NRC-HQ-11-R-33-0011--A007.pdf

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR AC- KNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

(X)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

1 11

A007 06/28/2011

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Div. of Contracts Attn: Joseph L. Widdup Mail Stop: TWB-01-B10M Washington, DC 20555

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Div. of Contracts Mail Stop: TWB-01-B10M

Washington, DC 20555

To all potential offerors NRC-HQ-11-R-33-0011

X

X

See continuation pages. By acknowledging this amendment, the offeror also acknowledges all prior amendments.

Joseph L. Widdup Contracting Officer

A007

The purposes of this amendment are:

a. To delete the existing labor categories in Addendum FF for “FA3 Requirement and Design” Spreadsheet and replace the deleted labor categories with the following new labor categories (labor categories for other Functional Areas in Addendum FF remain unchanged):

Senior Solution Architect

Mid-Level Solution Architect

Senior System Analyst

Mid-Level System Analyst

Junior System Analyst

Senior Business Analyst (IT) Mid-Level Business Analyst

(IT)

Junior Business Analyst (IT)

b. To publish the government’s response to questions received from potential offerors:

1. QUESTION: During Requirements analysis and definition, analysts often uncover questions that require evaluation to lay the foundation for Elaboration. Many times these questions can be examined through the development of throwaway proof of concept prototypes. Such prototypes are often performed as early Elaboration activities, and can examine alternatives related to solution architecture, or evaluate alternatives to the look and feel of a critical component. Would the creation of such prototypes be within scope of FA3, FA4, or both?

ANSWER: As a part of requirements definition and analysis, an FA3 contractor may utilize prototypes. The FA3 offeror shall document their approach for requirements and design (to include prototypes, if appropriate) in its proposal. None of these prototypes would be placed on the production environment.

2. QUESTION: Based upon the multiple award nature of FA3, contractor envisions situations where a subcontractor on an FA3 IDIQ team will intentionally not participate on a given task order response. Therefore, that subcontractor would not be performing requirements and design activities associated with that particular task order. Under these circumstances, please confirm our understanding that the non-participating subcontractor would be free and clear to pursue work supporting these same application(s) under a subsequent FA4 task order without any Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) concerns.

ANSWER: If an organization is a prime or subcontractor on an awarded FA3 task order, then it would not be eligible as a prime or subcontractor on the related FA4 task order. However, the fact that it was awarded a task order as a prime or subcontractor under FA3 does not make it ineligible to compete for, or be ineligible for award under, unrelated FA4 task orders.

3. QUESTION: Please confirm our understanding of the following OCI/COI determination scenario: If a subcontractor on a team awarded work under FA3 does not participate in the requirements and/or design activities for a specific application under a task order, but the Prime FA3 Contractor does, it is our understanding that the subcontractor would not subsequently be conflicted from supporting work on that same application under a FA4 task order. This scenario assumes that the FA3 task order is awarded to provide requirements and designs for multiple applications;

where the subcontractor is only supporting activities for a certain subset of these applications. Is our understanding correct that a FA4 OCI does not exist for the subcontractor for those specific applications that it does not support under the FA3 Task Order?

ANSWER: See answer to Question #2 above.

4. QUESTION: If a contractor performs requirements and design for a system under FA3 as a prime and is a subcontractor on a team under FA4, would that contractor conflict out the entirety of the FA4 team, or would only the contractor who worked on the requirements and design be prohibited from working under FA4 for that system?

5. QUESTION: It appears that additional labor categories will be necessary to bid and deliver services under any anticipated task order awarded under FA3; for example Analysts, Managers and other types of Subject Matter Experts which are not currently represented. Therefore, can the government confirm that these additional labor categories will be available for use when bidding future task order responses under FA3?

ANSWER: In addition to offerors proposing the mandatory fixed hourly labor rates for the labor categories that are identified in the solicitation Addendum FF, Addendum FF also indicates that the offeror may propose additional labor categories. See also item a. in this amendment, which replaced solicitation labor category titles in FA3 with new labor category titles.

6. QUESTION: We understand that you have clarified that the potential conflict of interest for an awardee of both FA 3 and FA 4 is task order specific, but would like to know if the conflict extends to a subcontractor on FA 3. Is a subcontractor on a specific task order under FA 3 automatically disallowed from bidding on related development work under FA 4, or does it depend on the nature of the work that the subcontractor performed on the specific task under FA 3? If the answer to that question is that the subcontractor is automatically disallowed, would a subcontractor on FA 3 be allowed to bid on development work of any type under FA 4?

Would the government be receptive to an OCI Plan that clearly describes how a prime contractor on FA 3 would manage OCI issues among multiple subcontractors, and allow them to bid on select tasks under FA 4?

7. QUESTION: What functional area under MOM will help the NRC with application portfolio management?

ANSWER: Any functional area, as appropriate.

8. QUESTION: Regarding the Small Business subcontracting goals, are we correct in assuming that a Small Business can qualify for, and meet the goals of, multiple Small Business categories (for example, a single Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business could receive 6% of the work on a specific task order, and thereby satisfy both the Veteran-Owned Small Business goal of 3% as well as the Service- Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business goal of 3%)?

ANSWER: Small business goals do not apply to an organization that is a small business under this acquisition. Small business subcontracting plan goals apply only to offerors that are not a small business under this acquisition.

9. QUESTION: Are we correct in assuming that the 40% goal, the two 5% goals, and the three 3% goals are cumulative, that is, a total of 40% of task order work needs to be awarded to Small Businesses, and that 40% is to be apportioned according to the two 5% goals and three 3% goals, not that the Small Business award goal for each task order is 59% (40% plus 10% (the two 5% goals) plus 9% (the three 3% goals))?

ANSWER: Assuming the above questions is asking what percentage of the contract a small business subcontract covers, the answer is that at least 40% of the total dollars that are subcontracted after award to other sources must go to some type of small business. Consistent with the answer in question/answer #8, a small business could meet multiple small business categories to make up the separate components required by FAR clause 52.219-9 Alternate II.

10. QUESTION: Is the MOM procurement using any GSA or GWAC vehicle, such as MOBIS or Vanguard?

ANSWER: No. Only open market offers will be considered.

11. QUESTION: In section C.1.3, the solicitation document states, "The NRC currently has approximately 100 computer-based application systems that require MOM support services." However, the list in Appendix E: Application List includes approximately 195 items. Are all of the applications listed in Appendix E in the scope of the MOM procurement?

ANSWER: The current M&O contract covers approximately 100 computer-base application systems; however, there are additional systems as listed in Appendix E that may require services under the MOM procurement.

12. QUESTION: In the solicitation Section L.12, 4. INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME IV, item n, the solicitation states: "Offerors shall include, in their proposal, written consent of their proposed significant subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractors' past performance information evaluation with the offeror." Will this be included as an attachment to volume IV and not included in the page count?

ANSWER: Written consent from significant subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractor’s past performance information with the offeror may be provided as part of the proposal Volume I and will not apply to the Volume IV 10 page limit.

13. QUESTION: In the solicitation Section L.12, 2. INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME II,

c. Corporate Experience (as revised in A001) asks for the following information:

"The offeror shall describe the breadth and depth of its experience in performing contracts similar to solicitation requirements for the applicable functional area.

The narrative shall indicate who the customers were (organization name, address, technical contact name, technical contract phone number and technical contract email address), as well as indicate the contract/order number, period of performance, scope of work, total dollar amount of the contract, contract type. The information shall also demonstrate how that experience is relevant to the solicitation requirements." The above seems to overlap with the information requested in solicitation Section L.12, 4. INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME IV. We understand that the contracts covered in Volume IV are restricted to recipients of past performance questionnaires, and also restricted to contracts in the last 3 years, and that Volume II may include additional contracts beyond these restrictions. However, those contracts included in Volume IV will heavily overlap.

ANSWER: It is the offeror’s discretion regarding what corporate experience and past performance information it provides in its proposal Volumes II and IV. The offeror may submit corporate experience and past performance information on the same contract or different contracts within Volume II or Volume IV, depending on their relevancy to the evaluation factors for award.

14. QUESTION: This structure may result in repetition of content between the two volumes. Will we be allowed to minimize duplication and cross-reference content between Volumes II and IV, or should we assume that evaluators will not have access to content in different volumes?

ANSWER: Yes, the offeror may reduce duplication by cross-referencing content between Volumes II and IV. NRC evaluators will have access to both Volume II and Volume IV.

15. QUESTION: The solicitation cover page has a "deliver to" address of "U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Div of Contracts - CMB3; Attn: Pearlette Merriweather; Mail Stop: TWB-01-B10M; Washington DC 20555". Can the proposal also be delivered by hand or courier to the "11545 Rockville Pike" address in section L.5?

ANSWER: The solicitation is hereby amended to disallow hand delivery or personal delivery of proposals for all remaining functional areas. All proposals for FA3 and FA4 (FA4 and FA5 will be combined in a future amendment) must be mailed or otherwise delivered by commercial carrier to the following address. Note minor correction from the address in the original solicitation:

US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ATTN PEARLETTE MERRIWEATHER

MAIL STOP TWB-01-B10M

WASHINGTON DC 20555-0001

M/F: SOLICITATION NO. NRC-HQ-11-R-33-0011

16. QUESTION: Will NRC consider using oral presentations from qualified “down-select” vendors to better evaluate the quality of the proposed offerer/team personnel?

ANSWER: No, oral presentations will not being used as part of the solicitation and evaluation process for the IDIQ award process for this solicitation. However, the NRC reserves the right to use oral presentations as part of the negotiation and award process for task order awards, if appropriate.

17. QUESTION: In the evaluation factors for award, section L.12 as amended in A001 (part 8, “Revise language in Section L.12 on page L-15 – L16 as follows…”), were items a), b), c) and-d) at the top of page L-16 also intended to be removed in A001? The content of items a), b), c) and-d) appear to overlap with the items 1, 2 and 3 at the end of the replacement language in A001 part 8.

ANSWER: Yes, items a), b), c), and d) should have been deleted in amendment #A001 and replaced with items 1), 2), and 3) as documented in amendment #A001. However, see amendment #A006.

18. QUESTION: In M.2.3, under the FA3 heading, item a), the text references "…and the tools used to develop these solutions within the Agency target TRM identified in Appendix F in the MOM PWS". To clarify, is that specifically referring to the "Software Solution Implementation Support Tools" in the top half of page 27 of the Appendix A-G document?

ANSWER: It’s all tools identified in Appendix F.

19. QUESTION: In Section M, page M-2, Subsection M.2.2 Technical Capability Subfactor B - Technical Approach, NRC states "The following evaluation criteria apply to all five functional areas". Please confirm there are no general evaluation criteria for M.2.2.

ANSWER: There were no general evaluation criteria for M.2.2 until amendment #A006, which amended Section M, including Subsection M2.2.

20. QUESTION: In Section M, page M-2, Subsection M.2.2 Technical Capability

Subfactor B - Technical Approach, under FA3, NRC states: “d) The degree to which the proposed management approach and corporate policies supports maintenance and operations activities and adheres to the NRC MD 2.8, Project Management Methodology. “

Please clarify if the NRC meant to state “Requirements and Design” for Functional Area 3 rather than “maintenance and operations”. See below:

d) The degree to which the proposed management approach and corporate policies supports requirements and design activities and adheres to the NRC MD 2.8, Project Management Methodology.

ANSWER: See Amendment #A006.

21. QUESTION: Please clarify whether bidders are to submit additional labor categories and rates on the initial proposal submission. If bidders are not to submit additional labor categories, will the addendum FF Cost Template be modified to eliminate the following statements “- Provide any additional labor categories you think you may use in a development effort and add to this template, as necessary. Extra rows have been added to accommodate additional labor categories”?

a. In amend 002 Question 57 answer it stated: Answer: Offerors shall only propose fixed hourly labor rates for the labor categories that are identified in the solicitation Addendum FF. If, on a task order by task order basis, the NRC determines that additional labor categories may be necessary, then the Government will direct offerors for those task orders accordingly.

ANSWER: See answer to Question #5 above.

22. QUESTION: Section L.11 Proposal Content and Page Limitations on page L-13 of the original RFP in the table states there is a 10 page limit for past performance IV. However Amend 002 Question 49 answer says there are no page limitations.

However Question 79 answer states that the Volume IV page limits remain unchanged (sic) 10 pages. Then Amend 003 states: “the solicitation instructions starting on page L.16 entitled “4. INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME IV” hereby replace any conflicting instructions elsewhere in the solicitation and related addenda with regard to past performance information.” Please clarify whether or not the past performance IV is limited to 10 pages.

ANSWER: The Past Performance Information Volume IV page limit is 10 pages.

23. QUESTION: NRC has not specified the number of past performance citations to be submitted. We have read the evaluation criteria in section M.3 Past Performance Information Factor (Volume IV). Please clarify how the past performance section is going to be evaluated as far as quantity versus quality.

How is a vendor rated that submits 5 excellent rated and very relevant past performances versus a vendor that submits say 3 excellent and very relevant past performances and 4 satisfactory or not a relevant past performances? In other words, does additional quantity that may not be as relevant or less quality hurt or help a vendor’s rating? What is the minimum necessary past performance submissions? Please clarify how the past performances will be evaluated in total.

ANSWER: As required by FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(2), the Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance in evaluating the offeror’s past performance information as a whole. The number of past performance information sources will not, in and of itself, be used to determine the past performance information rating for the offeror. There is no minimum number of past performance information submissions. See Sections L and M of the solicitation for additional information.

24. QUESTION: Amend 002 had the following question and answer for #62:

62. Question: Reference RFP Addendum FF. Are there labor category qualifications / descriptions / education for each of the labor categories specified in the spreadsheet?

b. Answer: The labor categories identified in Addendum FF are general labor categories and are required to be included in proposals. The offeror shall identify the equivalent labor category as defined by their organization. The offeror is responsible for including their own equivalent labor category qualifications, descriptions and education for their proposed equivalent labor categories in their technical proposal. The offeror shall not propose any additional labor categories at the time of proposal submission, and if any are proposed they will be excluded from the evaluation of the proposal.

The answer to Question 2 in amend 004 seems to conflict with having bidders put in labor category descriptions in the IDIQ bid.

2. Question: There are no specific education and experience requirements provided in RFP for the six (6) labor categories to be priced. How will the NRC determine that the labor categories proposed by all bidders are comparable?

Answer: FAR Subpart 104 - Information Technology Services prohibit describing any experience or education requirement for contractor personnel. However, after awarding the IDIQ contracts and during the task order competition(s), the NRC will require contractors to propose key personnel and a description of current personnel resources. This includes a resumes detailing an individual’s background, education, work experience, and accomplishments with a description of the experience and capability.

ANSWER: The labor category titles in the solicitation are relatively self-explanatory, so the Government’s comparability exercise should be straightforward.

However, the offeror shall include its own labor category descriptions and related education/experience/duties standards for its own labor categories that it is proposing in its proposal so that those specific labor category titles and related standards can be incorporated into the IDIQ contract award (if the offeror receives an award).

25. QUESTION: Where in the instructions does it say to and in which section of the proposal are the bidders to include labor category qualifications, descriptions and education? Or do the offers not describe the qualifications in this IDIQ bid proposal but will provide descriptions and resumes on task order bids only? There do not seem to be any evaluation factors in section M5 cost/price factor of how the labor category qualifications, descriptions and education are to be evaluated.

Please clarify.

ANSWER: See the answer to Question #24 above.

26. QUESTION: C.4.3 states the FA3 contractor should communicate with the FA4 and FA5 contractors. Are we to assume that this communication will happen during the FA3 task and after the FA4 and FA5 tasks have been awarded? That is, will FA3, FA4, and FA5 tasks run concurrently for the same project?

ANSWER: For a given requirement, the FA3 task order would be awarded prior to the FA4 task order award.

27. QUESTION: Page C-2, C.2.3 Modernization “Many outdated legacy systems will be on unsupported software during the period of performance of this contract and therefore modernization activities must be executed. The NRC will review the current IT environment to identify outdated or unsupported application systems for modernization. “Q: What is the approximate timeline for NRC’s review and how will the results be provided?”

ANSWER: The timeline and method for providing the results is, in part, dependent on NRC budget in future fiscal years, which have not yet been appropriated.

28. QUESTION: Page L-17 n. “Offerors shall include, in their proposal, written consent of their proposed significant subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractors' past performance information evaluation with the offeror.” A standardized format for this consent is not provided. Should we ask for one?

ANSWER: There is no standard format for subcontractor consent. A letter provided by the subcontractor to the offeror may be included in the offeror’s proposal.

29. QUESTION: Section M.2.2 2 Technical Capability Subfactor B – Technical Approach. Does the offerer only need to address FA3 in this section if we are bidding FA3 only?

ANSWER: Correct. The offeror shall address all applicable evaluation factors for award, and any specific functional area evaluation factors for the functional area(s) that apply to the FA for which the offeror submits a proposal.

30. QUESTION: M.4 SB Subcontracting Plan Factor (Vol V) Compliance with clause 52.219-0 Alternate II. Where is 52.219-0 Alternate II?

ANSWER: The solicitation is hereby amended read 52.219-9 Alternate II, instead of 52.219-0 Alternate II.

31. QUESTION: C.4.3.2.b.iii The statement at the top of page C-16 appears to be a partial clause. Please verify this was the full requirement.

ANSWER: C.4.3.2.b.iii is hereby amended to read “Document all of the information, data, and methods used in the analysis.”

32. QUESTION: C.4.3.2.f.i Who is the core team that the NRC references in this statement? Just the FA3 contractor? The FA3 contractor working with the FA4 contractor?

ANSWER: The core team will be the FA3 contractor, with inputs from the NRC Project Officer.

33. QUESTION: C.4.3.2.f.iv Please clarify how a Fishbone is an impact area for a process group. How does the NRC, with the FA3 contractor, plan to use a Fishbone analysis to perform its assessment?

ANSWER: Section C .4.3.2.f.iv is hereby amended to read C.4.3.2.g.

34. QUESTION: C.4.3.2.f.v Is the Requirements section really supposed to be

C.4.3.2.g? Nonfunctional items, as listed, do not appear to be an impact group for the process areas

ANSWER: Section C.4.3.2.f.iv is hereby amended to read C.4.3.2.h.

35. QUESTION: C.4.3.5 What does NRC expect the handoff process to be between the

FA3 to FA4 contractors?

ANSWER: All requirements and design documentation will be maintained within the FA1 centralized environment. An FA3 contractor will be responsible for ensuring all requirements and design documentation for their task order(s) is up to date and accurate. An FA3 contractor will be expected to facilitate the transfer of this documentation to the FA4 contractor for the related FA4 task order.

36. QUESTION: C.4.3 What is the deliverable signoff process for NRC for FA3 deliverables?

ANSWER: The deliverable signoff process will be identified in the SOW for each task order.

37. QUESTION: C.4.3 In order to facilitate handoff and knowledge transfer, what is the expected overlap period between FA3 and FA4 contractors?

ANSWER: See answer to Question #26 above.

38. QUESTION: L.12.4.a There’s no limit to the number of past performances? Is the NRC looking for ALL corporate experience over the last three years? This could be an extremely long list.

ANSWER: See answer to Question #23 above.

39. QUESTION: Appendix C: Document #20 (PMM) is not available via the public internet. The referenced URL appears to be an internal to NRC website. Please provide the PPM as a standalone document

ANSWER: Offerors may request a CD copy of the PMM by sending an email to MOMContract@nrc.gov. The contracting officer or their designee would then send them a .zip file by email.

40. QUESTION: The labor categories for FA3 in the cost template are primarily development roles. Will the NRC consider replacing these with analysis and high-level design labor categories?

ANSWER: See answer to Question #1 above.

41. QUESTION: Will NRC or the FA1 contractor provide Rational/JAZZ licenses for

FA3 task orders?

ANSWER: An FA3 task order contractor is responsible for acquiring the Rational/Jazz token based on the number of employees needed for the duration of the FA3 task order. The FA1 contractor is responsible to install the licenses and manage access to utilize the Centralized Environment.

mailto:MOMContract@nrc.gov�

42. QUESTION: In section L.12 (2)(a), third paragraph, the NRC asks the offeror to “describe how it proposes to manage its personnel resources to meet solicitation requirements” and “how the offeror proposes to manage its human resources.” Please clarify the distinction between “personnel resources” and “human resources” for requested management plan.

ANSWER: Within that context, human resources means the same thing as personnel resources.

43. QUESTION: Can the Government please clarify its’ intention on “9 electronic copies”? Do you desire 9 CDs? 9 copies of the proposal on a CD? Other digital media?

ANSWER: See Amendment #A004 which amended that requirement.

44. QUESTION: Can the Government please confirm what time proposals for FA3 are due on July 18, 2011?

ANSWER: FA3 proposals are due no later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time on July 18, 2011. Please note that this amendment also removes the option for hand-delivery of proposals.

45. QUESTION: With no limit to the number of references, the offeror could submit 10 past performance references of one page each or 2 past performance references of five pages each (as well as other variations). Does the government plan to put a limit on the number of references made other than a 10 page limitation for Volume IV?

ANSWER: See answer to Question #23.

46. QUESTION: Please confirm the page limitations and items to be included in Volume IV:

- List of Contracts (AA) to correspond with Questionnaires with no page limit

- Description of how contracts were similar in scope and other information as required on L-17 with 10 Page Limit

ANSWER: See answer to Question #22.

47. QUESTION: If the List of Contracts (Addendum AA) requirement for information is the same as that in the description of the contract can the full description reference the contract from Addendum AA for that same information rather than repeat the same information, thus reducing information that would count towards the page limitation?

ANSWER: See answer to Question #23.

48. QUESTION: Can the Government please confirm that past performance questionnaires need to be scanned first, then e-mailed to MOMContract@nrc.gov with cc: to Joseph.widdup@nrc.gov? Is directly e-mailing without scanning unacceptable?

ANSWER: The person completing the form may scan and email the form to those email addresses. Emailing completed forms without scanning is also acceptable.

49. QUESTION: Reference L.5 2052.215-72 TIMELY RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS (OCT 1999) The RFP indicates that “All offerors should allow extra time for internal mail distribution or for pick up of hand-carried deliveries.” How much additional time should be allowed between hand delivery to the loading dock security station and when it is considered “received” by NRC?

mailto:MOMContract@nrc.gov� mailto:Joseph.widdup@nrc.gov�

ANSWER: The offeror’s proposal is considered received when it is date and time stamped by the NRC mail distribution center. Please see previous answers in this amendment regarding the omission of hand-carrying of proposals. The offeror no longer needs to be concerned about allowing additional time for internal delivery/distribution of its proposal within NRC after it is delivered to the delivery address specified in this amendment.

END OF TEXT