07182013_Q A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N00421-11-R-0066(1)
About this file
Questions and Answers.
View the file
Other files
Show all 48
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
Final RFP Q&A
| Number | REF/#: | Relevant Text | Question/Comment | NAVAIR ACTION TO TAKE | Changes Needed to RFP |
| 1 | It was unclear to us how the government was going to evaluate innovations given the pricing restrictions in the Cost Volume in conjunction with the provision in the RFP that asserted that proposals that exceeded the minimum requirements could be accepted at the price offered. In its current form, the RFP discourages bidders from submitting innovations. | Any technical innovations proposed by the Offeror will be evaluated based on the information provided in the proposal. As per Section L Part B 2.0, 2nd paragraph, the Offeror must clearly explain the benefits to the Government in technical terms and the degree of impact it will have to performance, operations, and/or risk. Innovations that are proposed will be assessed and may be assigned a Strength or Risk Reducer if those innovations are deemed to have benefit to the Government. Offeror's may not propose equipment, software or tools that would be direct charged to the Government or considered to be a capital investment item. Offeror's may propose innovations that could carry an associated cost as long as the cost associated with the innovation is contained within the rates proposed by the offeror. If a proposed innovation results in a potential reduction of labor or costs, offerors should describe the benefit in the technical proposal and the basis for the potential reduction in costs so the Government can make a determination as to the likely value to the Government. However, these reduced costs should not be considered in the cost proposal per the cost instructions in Section L that offerors shall propose the labor categories and associated hours as provided in Attachment #2 to the RFP for this Level of Effort requirement. | No | ||
| 2 | Section L Part A.2.1.8 Page 92 | File Naming Conventions | Table 2.1 directs Annex D to be delivered in Excel (".xls") format. Past Performance Contract SOW/PWS documents were issued in text form - either as ".doc" or ".pdf" format. Is it acceptable to provide the contents of Annex D in native text format (i.e. ".doc" or ".pdf"), or does the Government intend for offerors to convert the SOW/PWS documents to Excel form (".xls")? | Yes, it is acceptable to provide the contents of Annex D in native text form (i.e. ".doc" or ".pdf"). Amendment 0002 will be issued to reflect this change. | Yes |
&D &P
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .