Q As_amendment_0006.pdf

SOLICITATION: N00421-15-R-0034

BIDDERS' QUESTIONS

Below are the answers to all questions received as of 14 April 2015. Questions not listed but were submitted, please resend.

Que stio n #

Ktr Question Gov't Response Quest ion Submi ttal Date

1 Will the client sponsor the Facility Clearance, or does the contractor have to already possess it in order to bid/award?

The Govt will sponsor the need for the request if required at time of award

3/13/

2 For the interim Secret for staff, same as above, will the client sponsor the team members?

The Govt will sponsor the need for the request if required at time of award

3/13/

3 Please confirm that the RFP uploaded on FedBizOps this morning is the final RFP.

Under the Scope in the Notice Details, it states it is an Advance Planning Notice.

"Advanced Planning Notice" was removed on 3/16/2015

3/13/

4 Has a contractor performed similar work to this for the government in the past? If available, please provide the incumbent contract number.

Please see Section L-2 Para. 3.0 for Incumbent Information.

3/16/

5 If you are unable to provide a contract number, is it safe to assume this is a new requirement for the government?

Please see answer to question number 4 3/16/

6 Is the subject solicitation for new services or is there an incumbent contractor? If the latter, who is the incumbent contractor, under what contract # are they providing the services, what is the amount of the contract, and are all the contract positions currently filled. Also, if I may, if there are incumbents currently occupying those positions, can we contract them either directly or through you, and if so, what is your preferred method?

Please see the answer to question 4. The government is unable to give the dollar amount or current billeting information of the current contracts. The government will not contact any current contractors for interested parties for this solicitation.

3/17/

7 Please clarify the allowable substitution requirement for an AS or AA degree for the program analyst (key) labor category.

Page 56 of the solicitation states “Education: BS or BA degree in Business or Management. ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTION: An AS or AA degree in a Business, Management; OR no degree and an additional eight (8) years of experience in program management, technical, or business analysis discipline may be substituted for a BS or BA degree.” The substitution allowing for an AS or AA degree appears to be an incomplete sentence. Is an additional four (4) years of experience the allowable substitution? Other labor categories such as the financial analyst allow for an AS or AA degree and an additional four (4) years of experience.

Please clarify the allowable substitution for the program analyst (key) labor category.

The solicitation will be amended to read "Education: BS or BA degree in Business or Management. ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTION:

An AS or AA degree in a Business or Management and an additional six (6) years of experience in program management, technical, or business analysis discipline; OR no degree and an additional eight (8) years of experience in program management, technical, or business analysis discipline may be substituted for a BS or BA degree"

3/18/

8 The labor category qualifications for some positions have allowable substitutions that we would appreciate clarification on, for example: Program Analyst, Senior requires an MS/MA degree in Business/Management --however, a BS/BA degree in Business/Management is an allowable substitution with no additional years of experience requirement. As a BS/BA is directly able to be substituted for an MS/MA, please clarify why MS/MA is included (it would appear the minimum qualification requirement, for no additional years experience, is actually for a BS/BA)? Is holding an MS/MA just preferred?Program Analyst requires a BS/BA degree in Business/Management -

- however, an AS/AA degree in Business/Management is an allowable substitution with no additional years of experience requirement. As an AS/AA is directly able to be substituted for a BS/BA, please clarify why BA/BA is included (it would appear the minimum qualification requirement, for no additional years experience, is actually an AS/AA)? Is holding a BS/BA just preferred?

Please see amendment 0001 for clarification 3/18/

9 The functional duties of Program Analyst (Junior, Mid, and Senior) and Financial Analyst could be supported by an individual with a technical degree. It seems overly restrictive to limit qualifying degrees to business/management disciplines only.

Would the Government consider expanding the allowable degrees for Program Analyst (all levels) and Financial Analyst labor categories to include technical disciplines (or other non-business/management disciplines)?

Please see amendment 0001 for updates 3/18/

10 For Program Analyst (Senior and Mid-level) and Financial Analyst the labor category experience requirement states "H-60 experience desired." The duties for these categories follow standard regulations that are applicable to all ACAT programs -- DoD 5000, FAR, FMR, etc. These regulations, along wth the associated documentation and handling, and processes -- CDRLs, PIDs, security, PPBE, estimating, memo preparation, briefs, etc -- are standard requirements for all programs (for example, a Program Analyst supporting a different platform would have the same knowledge of how to fulfill the functional duties). Stating that "H-60 experience is desired" for non-engineering fields provides a direct advantage to an incumbent team and will unfairly impact competition. Will the Government please consider removing "H-60 experience is desired" from Program Analyst (Senior and Mid-level) and Financial Analyst labor categories as these functions can be performed equally as well by those without direct H- 60 experience but rather in-depth knowledge of the standard documents, processes, regulations, etc applicable to program management in an ACAT environment.

H-60 experience is a desired experience and not mandatory experience. While an incumbent often has some advantages (and possible disadvantages) from having performed the work, an award will be determined upon an assessment of all evaluation factors.

3/18/

11 Presently, offerors will be proceeding with preparing a proposal/offer consistent with the specifications/requirements (including labor categories) as currently written and issued. In the event the specifications/requirements, such as labor category qualifications, are changed, such change can negate a substantial amount of an offerors proposal (both within the technical --proposed individuals/P1/P2/etc -- and the cost/price volumes). To ensure maximum competition and allow offerors sufficient time to prepare quality proposals and respond to changes in requirement s(and update proposals as necessary to reflect revised labor category qualifications, if changed), will the Government consider a two week extension from the release of the amendment in the event labor category qualification requirements are modified?

At this time the government does not anticipate an extension. However, if circumstances change that would warrant an extension the Government will reconsider.

3/19/

12 With Senior Program Analyst and Program Analyst labor categories designated as key, that reflects over 50% of the workforce being classified in a key role. Would the Government consider designating only certain positions within these labor categories as key vs the entire labor category?

Please see P2 for key personnel updates. 3/19/

13 On the P2 several SOW elements that do not exist within the SOW are assigned to positions, for example:

Program Analyst, Senior (GFE) [Row 4] - SOW list ends in "4" -- what specific SOW task should this be?

Program Analyst, Junior (GFE) [Row 8] - There is no SOW 4.7 Program Analyst (Ops) [Row 14] - There is no SOW 4.3.5 Program Analyst (CM) [Row 15] - There is no SOW 4.3.5 Program Analyst (CM) [Row 16] - There is no SOW 4.3.6 Program Analyst, Senior (CM) [Row 17] - There is no SOW 4.3.7 Program Analyst (Ops) [Row 20] - There is no SOW 4.3.5 Could you please verify the SOW elements for each position on the P2?

Please see updated P2. 3/19/

14 Could you please upload the RFP in Word or PDF to FBO for ease of use?

Please see FedBizOps Amendement 0002 as a PDF of the RFP has already been posted.

3/19/

15 Section C paragraph 9.8 states that the Government will provide spaces for all personnel located at and performing on a government site. Section L-3 paragraph 2.1 provided the labor hours by CLIN and labor category. Please confirm that 100% of this effort will be performed on a Government site. If this effort will not be performed 100% at Government site, please provide the breakout of hours by labor category by year for Government Site versus Contractor Site.

100% of these positions will perform on the Govt site.

3/19/

16 Section L-1 paragraph 1.10.1 states that three hard copies and an electronic copy (e-mailed to the contract specialist) of the proposals shall be submitted.

Section L-2 paragraph 4.2 states that the cost/price proposal shall be submitted as a separately Excel file electronically to the contract specialist. Is it the Government’s intention that the only file that needs to be submitted electronically is the offerors Excel version of the P6? If not, please identify specifically what volumes and / or files are to be electronically submitted.

Three hard copies shall be submitted (original + 2 copies). Additionally, each offer shall submit an electronic copy of all volumes via a CD. Please see updated section L-1, 1.10.1 for instructions on submitting electronic submission via CD.

3/19/

17 The P4 table is cumbersome and the excel format constrains the information that can be provided to demonstrate relevancy. Will contractor format be acceptable for submission of Past Performance summary data or must the offeror use the P4 table?

The offeror must use the P4 table that was provided with the Solicitation

3/19/

18 Section C, Paragraph 11.0 Minimum Personnel Requirements, states that...

"engineering" shall mean any of the following specific subjects, disciplines or areas of work experience only:

aerospace, civil, computer, electrical, electronics, industrial, mechanical or nuclear engineering. Request that the Government add systems engineering to this definition.

Systems engineering will be added to engineering in forthcoming amendment.

3/19/

19 The Sr. Program Analyst (SPA) and Program Analyst (PA) labor categories cover broad functional duties and are often used across multiple disciplines within a program office. For example, in this solicitation, individuals in the SPA and PA categories will be responsible for supporting GFE, Ops, and CM. While SPAs and PAs may be supporting these different areas, the nature of the work is not universal -- SPAs and PAs supporting GFE / CM tasks would likely not be providing "should cost" management.

However, despite the potential differences in the nature of the work between teams, all SPAs and PAs share the same qualifications -- which include required experience that is not directly applicable/relevant to the tasks being supported by SPAs/PAs assigned to certain positions/program office areas (such as "should cost" management in a CM-focused PA position). In recognition that due to the nature of the work, and how support may be similar but is not universal across support areas, will the Government consider revising the labor category qualifications for SPA and PA labor categories to align experience qualifications to the nature of the specific tasks being supported -- for example, instead of requiring demonstrated experience in risk / "should cost" management for all SPAs/PAs, regardless of teams/tasks supported, would the Government revise the qualification to only ask for such experience when the task requires such experience to be used. In review, we would ask the Government to consider if a Senior Program Analyst / Program Analyst supporting CM or GFE is truly required to have a background in “should cost” management. This will enable offerors to propose a workforce more realistic to the needs of the position to be supported.

Section C, 11.1.2 will be deleted 3/20/

20 The hours outlined in section L, 2.0 state that the base period will include a total of 17 personnel, 12 of which are considered key personnel (4 Senior Program Analyst & 8 Program Analyst).

Requiring 12 out of 17 positions as key personnel has a tendency to provide an unfair Competitive advantage to the incumbent contractor. Request that the government provide the maximum amount of latitude for a new offeror entering into this competitive business environment. In summary, we request that the Government consider reducing the required number of key personnel in the Senior Program Analyst and Program Analyst category.

Please see the answer to question 12. 3/20/

21 The transition plan in section L, 2.2 states “The transition plan should address the offeror’s overall approach to transition, timeline to become fully staffed and operational, plan of action to effectively transfer tasked work that is in process at the expiration of the current contract from the incumbent to the successful offeror…”. There is no requirement for the capture or transition of incumbent employees to a successful offeror. Does the Government require this action to be part of the offerors transition plan?

There is no requirement for the capture/transition of incumbents employees as this is not a Service Contract Act applicable procurement

3/20/

22 Can you upload and/or send me a copy of the solicitation via email in something other than .xps (pdf or .doc)? We are unable to open the solicitation in .xps.

Please see answer to question 14. 3/20/

23 Amendment 2, Secton L-1, 1.2 states: “In addition, offerors shall submit their EDWOSB Repository password with their proposal so that EDWOSB status at time of proposal submission can be verified.”

The Repository is designed such that the contractor authorizes specific contracting officers to view and access the documents in the repository. The WOSB Repository User’s Manual (attached to this email and available from the SBA WOSB Repository Help Page) provides detailed instructions for accessing and using the Repsitory and indicates that the Contractor Officer should obtain their own GLS ID login credentials.

Specifically: Page 4 of the User’s Guide states “To respond to any government solicitations, a WOSB will use the new WOSB Program Repository as the sole source for documentation. Federal Agency Contacts will also self-register with the system; each Federal Agency Contact is responsible for keeping their agency information. The authorized Federal Agency Contact can view all the documents for the WOSB. The system will enforce a 120 calendar day limit on each authorization.”

* Section 3.1 Login to SBA GLS (General Login System) provides instructions on how to obtain GLS login credentials and access the WOSB repository on https://eweb.sba.gov/gls <https://eweb.sba.gov/gls>

* Section 4.6 Authorize beginning on Page 24 of the attached User’s Guide provides detailed instructions on how the contractor will select and authorize the Contracting Officer for the specific solicitation to view the documentation.

The contractor must select the Contracting Officer/Specialist from a pull down list for the solicitation and specifically instructs the contractor as follows: “If you do not see any names in this field, contact your contracting officer and have him/her get a GLS ID.” Please

Please see forthcoming amendment. 3/23/ consider revising the RFP to reflect consistency with the WOSB Repository procedures.

24 Concerning Section M Paragraph 2.0 Technical Proposal / 2.1 Understanding and approach to the Sample Tasks (page 122 of 129): Please clarify “the government will evaluate for clarity, completeness, and realism of the responses to the sample tasks and the extent to which the proposed approach will ensure successful accomplishment of the tasks described in the SOW.” Is it the intent of the government’s RFP that the contractor’s response directly answer each SOW paragraph (if the paragraph is applicable) for each sample task, or, is it the intent of the RFP to emphasize the sample task in the response over addressing each SOW paragraph, or, should the SOW be answered in general terms with the more detailed concerning the sample tasks?

The SOW should be answered in general terms with more detail concerning the sample task.

3/23/

25 Concerning Section L paragraph L-2 Proposal Content and shown in the Table which states there are no page limit for the sample tasks, and the evaluation requirements of Section M Paragraph 2.0 Technical Proposal / 2.1 Understanding and approach to the Sample Tasks, this seems to indicate the need for a complex and long technical response. As hardcopies must be delivered, thus reducing the time allowed to complete the proposal (as mailing the hard copies can take days), would the government consider an extension to facilitate the level of detail and complexity requested?

The government will take this under advisement and extend if circumstances warrant it.

3/23/

26 Concerning page 1 which is the SF 33 form, it states 2 hard copies must be delivered. Section L paragraph 1.10 Instructions for submission of proposals and paragraph 1.10.1 indicates that 3 hard copies are to be delivered. Please clarify the number of hard copies required, or, consider removing the need for hardcopies since electronic copies are also required.

Page 1 states the original and two (2) hard copies should be delivered, totaling three hard copies. Three hard copies are required in addition to an electronic copy in the form of a CD.

3/23/

27 Concerning Section M 5.0 Ratings, Table 1 Ratings describes adjectival ratings.

The differentiation between blue and purple is not well defined, as blue “contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies” and purple “contains at least one strength (presumably this could be multiple) and no deficiencies”. Purple is also defined as “Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies”. Would the government please clarify or refine the ratings with regard to what are considered strengths and what are considered deficiencies or provide examples.

Please see Section M, 5.5 Definitions. 3/23/

28 Section L paragraph 1.10 Instructions for submission of proposals and paragraph

1.10.1 indicates that 3 hard copies are to be delivered. Please confirm the hard copy address for mailing hard copies.

Second, concerning mailing or hand delivery of the hard copies, please clarify the following: Is the intent of the government to have the hard copies hand delivered? o If the hard copies are hand carried, with whom should we coordinate delivery of the proposal package to ensure delivery before the 14 APR 2PM? If the hard copies are mailed via regular mail with a confirmation receipt or sent via overnight mail, what defines RFP compliance of the package receipt before the deadline i.e. receipt by the NAVIAR mail room or receipt by the contracting office?If the hard copies are mailed via regular mail with a confirmation receipt or sent via overnight mail, what defines RFP compliance of the package receipt before the deadline i.e. receipt by the NAVIAR mail room or receipt by the contracting office? If compliance is receipt by contracting officer, how much time is needed by the NAVAIR mailroom to deliver the proposal to the contracting officer and to ensure signature receipt compliance of the 2 PM deadline?

Please see FAR 15.208 for submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals. Also, see RFP pg 1, block 7 for address.

29 Concerning Section M Paragraph 2.0 Technical Proposal / 2.1 Understanding and Approach to the Sample Tasks (page 122 of 129): Please clarify “the government will evaluate for clarity, completeness, and realism of the responses to the sample tasks and the extent to which the proposed approach will ensure successful accomplishment of the tasks described in the SOW.” Is it the intent of the government’s RFP, that the contractor’s response directly answer each SOW paragraph (if the paragraph is applicable) for each sample task, or, is it the intent of the RFP to emphasize the sample task in the response over addressing each SOW paragraph, or, should the SOW be answered in general terms with the more detailed response contained in the sample tasks?

Please see the answer to question #14. 3/23/

30 Considering the Proposal Content Table in Section L, paragraph L-2 states there are no page limits for the sample tasks, and the evaluation requirements of Section M, paragraph 2.0 Technical Proposal / 2.1 Understanding and Approach to the Sample Tasks, this seems to indicate the need for a complex and long technical response. In addition, hardcopies must be delivered which reduces the time allowed to complete the proposal since mailing the hard copies will take days. Given the complexity of the sample tasks written to meet the Section L SOW requirements and Section M, and the Section L, Paragraph 3.0 Past Performance, subparagraph 3.2 requirement for Customer’s submission of Past Performance Questionnaires before 14 APR at 2PM, a 3-week extension is requested.

The government will take this under advisement and extend if circumstances warrant it.

31 On the SF 33 it states 2 hard copies must be delivered. Section L, paragraph 1.10 (Instructions for Submission of Proposals), subparagraph 1.10.1 indicates that 3 hard copies are to be delivered. Please clarify the number of hard copies required. Alternatively, we request you consider removing the need for hardcopies since electronic copies are being submitted.

Please see the answer to question #16. 3/23/

32 Concerning Section L-2 Proposal Content Table (page 106) and Section M paragraph 5.0 Ratings, subparagraph 5.2 Technical and Risk Rating Methodology, is the rating divided between the technical evaluation requirements?

Please define the weighted ratings between the elements of Volume 2.0 Technical Proposal.

See RFP Section M, para 1.2. 3/23/

33 Table 1 (Technical Adjectival Ratings) in Section M, paragraph 5.0 Ratings, discusses Blue and Purple strengths and deficiencies. Please clarify or refine what are considered strengths and what are considered deficiencies, or provide examples.

Please see Section M, 5.5 for definitions. 3/23/

For the two key personnel positions in Section C, paragraph 11.1.1, can we use DAWIA certification in the Business/Cost Estimation category as qualifications to meet the RFP requirements?

See Amendment 0003 for changes. 3/23/

35 In reference to Section 11.1.1 of the solicitation, page 56 of 130, would the government please consider DAWIA certification as substitutable for PMI certification requirement under the education requirements for the Program Analyst, Senior (key)? This is generally considered to be equivalent.

See Amendment 0003 for changes. 3/23/

36 While reviewing the P2, while many of the referenced SOW paragraphs were corrected in the Amendment, there are still several inconsistencies between the P2 and the SOW. For example: Program Analyst, Senior (Ops) [Row 10] - Paragraph 4.3.5 does not exist in the SOW; Program Analyst, Junior (Ops) [Row 11] - Paragraph 4.3.5 does not exist in the SOW; Program Analyst (Ops) [Row 12] - Paragraph 4.3.5 does not exist in the SOW; Program Analyst (Ops) [Row 13] - Paragraph 4.3.5 does not exist in the SOW; Program Analyst, Senior (CM) [Row 17] - Paragraph 4.3.7 does not exist in the SOW

The P2 will be updated in forthcoming amendment.

3/23/

37 In further review, there are inconsistencies between the hours required to be estimated per Section L (Paragraph 2.1), Attachment P2, and Section B. For example: #1 - Per Section L (Paragraph 2.1) Sr. Program Analyst's will be supporting tasks associated with APN- 1 (CLIN 0001) and FMS (CLIN 0005). Per Section B, CLIN 0001 clearly states that it is for "Services in accordance with SOW paragraph 4.2; APN-1" and CLIN 0005 clearly states that is is for "Services in accordance with SOW paragraph 4.6;

FMS". However, per Attachment P2, Sr.

Program Analyst's will be supporting tasks associated with SOW Paragraph 4.3 (Ref: Row #4 - 4.3.2.2, 4.3.4; Row #10 -

4.3.5 [which doesn't exist], 4.3.1; Row #17 - 4.3.2, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.7 [which doesn't exist]). Section B states that CLIN 0002 is for "Services in accordance with SOW paragraph 4.3; APN-5." As Attachment P2 is reflecting Sr. Program Analyst's performing SOW 4.3 (APN-5) tasking, we respectfully request either Attachment P2 to be update to remove SOW 4.3 from Sr. Program Analysts or the table at Section L (Paragraph 2.1) be updated to reflect hours for Sr. Program Analyst within CLIN 0002 (SOW 4.3 - APN-5). #2 - Per Section L (Paragraph 2.1) Jr.

Acquisition Specialist's will be supporting

The P2 will be updated in forthcoming amendment.

tasks associated with APN-1 (CLIN 0001) and FMS (CLIN 0005). CLIN 0001 clearly states that it is for "Services in accordance with SOW paragraph 4.2;

APN-1" and CLIN 0005 clearly states that is is for "Services in accordance with SOW paragraph 4.6; FMS". However, per Attachment P2, Jr. Acquisition Specialist will be supporting tasks associated with SOW Paragraph 4.3 (Ref: Row #9 - 4.3.3).

Section B states that CLIN 0002 is for "Services in accordance with SOW paragraph 4.3; APN-5." As Attachment P2 is reflecting a Jr. Acquisition Specialist performing SOW 4.3 (APN-5) tasking, we respectfully request either Attachment P2 to be update to remove SOW 4.3 from the Jr. Acquisition Specialist or the table at Section L (Paragraph 2.1) be updated to reflect hours for Jr. Acquisition Specialist within CLIN 0002 (SOW 4.3 - APN-5). #3 - Per Section L (Paragraph 2.1) Jr. Program Analysts will be supporting tasks associated with APN-1 (CLIN 0001) and FMS (CLIN 0005). CLIN 0001 clearly states that it is for "Services in accordance with SOW paragraph 4.2;

APN-1" and CLIN 0005 clearly states that is is for "Services in accordance with SOW paragraph 4.6; FMS". However, per Attachment P2, Jr. Program Analysts will be supporting tasks associated with SOW Paragraph 4.3 (Ref: Row #8 - 4.3.2.2, 4.3.4; Row #11 - 4.3.5 [which doesn't exist], 4.3.2). Section B states that CLIN 0002 is for "Services in accordance with SOW paragraph 4.3; APN-5." As Attachment P2 is reflecting Jr. Program Analysts performing SOW 4.3 (APN-5) tasking, we respectfully request either Attachment P2 to be update to remove SOW 4.3 from the Jr. Program Analyst or the table at Section L (Paragraph 2.1) be updated to reflect hours for Jr. Program Analyst within CLIN 0002 (SOW 4.3 - APN-5). The above list may not be all inclusive regarding inconsistencies between those sections for the base year or all option years. We respectfully request the Government verify the hours and tasks associated with the positions for consistency between Section L (Paragraph 2.1), Section B, and Attachment P2.

38 Please confirm that on the P-2 form only the list of names in Column A is to completed. Weaknesses and Strength columns E and F are to remain blank for submission.

Yes, only column A is to be completed by the offeror. Columns D, E and F will be deleted in Amendment 0003.

3/24/

39 P6 & P7, the “Base Period Cost Type” worksheets include various labor categories that are not specified in the RFP (i.e. Program Manager, Administrative Assistant Junior vs Senior, Acquisition Analyst Mid & Senior, etc) and are highlighted files. The instructions say not to modify the highlighted areas.

The P6 and P7 are being revised to include the instructions. The labor categories in the initial release was a sample only. Offerors will be required to fill in the labor categories for both the prime and the sub as the Government does not know what the labor mix is for each competiting offeror. See upcoming amendment.

3/25/

40 P6 & P7, the “Base Period Cost Type” worksheets are missing the CLIN and CLIN descriptions which are stated as being entered by the Government and NOT the contractor in the instructions.

The P6 is being revised and will be released in a forthcoming amendment.

3/25/

42 For attachment P2 “Workforce Matrix”, can the Government please provide instruction as to what specifically is expected in the two columns labeled “Strengths” and “Weakness”?

The strength and weakness columns were removed from the P2 in Amendment 0003

3/25/

44 The instructions for P-6 talk about a "Header Tab" and a "Footer Tab".

Exactly where are the tabs you are referring to.

Once you have the P6 open, go to the "insert" tab (located next to the "home" tab) at the top of your screen to find the "header and footer" option.

3/30/

45 Block 9 on the first page of the Conformed copy of Amendment 2 shows that the due date is 14 April 2015.

However, the last paragraph on page 2 shows the due date is 21 April 2015.

Please confirm that the due date is 21 April 2015.

See forthcoming Amendment. 3/31/

46 I was under the impression that Section B in the RFP (pages 2 through 42) did not have to be filled in; that the P-6 spreadsheet took its place. However, P6 Instruction #8 states the following: "The worksheet is arranged that the workforce being proposed for an entire period of performance is shown together, even though it will be separated by individual CLINS in Section B. When the numbers are carried to Section B, they will be the same as shown on the worksheet." The question is, does Section B of the RFP have to be completed?

Section B needs to be filled out in excel format with a breakout of cost and fee for CPFF CLINs.

47 Do the proposed personnel need to meet the experience requirements at the proposal submittal date or at the contract award date?

The proposed employees need to meet the experience requirements at the time of proposal submittal.

48 In amendment 3, the labor category qualification description for "Program Analyst, Senior" states that an allowable substitution for an MS/MA is “A BS or BA degree in a Business or Management discipline, or PMI certificate, or relevant DAWIA certification…” Are individuals certified by DAWIA at the appropriate levels I, II, and III suitable for meeting the criteria under the PMA-299 solicitation?

Individuals certified by DAWIA at Level III are suitable with the 5 years additional experience. Section C 11.1.1 will be updated to reflect this in Amendment 0004.

49 In para. 4.3.4 Limitation on Subcontracting, it states that (underline added) "...at least 50% of the cost of contract incurred for personnel for contract performance will be performed by the prime itself or other EDWOSBS for each period of performance in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-29...

." This seems to imply that for the base period, and each option, the contractor's % has to be at least 50%. The FAR clause indicates that it has to be 50% of the cost of the contract. It says nothing about each period. Our understanding is that the 50% has to be achieved over the life of the contract, not each period. Would you please clarify this.

The period of time used to determine compliance for a total or partial set-aside contract is the base term AND then each subsequent option period, since option periods are not guaranteed. See 13 CFR 125.6(f) (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=7e5461c3a170fcbcda4f3cd01798cfc 6&mc=true&node=se13.1.125_16&rgn=div8

4/13/

50 CLIN 0019 and related CLINs are for "Increased Capacity Costs Plus Fixed Fee.

Yet, Schedule B only has a spot for "Estimated Cost". Should the cost and fee be combined for this CLIN?

No. The estimated cost and fixed fee should be separate. See Amendment for change to CLIN 0019 and its option CLINs for change in CLIN type and break out of the Cost and Fee.

4/13/