Amendment 0001 Questions Answers.docx

Q1 – In RFP section L.A.3.0, the government has established a 15-page limit for Volume 2, Past Performance. In section L.B.2.3, the requirement states: “The Offeror shall provide a narrative on each Past Performance Information form in the “Contract Effort Description” area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work.”

The P1 form provides very limited space (i.e., eight lines) to include sufficient narrative to provide a description of the work that fully demonstrates relevancy while staying within the Contract Effort Description portion of the form. Additionally, section L.B.2.2 further expands the requirement as it states: “For contract references that contain delivery/task orders, additionally provide the work description(s) for each specific delivery/task order deemed relevant by the Offeror to this solicitation’s requirements.”

We believe that additional space is needed to permit full-throated depictions of Contractor experience as it relates to the GRFIN work scope. As these requirements require sufficiently detailed summaries to fully prove relevancy, would the government consider expanding the page limit and/or permitting bidders to include the P1 forms and/or the SOW comparison matrix as an additional annex to the volume? We contend that additional space will result in descriptions that are more commensurate with the RFP requirements and the contract efforts being described.

ANSWER: Section L, Part A, paragraph 3.0 Volume 2 Past Performance page limit shall remain at 15 pages.

Q2 – RFP sections L.B.2.2 and L.B.2.3 require bidders to demonstrate the technical relevancy of their past performance references in narrative form. The space on the P1 form allocated for this response, i.e., the Contract Effort Description block, scrolls to additional lines outside of the printable area. Are bidders permitted to use this additional space, or are we restricted to only the eight visible lines?

ANSWER: The offerors may utilize addition space in attachment P1 Past Performance Information form “Contract Effort Description”.

Q3 – The matrix provided in RFP section L.B.2.3 establishes that “magnitude” should be presented for each contract reference. Could the government please define magnitude and specify what information is required to demonstrate magnitude for this effort? For example, should bidders provide total contract values to demonstrate projects are of comparable size to the anticipated GRFIN effort, or is the government requesting a different metric?

ANSWER: The solicitation will be amended to include Magnitude example in Section L, part B paragraph 2.3.

Q4 – The matrix provided in RFP section L.B.2.3 establishes that “magnitude” should be presented for each contract reference proffered. Is it acceptable to demonstrate the magnitude for the contract references on the first line of each reference or does the government wish us to repeat the magnitude response for every row associated with the references?

Alternatively, is the government requesting a unique response for each table row/GRFIN SOW requirement? And if so, please define magnitude at the SOW requirement level.

ANSWER: Yes, it is acceptable to demonstrate the magnitude for the contract references on the first line of each reference.

The solicitation will be amended to include Magnitude example in Section L, part B paragraph 2.3.

Q5 – RFP section L.B.2.3 states: “Using the matrix below, offerors must show how their reference contract(s) has scope/complexity that matches the SOW references in the middle column of matrix below.” Is the government referencing the column with the header “Attachment P1 Reference PWS/SOW Paragraph” as the area where bidders are to show how the scope/complexity match? And if so, is the government requesting information beyond the PWS/SOW section/subsection numbers where similar work scope can be located in our reference SOWs? In short, is this information sufficient to demonstrate scope and complexity or is additional information anticipated?

ANSWER: Yes, the offerors are to show how scope/complexity match with only the SOW paragraphs listed.

Q6 – Section B – The Estimated Rates Table indicates a start date of 02/02/2021. Section F indicates a start date of 09/15/2020. Please provide the start date to be used for pricing purposes.

ANSWER: The solicitation will be amended to update Section F ordering period.

Q7 – Section 3.1(b) – Requires Section B prices to be provided separately in one digital data copy in MS Office 2010 Excel format on CD-ROM media. We request removal of CD-ROM requirement due to DoD SAFE submission instructions.

ANSWER: The solicitation will be amended to delete CD- ROM requirement in Section L, Part B paragraph 3.1 (b).

Q8 – Section 3.3.8 requires a Total Compensation Plan for service employees. Section 3.4 requires a Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees. Is it the government’s intent for offerors to submit one plan encompassing both classes of employees?

ANSWER: The offerors shall provide two different plans: Total Compensation Plan for Service Employee in accordance with the solicitation section L, part B paragraph 3.3.8, and Total Professional Compensation Plan in accordance with Section L, Part B paragraph 3.4.

Q9 – Section 3.5.2 states the government estimate is 730,900 hours. However, Attachment P8 Labor Hours includes 727,636, a difference of 3,264 hours. The Shipping/Receiving Clerk hours appear to be inconsistent in year 4 by 3,264 hours. Please advise.

ANSWER: The solicitation will be amended to update attachment P8 Hours to 730,900.