RFP_Industry_Question_38.xls
XLS spreadsheet 69 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Infrastructure Division NAVAIR 5. 4. 1
- Solicitation number
- N00421-15-R-0003
About this file
Government's response to Industry Question 38
View the file
Other files
Show all 35
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
| N00421-15-R-0003: RFP INDUSTRY QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSES | ||||||
| Q# | RFP Document | Section/Paragraph | OFFEROR'S Discussion / Comment / Issue | OFFEROR'S QUESTION | GOVERNMENT RESPONSES | RFP Documentation Updated |
| AMENDMENT 0001 | ||||||
| 1 | RFP | Section C: PWS, Paragraph 16.0, Several Labor Categories Education Qualifications | There are several labor categories that require 8570 compliance such as Computer Systems Analyst II; Computer Systems Analyst III; Systems Administrator, Junior; and Systems Administrator, Senior. However, in the education description for each of these categories an exception for “all but three FTE’s” is written. | Since guidance and policy require these positions to be 8570 IAT compliant to have access to government networks, how are employees proposed without this certification expected to perform their job duties? We recommend that those labor category descriptions be modified such that all persons in the category hold the appropriate 8570 certifications. | The Government revised the Education sections of both the Systems Administrator, Junior and Systems Administrator, Senior labor categories by Adding: "IAT Level II certification required in accordance with DoD 8570.01-M", and Removing: "All but Three (3) FTE's will require IAT Level II certification in accordance with DoD 8570.01-M". | YES |
| 2 | RFP | Section C: PWS, Paragraph 16.0 | Computer Systems Analyst I labor category requires HS and 6 years of experience or Bachelors; the Computer System Analysts II requires HS and only 4 years’ experience and Bachelors plus 2 years; and the Computer System Analysts III requires a HS plus 6 years or Bachelors plus 3 years’ experience. It seems the Computer System Analysts I requires more years’ experience than a Computer System Analysts II and equal to Computer System Analysts III. | Please clarify years of experience required for all Computer Systems Analyst labor categories? | The Government revised Labor Category: Computer Systems Analyst I educational requirement From: "6 years of experience" To: "2 years of experience" in Section C: PWS, 16.0. | YES |
| 3 | RFP | Section C: PWS, Paragraph 16.0 | Systems Analyst and Systems Analyst, Senior, labor categories have no requirement for 8570 compliance. Based on their labor category description duties which include “administers complex areas of the network, security analysis and planning” they should require some level of 8570 compliance based on guidance and policy. In addition the Systems Analyst, Senior should be strongly considered for IAT level III based on labor category description duties which relate to enclave level planning and security analysis which by definition on pages 29-31 of DoD 8570.1-M should be done by someone in the IAT Level III category. | Will the government revise the labor category description so that the Systems Analyst category require IAT level II compliance and the Systems Analyst Senior category require IAT Level III, to be in compliance with guidance and policy? | The Government revised the Duties sections of the Systems Analyst and Systems Analyst, Senior labor categories as follows: From: “administers complex areas of the network, security analysis and planning” To: “may administer complex areas of the network, security analysis and planning”. The Government revised the Education sections by Adding the following: "Depending on actual functions performed, may require IAT Level II certification in accordance with DoD 8570.01-M. within 6 months of contract start". | YES |
| 4 | RFP | Section C: PWS, Paragraph 16.0 | Program Manager (Key) labor category that has requirements of “Acts as the overall lead , manager and administrator for the contracted effort in support of aircraft subsystems, ACAT III-IV programs or AAPs” and “(6) years of professional experience in the Defense acquisition, and three (3) years of experience in support of Navy Acquisition management” and “Demonstrated knowledge of and experience with the requirements of the DOD 5000 series.” These requirements do not seem to fit the nature of the SOW, sound like Standard NAVAIR labor category description and may limit competition from capable IT/IA companies. The SOW is primarily IT/IA in nature which would lend to having a PM with experience in the DOD 8500 series of instructions as well as DOD 8140. | In order to facilitate competition will the Government revise the solicitation to remove the acquisition quals and revise the PM labor category to reflect the knowledge and skills better suited for execution of this IT/IA SOW tasking? | The Government revised the Duties and Experience sections of the Program Manager labor category in Section C: PWS, 16.0. See Amended RFP for revisions. | YES |
| 5 | RFP | Section C: PWS, Paragraph 16.0 | Senior Consultant labor category states in the experience section “At least five (5) years of the business experience must be at the executive level and at least seven (3) years must be recent DoN experience.” | Is the correct number of years seven (7) or three (3)? Please clarify. | In Section C: PWS, 16.0, Senior Consultant labor caegory, the Government corrected the typo in the number of years From: "seven" To: "three" in the following sentence, “At least five (5) years of the business experience must be at the executive level and at least seven (3) years must be recent DoN experience.” | YES |
| 6 | RFP | Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3.1 | Management & Transition Plan only allows for 10 pages to include a Transition Plan. For non-incumbent offerors to be able to provide the government with sufficient detail to permit evaluation and clear understanding of an offerors Management Plan and the Transition Plan will the government increase the page count of the Management & Transition Plan to 15 pages? | Will the government increase the page count of the Management & Transition Plan to 15 pages? | The Government amended the solicitation revising the Management and Transition Plan page limitation From: "10 pages", To: "15 pages". | YES |
| 7 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.3 | Paragraph 1.3 states, “Signed SF33 for basic solicitation and each amendment, including completion of RFP clauses or provision that requires a fill-in or response, Section C 5252.211-9506 and Section G 5252.201-9502.” However, provision 5252.211-9506 PROVISIONED ITEMS (FEB 1995) is not incorporated into Section C by reference or by full text or into any other section of the solicitation. | Please confirm if it will be added or if it is required with submittal? Or if 5252.211-9506 is the correct clause reference? | The Government amended the solicitation Section L, Part B, 1.3, by removing the following phrase: "Section C 5252.211-9506 and Section G 5252.201-9502" from the sentence. | YES |
| 8 | RFP | Section L, Volume 2, Section 2.2 Staffing and Personnel, and Section 2.2.2 Key Personnel Resumes | The Staffing and Personnel section is limited to five pages, however, within these five pages is the requirement for a three page key personnel resume. | Please confirm that the three page resume is excluded from the overall five page limit for this section. | The three page Key Personnel resume is not included in the five page count page limit for this section. | NO |
| 9 | RFP | Section C: PWS, Paragraphs 3.1 - 3.5 | Historical actuals | Please share the historical level of effort (LOE) per labor category for section- SOW 3.1 through 3.5 (CLIN 1000). | The Government has determined that historical actuals would not be beneficial to potential Offeror's in proposing to this IDIQ solicitation. Offeror's are advised to propose in accordance with the labor mix and labor hours provided in Section B and Section L. | NO |
| 10 | RFP | Section C: PWS, Paragraph 16.0 Labor Category and Minimum Qualifications | Labor Category and Minimum Quals | Please clarify the roles and task assignments for the Jr. and Sr. system administrators, with and without, an IAT Level II certification requirement as specified in RFP Section 16, Labor Category Minimum Qualifications. | See the Government's response to Question #1 for revisions to the labor category qualifications for Systems Administrator, Junior and Systems Administrator, Senior. The Government is requesting proposals from Offeror's demonstrating the Offeror's Understanding and Approach of the performance-based requirements in the PWS. | NO |
| 11 | RFP | Section L, Part A, Paragraph 2.1 | Proposal Format: states “Drawings may be provided separately and may be any size but should be folded to approximately 8.5 x 11 inch standard size and will count as 1 page.” | Does this apply to process flow charts and organization charts? Can process flow charts and organization charts be included within the narrative vice submitted separately so as to put the flow chart in context with the supporting narrative? | Yes, this applies to flow charts and organization charts. Yes, they can be included within the narrative as stated in the RFP; however, they may also be provided separately, as stated in the RFP. Page limit applies as stated. | NO |
| 12 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1.1 | Performance Work Statement (PWS) Approach: For “PWS Section 3.3 - RDT&E Laboratory Information Assurance Support Team (RLIST)” there are no sub tasks identified like the other PWS elements. | Are offerors to provide detailed step by step approaches for all tasks under 3.3 in the PWS (in other words, a through j on page 11)? | Offeror's are instructed to respond to PWS Section 3.3 including sub-tasks (a) thru (j) from Section C of the PWS. | NO |
| 13 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.3.1 | Management Approach: RFP states “The offeror shall submit a written narrative of the offeror’s understanding and capability to perform the requirements of the PWS.” | Is this sentence in error as this information is covered in section 2.1.1 Performance Work Statement (PWS) Approach on page 83? Recommend remove that sentence from section 2.3.1. | The Government has amended the solicitation by removing the following sentence “The offeror shall submit a written narrative of the offeror’s understanding and capability to perform the requirements of the PWS”, from Section L, Volume 2, Paragraph 2.3.1 Management Approach. | YES |
| 14 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.2.1 | Staffing Plan: RFP states “Specific names and a discussion of detailed personnel experience or associated qualifications are not required” yet Section M, Part B, 1.0, 1.1 1.2 Staffing and Personnel, on page 98 states “For this factor, the Government will evaluate the quality of the workforce proposed. Personnel will be evaluated on the extent to which they meet or exceed the corresponding labor category qualifications outlined in Section C.” | Please confirm how the government will evaluate staffing if qualifications are not provided. | The Government amended Section L, Volume 2, Paragraph 2.2.1.1 of the solicitation by removing the sentence “Specific names and a discussion of detailed personnel experience or associated qualifications are not required”, from the referenced paragraph. The Government maneded the RFP by adding the following sentence, "Offeror’s shall complete Attachment P001 Workforce Qualifications for all non-key personnel proposed." Accordingly, the Government has added "Attachment P001 Workforce Qualifications" to the RFP. | YES |
| 15 | RFP | Section C: PWS; Para. 16.0 | Service Contract Act | Please confirm that none of the positions are covered by the Service Contract Act (despite language referencing DOL job classifications). | This requirement is not subject to the Service Contract Act. | NO |
| 16 | RFP | Section C: PWS, Paragraph 16.0 | Labor Qualifications | Please confirm that Computer Systems Analysts I and III require a high school diploma/GED with a minimum of six years experience, and the Computer Systems Analyst II requires a high school diploma with a minimum of four years experience. | As indicated in the Government's response to Question #2, the Government revised the labor category Computer Systems Analyst I Educational requirement, From: "6 years of experience", To: "2 years of experience". | NO |
| 17 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 4.3.5.2.1 | Direct Labor Rates by Category | How many proposed individuals (and for which positions) does the government require in an offeror's proposal? | Refer to the Table included in the Solicitation in Section B (NAVAIR Level of Effort clause 5252.211-9503) and in Section L (L-2 Government Furnished Information, Paragraph 2.1). Offeror's are advised to propose in accordance with the instructions provided therein. | NO |
| 18 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 4.3.5.2.1 | Direct Labor Rates by Category | For which individuals/positions does the government require payroll verification or contingent hire letters? | Offeror's are advised to provide the information in accordance with Section L, Volume 4, Paragraph 4.3.5.2.1. | NO |
| 19 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 4.3.5.2.1 | Direct Labor Rates by Category | With only 1 Key Personnel required, is payroll verification/contingent hire letter required for any position other than the PM? If so, which positions, and how many of each position? | Offeror's are advised to provide the information in accordance with Section L, Volume 4, Paragraph 4.3.5.2.1. | NO |
| 20 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.2.1.1 | Staffing Plan | Will all positions at all sites have a starting date of the first day of the first ordering period? If not, does the government require offerors to propose individuals with supporting payroll verification/contingent hire letters for any positions that are not anticipated to start at the beginning of the first ordering period? If so, which ones? | Offerors are advised to propose in accordance with the labor mix provided in Section L, Cost Volume 4, L-2, Paragraph 2.1 of the RFP. Defined staffing levels will be delineated on each Task Order in accordance with the Performance-Based Work Statement. | NO |
| 21 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 4.2 (b) | Ground Rules and Assumptions | Typically, many of the referenced costs would be included in an offeror's indirect rates (e.g., in G&A or O/H); are the offerors to exclude these costs from their indirect rates? | The Government is not directing Offeror's to exclude allocable and allowable costs from its indirect rates. | NO |
| 22 | RFP | Section L-1, Part A, Paragraph 1.7 | Estimated Date of Award | Please confirm that there will be no reimbursement to the contractor for any costs (including labor/staffing costs) incurred during the initial transition period (anticipated Oct 1- Oct 31, 2016). | There is no CLIN associated with the transition period. Any costs associated with being able to perform on the first day of the period of performance are considered corporate costs of doing business that are not directly chargeable to the Government. | NO |
| 23 | RFP | Section L-1, Part A, Paragraph 1.7 | Estimated Date of Award | What is the necessary level of staffing for this non-reimbursable initial transition period? | No necessary level of staffing is defined for the transition period. Please reference the RFP, Section L-1, Volume 2, Section 2.3.5. | NO |
| 24 | RFP | Section M, Part B, Paragraph 1.2 | Staffing and Personnel | Which personnel will the government evaluate? Will the government evaluate only the Key Personnel - PM (i.e., the only position for which a resume is required)? Will the government evaluate personnel other than the PM? | Refer to the Government response in Question 14 and to the revisions in the RFP Section L, Paragraph 2.2.1.1 regarding which personnel the Government will evaluate. | YES |
| 25 | Attachment P006 | Cells I421, I422 | Editing Formulas | The formulas set in the blue cells I421 and I422 are applying Matl handling and G&A rates to both Travel and ODCs. Our indirect rate basis applies them in a different manner. Can we change the formulas in these cells to apply the rates as we proposed to DCAA? | Offerors should enter data, as applicable. The Government has revised Instruction #6 in Attachments P006 and P007 to allow for formula editing, where necessary. Per this revised Instruction, Offeror's shall explain any changes made to Attachment P006 in the Cost Volume. | YES |
| 26 | Attachment P006 | Instruction 15(d) on Instructions TAB | Entry of Overhead Rates | Instruction #15d states that the contractor should enter their contractor-site overhead rate into cell G50, however in Section L-2 4.0 Place of Performance, it states that 100% of work will be performed at government facilities. Is it the government’s intent that we only propose government-site overhead rates (cell G51)– and leave cell G50 blank? | Offeror's should enter data, as applicable. | NO |
| 27 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1 | Technical Subfactor - Understanding and Approach : Offerors are given the instruction “With respect to the Understanding and Approach subfactor, the offeror is forewarned that the purpose of evaluating responses for this subfactor is to test an offeror’s understanding of the technical requirements of the resultant contract.” Then in Section L Part B paragraph 2.1.1 offerors are asked to only address a portion of the PWS, “The Narrative shall address the following parts of the PWS as excerpted below (for broader context, refer back to the full PWS in Section C of this solicitation).” The excerpt removes approximately 50% of the PWS. |
- Our interruption of the instructions is the offeror should NOT address the sections outlined above in their response to the RFP. Please clarify?
| If in fact our interruption is correct, the effect is that offerors who will be asked to perform the entire PWS are only going to be evaluated for their understanding and capability to perform only 50% of the PWS. | Will the Government clarify its intent to only evaluate offerors on 50% of the PWS? Is it the Governments intent to reduce competition by giving the incumbent an advantage in Section L that highlights their specific areas of strength? How will the Government know which offeror truly demonstrates a complete understanding of the PWS and offers the Government the Best Value? | It is not the Government's intent to reduce competition. The PWS excerpts included in Section L of the solicitation are a representative sampling from all areas of the PWS. No major section/support areas were omitted. Each major area is considered important regardless of level of effort involved, so a sampling from each area was selected to be addressed. These excerpts cover multiple disciplines; thereby, providing Offerors the opportunity to demonstrate their Understanding and Approach. The Government has determined that the evaluated PWS sections are a fair representation of the work to be performed under this contract and do not grant a competitive advantage to any one Offeror. | NO | ||||
| 28 | RFP | Section C: PWS Paragraph 16.0 | Program Manager Labor Category description: Program Manager labor category description does not reflect the nature of the work in this solicitation, and it differs significantly from other Program Manager labor category descriptions that have been used on two recent NAVAIR 5.4 procurements for similar work (reference solicitations N00421-15-R-0011 and N00421-15-R-0016. | In order to increase competition from qualified Information Technology and Cyber companies for which this PWS is geared for, we recommend removing the following quals from the Program Manager labor category qualifications: (Offeror listed several sentences to be removed that speak to Quals for acquisition program management vice IT program mgmt. | See the Government's response to Question# 4. The Government revised the Duties and Experience sections of the Program Manager labor category in Section C: PWS, 16.0. | YES | |
| 29 | RFP | Section G, Clause 5252.228-9501 | Liability Insurance Clause 5252.228-9501 LIABILITY INSURANCE (NAVAIR) (MAR 1999) on page 44 requires aircraft public and passenger liability insurance. This seems inapplicable to the scope of services described in the RFP, which do not involve flight operations. | Would NAVAIR consider waiving the aircraft public and passenger liability insurance for this contract? | The Government has reviewed the concerns regarding NAVAIR clause 5252.228-9501 LIABILITY INSURANCE, and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Government to include the clause in its original form (unmodifed) as prescribed at FAR 28.307-2(d). Additionally, the Government amends the solicitation to Add FAR clause 52.228-7, incorporated by reference, into Section I of the RFP. | YES | |
| 30 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.8; (page 83), AND Section L Part B, Paragraph 1.2 (page 82) AND Section L, Part B, Paragraph 4.1.4 (page 91) | Offeror suggests the Govt seems to be asking for same information multiple times in multiple places. "A summary of the offeror's Breakout of Performance (Annex 2) shall display the Prime's ability to perform 50% or more of the cost of contract incurred for personnel with its own employees". | What additional information are you looking for in Section L, Part B paragraph 1.8, as cost information is only allowed in the Cost Volume? Are you looking for a show of resources in Annex 2 that is also included in the Staffing Plan response? | Cost information shall be included only in Cost Volume 4 as directed throughout Section L of the RFP. Offeror's are provided with a Table in Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.8 that shall be completed. Offeror's are advised to submit responses in accordance with the instructions in Section L of the RFP. Refer to Section L, L-1, Part A, Paragraph 1.4. | NO | |
| BEGIN AMENDMENT 0002 | |||||||
| 31 | RFP | Page 1 of the Solicitation SF 33 document, Box 9. | Proposal Due Date | Will the government provide a 1 week extension to the due date? | The Government has made a determination to extend the proposal due date. Please see Amendment 0002 to RFP N00421-15-R-0003. | YES | |
| BEGIN AMENDMENT 0003 | |||||||
| 32 | RFP and Industry Questions listed above | Questions #12 and #27 listed above, and RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1.1 | Reference the government's response to Questions #12 and #27 In question #12 the government's response is "Offeror's are instructed to respond to PWS Section 3.3 including sub-tasks (a) thru (j) from Section C of the PWS." However, the response to question #27 suggests to only respond to the excerpts provided in Section L. These responses seem to contradict each other because the Section L instruction doesn't call out addressing (a) thru (J) for section 3.3. Additionally the government says there will be no updates to the RFP in regards to question #12. | Please clarify what parts of the PWS the offeror is to address? | Offeror's are instructed to address ALL SECTIONS OF THE PWS INCLUDING ALL SUB-TASKS. Offeror's are advised that NO changes have been made to the page count limitation. All PWS excerpts that were previously included in Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1.1 have been deleted. | YES | |
| 33 | RFP and Industry Questions listed above | Question #8 ABOVE and Section L, Volume 2, Paragraph 2.2.1.1 | The Government’s response to Question #8 was to include a Workforce Qualifications Matrix (Attachment P001). | Is the Workforce Qualification Matrix intended to be an attachment or embedded in the Offeror’s Technical Volume? If it is to be included in the Technical Volume will the Government consider excluding the Workforce Qualifications Matrix from the page count? | Attachment P001 Workforce Qualifications is intended to be an Attachment to the Technical Volume. It should not be embedded in the Technical Volume. Accordingly, it is excluded from the page count listed in the Table in Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3.1. Government Clarification: Offeror's are advised that this Attachment is NOT the Workforce Qualifications "Matrix" as referred to herein by the Questioner. The matrix is a different Attachment (not included in this RFP). Offeror's are instructed to complete Attachment P001 Workforce Qualifications as indicated via Amendment 001. | NO | |
| 34 | RFP and Industry Questions listed above | Question #30; Section L, Part B Paragraphs 1.2 and 1.8 | The Government’s response to Question #30 references “Annex 2” and a Table. | Please identify and/or provide the referenced Annex 2 and Table. | The table referred to in the Government's response to Question #30 is embedded in the RFP, SEE Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.2 for the table. Annex 2 is not provided in the solicitation; therefore, contractor's format is acceptable. | NO | |
| 35 | RFP | Section L, Volume 2, Paragraph 2.2.1.1 | Amendment 001 now requires the Staffing Plan to include a P001 to be populated for each non-key employee being proposed. With 56 non-key personnel, this could consume multiple pages. | Will the P001 be included in the 5 page limit for the Staffing Plan? If not, we recommend a 5 page increase (to 10 pages) to allow the P001 to include sufficient detail for evaluation. | See Government's response to Question #33 above. | NO | |
| 36 | RFP and Industry Questions listed above | Question #3 above and Section C: PWS Paragraph 16.0 | Q#3: The Government’s response to Question #3 added the following language “…within 6 months of contract start" with regard to qualifying the contractor workforce. This conflicts with the direction provided in DoD 8570.01-M and is actively challenged by Government Information Security Officer’s as being non-compliant. | Is there a waiver being authorized for this contract? | In Section C: PWS, Paragraph 16.0, The Government has revised the Systems Analyst and the Systems Analyst, Senior labor categories Education Section now requiring IAT Level II certification in accordance with DoD 8570.01-M. Also revised both labor categories Duties section by changing from "may administer" to "administers" complex areas of the network" (last sentence in the paragraph). | YES | |
| 37 | RFP and Industry Questions listed above | Section C: PWS Paragraph 16.0 and Reference the government's response to Question #27 | The government states "It is not the Government's intent to reduce competition. The PWS excerpts included in Section L of the solicitation are a representative sampling from all areas of the PWS. No major section/support areas were omitted." In reference to the "No major section/support areas were omitted", from reviewing the labor categories and associated FTE's, it appears that approximately 50% of the level of effort of this contract is intended to support PWS 3.3 RLIST. However the Section L instruction addresses only minimal RLIST requirements. This appears to be a major omission. Conversely, PWS 3.4 RDT&E Consulting and PWS 3.5 Virtual SYSCOM support, represents a much smaller portion of the total labor categories/FTE count (perhaps 10% - 15% of the FTE), and yet the Section L instructions requires a complete response to all sub paragraphs of those PWS sections. It appears that not only were major areas of the PWS omitted, but the response required by the government (specifically for PWS 3.4 and 3.5) is quite unbalanced. Also, PWS 3.4 and 3.5 focuses on highly specialized support which is provided by the incumbent to AIR-5.4.1 via several senior consultants, who may not be available to non-incumbents due to agreements in place between the incumbent and the consultants; therefore giving the incumbent an unfair advantage in addressing PWS sections 3.4 and 3.5. While non-incumbents may be able to address PWS sections 3.4 and 3.5 in a general fashion, the weighting of the Section L instruction towards those sections clearly provides an unfair advantage to the incumbent. To provide for fair competition and evaluate Offerors on each companies capabilities, and not what consultants can provide after the fact, we ask the government to revise the Section L instruction and place emphasis on the core work / FTE's of this contract, and less emphasis on the much smaller portion of work represented by PWS sections 3.4 and 3.5. Specifically, we recommend that Offerors address all sub-paragraphs of PWS 3.3 and fewer sub-paragraphs of PWS 3.4 and perhaps none of the sub-paragraphs of PWS 3.5. | As the various senior consultants that are currently supporting this work through the incumbent, are quite likely to continue their work under whichever firm wins this contract, how much sense does it make to weight so much of the government evaluation of proposals on PWS sections 3.4 and 3.5? | While the Government does not concur with the Questioner's summation, the Government has determined that Offeror's shall address ALL SECTIONS OF THE ENTIRE PWS, IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING ALL SUB-TASKS. Offeror's are advised that NO changes have been made to the page count limitation. All PWS excerpts that were previously included in Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1.1 have been deleted. | YES | |
| New Question (as of 4 April 2016) | |||||||
| 38 | RFP | Section L, L-1, Part A, Paragraph 1.8: Definitions | The following terms are hereby defined: Throughout these instructions, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 10% of the proposed total cost/price (excluding the offeror’s profit/fee), for the contract. | Does Total cost/price include ODCs or just total labor? | The Government's definition is referring to Total Labor only, not including ODCs. | NO |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .