Responses_AIR_5_1_1_ISEET_FOLLOW_ON__RFP_Question_Log_third_set_of_questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ISEET FLIGHT TEST PROGRAM SUPPORT
- Solicitation number
- N00421-15-R-0090
About this file
Answer to question by contractors
View the file
Other files
Show all 26
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 | Update to RFP | Responsible | Question Date | Legal Review | Contracts Review |
| 1 | SOW lists Engineering/Electronics Technician Junior; Section L shows Engineering Technician, Journey Level. Please clarify and if the latter, indicate appropriate education/experience requirements. | Engineering/ Electronics Technician, Junior as listed in the Section C SOW Para 3.2.10 Table is the correct Proposed Labor Category. The SOW Para 3.2.10 Table Function Description, Education Requirement and Expereince Requirement is appropriate as stated in the SOW. | |||||
| Updated Sect L Table 4.3.1, Updated Sect M Table 4.2.2. | Customer/Technical | 9/23/16 | 9/29/16 | 9/28/16 | |||
| 2 | SOW shows five Engineer/Scientist, Journey and two Engineer/Scientist, Junior; Section L shows numbers the other way around. Are we correct in following Section L? | SOW Appendix A and Section L are now matching and are corrected. | Updated Sect L Table 4.3.1. | Customer/Technical | 9/23/16 | 9/29/16 | 9/28/16 |
| 3 | SOW shows 22 Program Analyst and seven Program Analyst, Junior; Section L shows numbers the other way around. Are we correct in following Section L? | Section L 4.3.1 is the correct one to follow. | Updated SOW Appendix A. | Customer/Technical | 9/23/16 | 9/29/16 | 9/28/16 |
| 4 | With respect to questions 2 & 3, please confirm that the government and contractor site alignments are the same (i.e. predominant number of each labor cat at the government site). | Appendix A and Section L site determinations are as designed for proposal purpose only. SOW and Section L will remain unchaged. | No Action. | Customer/Technical | 9/23/16 | 9/29/16 | 9/28/16 |
| 5 | Is hand delivery of proposals acceptable, and if so, to what address? | Yes. To the address in Section L | Section L - Updated 1.6 Instructions for Submission of Proposals | Contract | 9/26/16 | 9/29/16 | 9/28/16 |
| 6 | Section L, 1.8 lists a number of elements required to be included in each volume (Title page, table of contents, etc.). Do these items count against page limits? | Yes, all items count against the page limits | No Action. | Customer | 9/26/16 | 9/29/16 | 9/28/16 |
| 7 | The list of attachments includes P-1, Workforce Qualification Spreadsheet. No reference is made to P-1 in Section L or elsewhere. Are we correct in assuming it was included in error? | Yes was included in error. | Updated list of attachments in Section J removing P1 from the listing and contractors are to disregard the P-1 attachment | Contracts | 9/27/16 | 9/29/16 | 9/28/16 |
| 8 | Section L states no pictures are allowable. In Section L, 2.2 (Management Plan) we are requested to discuss proposed management roles of our workforce, and lines of responsibility, authority and communication. These are very difficult to do adequately without use of organizational diagrams. Will the government permit offerors to include organizational diagrams as part of their Management Plan submissions? | Organizational diagrams are allowed and will count against page limite | No change to the RFP | Customer | 9/28/16 | 9/29/16 | 9/28/16 |
| 9 | The RFP includes Attachment P4, which is a CPARS update questionnaire, as well as P5, which is a Past Performance questionnaire. Section L, Para 3.2 CPARS makes no mention of P4. Which attachment should we use to request update of a CPARS over 12 months old? | P4 was included in error. Please use the P5 as instructed in Section L Para 3.2 | Updated list of attachments in Section J removing P4 from the listing and contractors are to disregard the P-4 attachment | Contract | 9/29/16 | 9/29/16 | 9/29/206 |
| 10 | A follow on question to the one regarding page counts and the required title pages, tables of contents, etc. |
- Since required administrative information will count against page limits, please clarify how we are to count in volume 2? Understanding of the Work has a 15 page limit; Management Plan has a 25 page limit. Which of these do the title page, table of contents, etc. count against?
| Prefatory administrative matter not applicable to a section does not count against a section page limit | No Action. | Customer | 10/2/16 | ||
| 11 | For contracts of this size, it is typical to see a dedicated program manager; this is even true of much smaller contracts. Will the government consider adding a senior program manager billet to the workforce/labor categories, perhaps at a .5 FTE level? | for proposal purposes there is no requirement for a dedicated program manager (nor is there a labor category). No Dedicated Program Manager is required for this effort. | No Action. | Customer | 10/2/16 |
| 12 | We have noticed a discrepancy related to number of hard copies required for submission. The SF33 indicates sealed packages are required to contain an original and 3 copies; however Section L paragraph 1.6 indicates that the proposal should be submitted via CD-ROM and accompanied by 3 hard copies. Request you please confirm the total number of CD-ROMs and hard copies that are required as part of this submission. | 1 Original, 3 hard copies and 1 CD-ROM | No Action. | Customer | 10/2/16 |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .