Questions_and_Answers_2.pdf

Questions and Answers NNK16567219R

Question: Amendment 1 and the associated Q&As to NNK16567219R creates inconsistencies in the approach to evaluation of Offerors with minor subcontractor teammates. If the Government’s intent is to evaluate only Offerors and Major Subcontractor’s recent and relevant performance of work similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation for the purposes of evaluating Past Performance, then Section M should be amended accordingly. Will the Government please clarify its application of L.16, M.4, Amendment 1, Q&As posted

2/4/2016, and FAR 15.305(a)(2) as it pertains to additional information provided at the Offeror’s discretion (within page limits) considered necessary to establish a record of relevant performance?

Answer: Section M.4 is consistent with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and the RFP clearly states the government’s intent to evaluate the offeror and its major subcontractors recent and relevant performance for purposes of establishing an overall level of confidence rating. No revision to section M.4 is necessary.

Major subcontractors are defined in RFP section L.16.B as: “…members of a joint venture and/or proposed major Subcontractor(s) which is anticipated to perform greater than $10 Million of the total proposed cost (total proposed cost of Level of Effort hours plus flex hours) for the entire period of performance”

Finally, RFP section M.4 states “The Offeror and proposed major Subcontractors (as defined in

L.16.B) recent and relevant performance of work similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation will be evaluated.”