13. Attachment 1, Form DD254, Block 10k states SPIRNET is required. Should this be

SIPRNET?

Government Response: Yes, Block 10k of the DD Form 254 should state SIPRNET in lieu of SPIRNET and this will be corrected at time of contract award.

14. SECTION C, 14.0 (Labor Qualifications), pg39 – The description for Engineering

Technician I does not include a section on Experience as all others do. Should this be added?

Government Response: No, there are no experience requirements for Engineering

Technician I.

15. SECTION C, 14.0 (Labor Qualifications), pg39 – The description for Engineering

Technician II, includes two separate listings for Education. Should one of them be eliminated?

Government Response: The first set of educational requirements located above the

“Experience” section under Engineering Technician II was stated in error. This set of requirements will be deleted.

16. Due to the fact that the Draft RFP did not indicate that the Government would require a complete listing of qualified employees (current, contingent, prospective), as opposed to requiring resumes for only a limited number of key employees, and due to the logistical difficulty imposed on a non-incumbent contractor to accomplish this task in a manner that will be evaluated well, and so as to promote a healthy competition among Small

Business bidders, we respectfully request consideration of a three week extension of the due date for the submittal of the proposal until August 27, 2012.

Government Response: See response to Question #1. There will be a two week extension to the proposal due date. The revised due date will be 20 August 2012.

17. SECTION L, PART A 3.0, pg 87 and PART B 3.0, pg 90 - The Executive Summary is limited to 4 pages. Do the items listed at the top of pg 90, specifically 1) the signed SF33,

2) the signed Representations, Certifications and Acknowledgements, and 3) the

Affirmation of no Exceptions, Deviations or Waivers, count toward the 4 page limit?

Government Response: See Response to Question #3.

18. Which Past Performance Questionnaire is correct for this solicitation, Attachment P5 or

P8?

Government Response: See response to Question #8.

19. P2 and P6 reference the FAR 52.217-8 Option. Is this Option expected to be priced utilizing the P6 format and, if so, are the hours intended to be projected by the Contractor?

Government Response: The offeror should not price out the potential six month extension associated with the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services clause in the submitted P6 cost spreadsheet. Per Section M of the solicitation, „The Government will also adjust the contractors‟ total proposed cost to reflect the incorporation of FAR

52.217-8…...”. The added cost……will be based upon the contractor‟s proposed cost and fee, adjusted for realism, for the last contract option extend by six months.” As a result, the Government will make that adjustment.

20. While the FAR clause 52.219-6 Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside has been included, the RFP does not associate a NAICS to this solicitation. Please provide a NAICS so we can certify as a qualified small business.

Government Response: The NAICS Code associated with this solicitation is 541712 as posted under general information in FedBizOpps.

21. The chart directly under RFP Para 3.1 (a) Contract Data states “provide all the information identified separately for each contract.” In row #1, Contractor name…. what are P1, P2, P3, P4, PX, S1, and SX denoting? Please clarify

Government Response: The chart directly under Para 3.1(a) illustrates whether the work was performed as a Prime Contractor (P), member of a Prime Contractor Joint

Venture (P1, P2, etc.), Subcontractor (S1, S2, S2). As an example, if a prime offeror

(P1) proposed three subcontractors in their proposal, the first subcontractor would be labeled S1, the second subcontractor labeled S2, etc.