RFP_N00421-14-R-0012_Question_Log.xls
XLS spreadsheet 45 KB Posted
- Attached to
- United States Navy Test Pilot School Instructors
- Solicitation number
- N00421-14-R-0012
About this file
RFP N00421-14-R-0012 Question Log
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N00421-14-R-0012-0002.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_P-1_Workforce_Qualifications.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| N00421-14-R-0012-0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit_A_CDRLs_A001_-_A014.pdf | ||
| Attachment_1_System_Authorization_Access_Request_Navy_(SAAR-N)_Instructions.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment_P-4_CPARS_Update_Questionnaire.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment_P-6__Cost_Summary.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N00421-14-R-0012.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_P-5_Past_Performance_Questionnaire_Package_for_Services.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment_P-1_Workforce_Qualifications.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_5_DD254.pdf | ||
| Attachment_4_IA_TRNG_FORM.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_2_SAAR-N_OPNAV_5239_14_Rev_10.1_2011.pdf | ||
| Attachment_7_QASP_TPS_Flt_Inst.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment_6_OCI_List.doc | DOC document | |
| Questions_and_Answers_to_Draft_RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| Questions_and_Answers_to_Draft_RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exercise_tables_enclosure_draft.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft_RFP_N00421-14-R-0012.doc | DOC document |
Show all 19
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
| No. | Question | Response |
| 1 | The 'desired' criteria for fixed and rotary wing instructors changed from the draft RFP. Specifically, it now states "have been current and qualified in the last five years in at least two of the listed aircraft". Is the government willing to consider people who have been out of currency/qualification for more than 5 years or is this a hard/fast requirement? | The personnel qualification requirements as listed in the RFP are firm. Offerors proposing individuals to the Fixed Wing/Rotary Wing Instructor positions (CLINs 0001 and 0003) who do not meet the currency requirements outlined in paragraphs 7.1 and 7.3 of the PBSOW at the time of proposal must include as part of their transition plan requested in paragraph 2.3.3 of Section L a detailed plan to meet those requirements for those individuals within 45 days of contract award. Such effort shall be entirely at contractor expense and shall not require use of government equipment or personnel. |
| 2 | For pricing purposes, please define the intended start date. | 1 July, 2015; the periods of performance in the RFP will be updated in a forthcoming amendment to the RFP. |
| 3 | Can you provide a copy of the incumbent contractor task order associated with this effort. If no, can you provide the task order number? | The current contract is N00421-09-D-0020, task orders 0001 through 0009. |
| 4 | Page 91, Paragraph 5.0 concludes by directing that "if there are no exceptions, deviations, or waivers, the Offeror shall provide a one-page Volume 6 in the Executive Summary stating so." This suggests a Volume 6 embedded within Volume 1. Is this in fact the government's intention/desire? | A single page titled as Volume 5 that addresses Exceptions, Deviations, and Waivers and encorporated at the end of the Executive Summary binder meets the government's intent. See question 13. |
| 5 | Page 77. Paragraph 4.0. "The submission date for all Volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP. However it is requested that Volume 3 Past Performance information be submitted 14 days prior to the submission date specified in Block 9 of the SF 33of the RFP." Is this early date, of 22 December, for Volume 3 submission correct? | 22 December currently is correct, however, the government expects to direct a date of 5 January 2015 as the requested submission date in a forthcoming amendment to the RFP. |
| 6 | Para 5.1.2/5.2.2/5.3.2/5.4.2: "Additionally, an individual exercise turnover notebook shall be maintained for each exercise assigned in order to satisfactorily qualify a relieving instructor in that exercise." Will the government make available exercise turnover notebooks (per list of exercises in Para 2.2.1) to allow the Offeror to understand the principles, theory, and considerations currently used by Incumbent and government flight test instructors? | Technical information may be obtained by contacting the POC indicated in paragraph 7.0 of Section L of the RFP. |
| 7 | Is it acceptable to provide spreadsheets as appendices or must they be included as part of the body of the proposal volume? For example, can we reference the Workforce Qualilfication Spreadsheet (Attachment P1) in paragraph 2.1.1 and attach it as an appendix to Volume 2 or does it need to be inserted in its entirety within the volume in paragraph order? | Spreadsheets may be attached as appendices and referred to in the appropriate paragraph of the technical narrative. |
| 8 | Will the government make available flight exercise syllabuses as requested? | Technical information may be obtained by contacting the POC indicated in paragraph 7.0 of Section L of the RFP. |
| 9 | Page 56, Para 2.1.1: "All contingent hires shall have a letter of intent submitted under the Cost Volume." In which section of the Cost Volume should these letters be placed? | Contingent hire letters may be submitted as attachments or appendices to the cost volume. |
| 10 | Each volume requires a Cover and Title Page as well as a Table of Contents. Do these required components count against the page limits specified for each Volume? | No. |
| 11 | Attachment P-1, Workforce Qualifications. under the Workforce Qualifications tab, Column H is designated as "Recency of Designation." In the “Instructions” tab of the worksheet, there are no instructions regarding what specific information needs to be entered in Column H. Could the Government please clarify what specific information is required in this column? | See instructions added to Attachment P-1 requesting the date of initial qualification and latest currency date for each T/M/S. |
| 12 | RFP page 59, Section L, paragraph 3.1, Past Performance Matrix. The RFP uses the terms “critical team member” and “principal subcontractor,” but does not define these terms. Could the Government please define these terms? | Section L, Part A, paragraph 1 will be amended to include the following definitions: 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. “Team member” is defined as one of the entities that makes up a joint venture (JV) or any other partnership or teaming arrangement formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation. “Critical team member” is defined as one of the entities of the Offeror that performs a critical function in the performance of the resulting contract, whether it is technical or financial, and/or that has an important role in any high- or medium-risk areas identified in the Offeror’s proposal. |
| 13 | RFP page 65, Section L, paragraph 5.0, Volume 5: Exceptions, Deviations, and Waivers. The RFP states “If there are no exceptions, deviations or waivers, the Offeror shall provide a one-page Volume 6 in the Executive Summary stating so.” Should this read “…the Offeror shall provide a one-page Volume 5 in the Executive Summary stating so”? | Yes; the sentence will be corrected to reference Volume 5. |
| 14 | RFP page 70, Section M, Part B, paragraph 1.1, Workforce. The RFP states that “The proposed Workforce Hour Matrix (Attachment P-2) will be assessed to determine the capability of the Offeror to support the SOW successfully.” The solicitation documents did not include a P-2 Workforce Hour Matrix, nor are there any requirements in Section L of the RFP to prepare a Workforce Hour Matrix. Would the Government please delete this statement from the evaluation criteria? | The sentence will be removed from paragraph 1.1. |
| 15 | RFP page 74, clause 5252.215-9524, Basis For Award. This clause was incorporated by full text into the RFP, and it states that the basis for award is low priced, technically acceptable. This conflicts with RFP page 69, Section M, Part A, paragraph 1.0, General, which states that award will be based on best value, and that “The Offeror is advised that the proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government.” Could the Government clarify its intent in placing clause 5252.215-9524 in the RFP? | Clause 5252.215-9524 was included in error and will be removed. Source selection will be made on a best value basis as described in Section M. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .