MAAC Solicitation QandA 11.18.2024.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Maritime Acquisition Advancement Contract (MAAC) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- SPRMM1-25-R-T001
About this file
This document is a collection of questions and answers related to a federal contract opportunity for the Maritime Acquisition Advancement Contract (MAAC) issued by the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime. The MAAC is a 10-year, multi-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a 5-year base period and five 1-year options.
The solicitation includes a Price Evaluation List (PEL) with over 80 National Stock Number (NSN) and Non-NSN items, for which offerors must provide pricing quotes. At least 70% of the items must be quoted by small businesses. The Government anticipates making multiple awards, including reserving four awards specifically for small businesses. Offerors are required to submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document outlining their plan to meet the 40% small business participation requirement. The solicitation has an estimated start date in Spring 2025 and was extended to December 10, 2024 for proposal submissions.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SPRMM1-25-R-T001 A0003.pdf | ||
| SPRMM1-25-R-T001 A0002.pdf | ||
| Attachment 0001 MAAC Price Evaluation List (PEL) A00002 UPDATE 11.27.2024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MAAC Solicitation QandA 11.27.2024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| SPRMM1-25-R-T001 A0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 0001 MAAC Price Evaluation List (PEL) A00001 UPDATE 11.15.2024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 0003 MAAC Cross Reference Matrix A0001.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MAAC Solicitation QandA 11.15.2024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 0001 MAAC Price Evaluation List (PEL) UPDATE 11.6.2024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MAAC Solicitation QandA 11.4.2024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 0001 MAAC Price Evaluation List (PEL).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| SPRMM1-25-R-T001 - Maritime Aquisition Advancement Contract.pdf |
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question/Comment | Answer/Note | Citation (if applicable) | Legal Comments | ||
| 1 | Would it be possible for the Government to post an unprotected version of Attachment 0001 MAAC Price Evaluation List (PEL)? The data in each column cannot be filtered or selected for viewing. | The submitted PEL cannot be altered to maintain the security of the information provided in the document. | |||
| 2 | Can the Government confirm which website offeror’s proposals are to be submitted to? There is conflicting information on pages 4 and 116 of the RFP. | ||||
| a. | p. 4 – “Prospective offerors should insert prices, complete all requirements within the RFP, and sign and upload all pages, to include amendments to the solicitation, (prior to the closing date) in http://sam.gov.” and “Offerors shall send an email to the designated points of contact (POCs) below confirming the offerors package was uploaded to SAM.gov.” | ||||
| b. | p. 116 – “Offerors shall submit their proposals via the Government’s DoD Secure Access File Exchange (DoD SAFE) website (https://safe.apps.mil) to submit their proposals…” and “Before submitting an offer, Offerors shall email the contract specialist at least 14 days in advance of submission to request access(es) to DoD SAFE prior to the RFP deadline.” | The date in Part A of the question refers to the listed closing date of the solicitation. For Part B of the question, due to the size of the files required for the proposal, submission through SAFE is the best method of transmission. |
| This will be formally addressed in Amendment 0001 of the solicitation. | I do think the pages are contradictory and the solicitation will require an amendment. | ||||
| 3 | Can the USG provide the EDI Transmission codes required for this contract? | There are no plans to move to a EDI system at this time. This section is written for expectations if such a system in implemented. | SOW 2.2.3 | ||
| 4 | Can the USG give examples of the systems they mention for capturing data? | The Government cannot provide examples of systems for capturing data. However, please include information about the system you have in place or intend to use in accordance with L.3.3.2." | SOW 2.2.4 | This isn't necessarily true. We may proved strengths/weaknesses based on the systems the offerors describe. Recommend the following response "The Government cannot provide examples of systems for capturing data. However, please include information about the system you have in place or intend to use in accordance with L.3.3.2." | |
| 5 | In which volume does the Government expect to see the ISO 9001:2015 certificate? | There is no preference, as long as the file is included with your proposal. | L.1.6 | ||
| 6 | In which volume does the Government expect to see the Joint Certification Program (JCP) and eJCP certificate(s)? | There is no preference, as long as the file is included with your proposal. | L.1.7 | ||
| 7 | In which volume does the Government expect to see the Completed RFP documents? | The completed RFP document should be a separate file. | L.1.13 | ||
| 8 | In which volume does the Government expect to see the Cover Letter? | The cover letter is its own document. | L.1.13 | ||
| 9 | Could the USG please clarify if a Glossary of Acronyms & Abbreviations is exempt from page limitations in all volumes? | If a glossary is included, it will not count in the page counts. | L.1.14 | Recommend the following response instead: "If a glossary is included, it will not count in the page counts." | |
| 10 | L.1.14 states "The proposal Volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be delivered in four separate PDF files. The proposal Volume 5 shall be delivered in a completed copy of the Price Evaluation List (PEL) Excel file." Could the USG please confirm that offerors do not need to submit a standalone Price Volume narrative in addition to the PEL Excel file? | In accordance with L.5.6, only provide the PEL Excel file for Volume 5. | L.1.14; L.5 | Recommend the following response instead: "In accordance with L.5.6, only provide the PEL Excel file for Volume 5." | |
| 11 | L.5.10 states that if there is an item on the PEL which the Government is requiring FAT, the price for FAT must be listed separately on the PEL in the space provided by the Government; however, no such column exists on the Attachment 0001 MAAC Price Evaluation. Could the USG please clarify in which column should the FAT pricing be entered? | Line(s) to be added to revised PEL. | L.5.10 | ||
| 12 | Section H references that DLAD Proc Note L09 - Reverse Auction (Oct 2016), but we received a newer version dated 9/6/24. Could the USG please clarify - does DOD Proc Note dated 9/6/2024 supersede the DOD Proc Note dated Oct 2016? | DLAD Proc Note L09 - Reverse Auction (Sept 2024) applies and will be included in Amendment 0001. | H - Special Contract Requirements | Recommend the following response instead: "DLAD Proc Note L09 - Reverse Auction (Sept 2024) applies and will be included in an amendment." | |
| 13 | With the PEL and SBPCD being time consuming along with the holidays quickly coming upon us, would the Government consider granting an extension to 30 December 2024 to submit a solicitation response? | There are no plans to extend the solicitation at this time. With the draft and formal solicitations adding up to an 80-day validity, we feel there is enough time to offer a proposal. | Solicitation, Offer and Award, Standard Form 33 (Rev. 12/2022) | ||
| 14 | Are Offerors to submit the copy of the ISO 9001:2015 certificate as a separate file? Or is it acceptable for Offerors to include the copy of the ISO 9001:2015 certificate as an attachment to the Cover Letter? | There is no preference, as long as the file is included with your proposal. | L.1.6, page 114 | ||
| 15 | Does "commercial" contracts/orders refer to cases where an offeror is a subcontractor to another company on a Government contract? | Corrected in Amedment 0001 | L.2.2., page 116 | I think the confusion comes from L.2.3 stating "Government requiring activity" when they can be Government agency contracts or commercial entity contracts. Recommend amending to remove "Government" from "Requiring Activity". | |
| 16 | Are Offerors to submit the copy of the JCP and eJCP certificate(s) as a separate file(s)? Or is it acceptable for Offerors to include the copy of the JCP and eJCP certificate(s) as an attachment to the Cover Letter? | There is no preference, as long as the file is included with your proposal. | L.1.7, page 114 | ||
| 17 | Based on the instructions, $1B/annually should be used for the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). Can the Government please clarify if the intent is for small and large businesses to maintain the same level within their plans? Or is the small business annual level something less than $1B/annually? | All Offerors, regardless of their small business status, must provide a SBPCD explaining its plan to maintain a minimum of 40% of the total awarded order dollar value throughout the life of the contract to small businesses. Work self-performed by a small business prime will be credited towards the required 40% small business participation. | L.4.1.3, page 119 | I think the question is if small businesses have a different commitment percentage. I recommend the following response instead: "All Offerors, regardless of their small business status, must provide a SBPCD explaining its plan to maintain a minimum of 40% of the total awarded order dollar value throughout the life of the contract to small businesses. Work self-performed by a small business prime will be credited towards the required 40% small business participation." | |
| 18 | Would the government consider allowing the use for graphics for the following reasons: To strengthen the effectiveness and clarity of our proposal for the MAAC IDIQ, we recommend allowing the use of color in graphics. While black and white graphics are functional, color enhances comprehension, retention, and engagement, which can significantly impact the proposal review process. Here’s why color would be beneficial: |
* Color can highlight key areas within complex visuals, helping evaluators quickly grasp the main points. For example, contrasting colors in technical diagrams or infographics make it easier to distinguish different elements, reducing the effort needed to interpret intricate layouts or layered information.
* In charts, diagrams, and flowcharts, color distinctions help make patterns and relationships clearer than they appear in grayscale. This is especially valuable when communicating complex data, as color differentiates components effectively, preventing overlap or ambiguity, and supporting faster, more accurate interpretation.
* Color naturally draws attention, making the proposal more visually engaging and easier to retain. Research shows that people are more likely to remember information presented in color, which can be crucial in a competitive review process.
* Using color establishes a visual hierarchy, guiding evaluators through the information in a structured way from the most critical data points to supporting details. This approach not only enhances clarity but also conveys a sense of quality and professionalism, reinforcing our commitment to detail and excellence in this proposal.
| * Allowing color in proposal graphics can significantly elevate the readability and impact of our submission, helping evaluators make faster, well-informed decisions. | DLA Mechanicsburg requires the ability to quickly print and/or photocopy proposals. All data and information must be readily available for printing and notations as needed by the selection team. | L.1.14, page 116 | Do you actually intend to print? If not, you can consider changing this requirement. It may help your evaluators. | |
| 19 | In the Draft Q&A item# 26, it states "formulas are include din the PEL spreadsheet". For clarification columns CI, CZ, DQ and DR have formulas averaging the prior columns. Can the Government confirm, for submission purposes, years 1 - 10 for each quantity break a prime can insert an escalation for each individual year (i.e. columns BT - CC). | The PEL and its formulas are for evaluation purposes only. If the vendor is selected as an awardee, any listed pricing breaks will be utilized after award, as part of pricing in place for the Rapid Ordering Catalog. | Attachment 0001, MAAC Price Evaluation List (PEL) | |
| 20 | Items: 14, 25, 33, 34, 35,49,50 ,55,67,69,79,80,81,82,83 and 86 are End Of Life (EoL) and have been out of production for 10 years. The OEM, MSA Safety Safety Sales LLC and their subsidiary Parasense, have a direct contract (N00104-23-D-YY01) with the Government. MSA has stated they will not be supplying a quote to any organization in support of the MAAC PEL requirement. Will the Government be reducing the 100 item PEL by the 16 items, or will they be replacing them with additional items? | MSA confirmed they will not provide pricing due to the 10-year projections they are required to provide. These items are removed from the PEL. |
| The percentage of items to be quote remains intact. | Attachment 0001, MAAC Price Evaluation List (PEL) | You have not addressed if the % will be reduced or if you're replacing items. (Note: The latter may require RFP extension to give time for vendors to quote) | |||
| 21 | Item# 15 has been identified as End of Life (EoL) by the source of supply. Will the Government be removing and replacing this item with another item? If not, please advise how to proceed with meeting the quote requirement for small and large businesses. | OEM has stated to DLA they will provide quotes. | Attachment 0001, MAAC Price Evaluation List (PEL) | ||
| 22 | Can the Government confirm the 70% small business requirement is based on the total available items 87 (Less the 13 removed) versus the original 100. | Yes, the percentages remain intact. | So 87% of 99 items per this comment (maybe more based on 20& 23)? | ||
| 23 | Item# 15, 33, 40, 49 and 55 have been identified as End of Life (EoL) by the source(s) of supply. Will the Government be removing and replacing this item with another item? If not, please advise how to proceed with meeting the 70% quote requirement for small businesses. | Items 55 and 33 have been removed from the PEL. We are still researching if these other items are EOL. | You have not addressed if the % quote issue brought up.(see comment on 20) | ||
| 24 | In a prior Q&A, the Government clarified that "10-point font is sufficient for charts." We were unsure if "charts" also refers to tables used in our proposals. Can offerors use 10-point font for tables? | All narrative text must be 12-point font. Any chart, table, diagram, etc. must use a font and font size that is legible. There is no size requirement for any visual aids. | |||
| 25 | Will the Government confirm that "onboarding" only refers to requirements that apply after employees are hired? Please clarify that offerors are not required to address requirements, such as identifying, recruiting and screening personnel, as these requirements occur before personnel are hired. | The proposal shall describe how it will onboard and maintain staff to provide support to the MAAC. This part of the evaluation will focus on your plam for ensuring that staff with the requisite skills, training, education, and experience will be onboarded and maintained for the life of the contract. | L.3.3.1.2, Page 118 | Recommend the following response: "The proposal shall describe how it will onboard and maintain staff to provide support to the MAAC. This part of the evaluation will focus on your plam for ensuring that staff with the requisite skills, training, education, and experience will be onboarded and maintained for the life of the contract." | |
| 26 | "Original start and end dates of contract, along with delivery dates to demonstrate that they are recent efforts." Many relevant IDIQ contracts have a single IDIQ start date and end date and during that period of performance, support thousands of individual delivery orders each with specific delivery dates. Is the Government requiring a list of all delivery orders and associated delivery dates under the single IDIQ contract, or is a total number of orders filled between the IDIQ start date and end date acceptable? | As stated, all delivery orders under an IDIQ count as one example. A summary of the orders fulfilled under the base contract is therefore acceptable. | L.2.3, Page 117 | Recommended a slight change: "As stated, all delivery orders under an IDIQ count as one example. A summary of the orders fulfilled, during the relevant time period, under the base contract is therefore acceptable." | |
| 27 | Can the Government provide an anticipated total number of NSNs for the duration of the contract? | No, there is no way to estimate that number. | |||
| 28 | Please confirm if all items supported under this contract will be NSNs. | As stated in SOW Sections 1.3.1.1 and 1.3.1.2, MAAC solicitations may include NSNs and/or NICNs | |||
| 29 | Can the Government provide a monthly estimate for the number of quotes expected under the MAAC program? | No, there is the potential for multiple users on the program, across multiple government agencies, and no way to estimate that number. | |||
| 30 | Please confirm how RFQs will be sent under this contract. Does the Government intend to use EDI as the main application? | RFQ dissemination will be user dependent. EDI is listed as an example of one of the possible applications. | |||
| 31 | Please confirm if the PEL ceiling prices are only applicable to the DoDAAC referenced in the PEL or if the ceiling prices will be applicable to all customer destinations? | The listed DoDAAC is the primary delivery point for most DLA Mechanicsburg awards, primarily lsited as FOB Source/Origin. |
| As the PEL is for evaluation only, the delivery point reflects that. | Are these FOB Destination? If so, then we need to commit to this and the pricing should remain firm. | |||
| 32 | We are requesting additional clarification on the product and services within the scope of the new program. Will the MAAC Contract scope include product and incidental services related to HVAC, Telecom, Launch/Arrestor Systems, Propulsion Systems, Machinery, Operational Equipment and Gear? Using HVAC as an example - What types and levels of service will be in scope, will it be strictly providing parts in relation to fixing an on board HVAC system, or will scope include product and services needed to fix the unit as well as providing a complete replacement of the unit with an engineering study? | Incidental Services will be handled at the order level, as with your example, different supply items will require different set-ups, installations, testing, etc. | Are you answering the question asked (repair, engineering study) | |
| 33 | We are requesting clarification on page 121, section L.5.6 of the RFP, "Shipping shall be Free On Board (FOB) Origin to the Continental U.S. (exact address to be specified in any resultant delivery order) and include all applicable costs, including commercial packaging, unless otherwise specified in the PEL or item unique specifications supplied by the Government." Please confirm if shipping costs to CONUS should be included in the price or not. | Unit prices shall include all applicable costs, including commercial packaging, unless otherwise specified in the PEL or item unique specifications supplied by the Government." It should cover costs to prepare it for FOB Origin shipping. | "Unit prices shall include all applicable costs, including commercial packaging, unless otherwise specified in the PEL or item unique specifications supplied by the Government." It should cover costs to prepare it for FOB Origin shipping. (You may want to stress it's FOB Origin) | |
| 34 | Can the Government provide an annual estimate for the number of quotes expected each year under the MAAC program? | We do not have estimates at this time but the volume is anticipated to be high. | I don't think you answered their question. But you can say that we don't have estimates at this time but the volume is anticipated to be high. | |
| 35 | RFP Section L.3.3.1.5 (“Obsolescence”) is evaluated under the Volume 2 Program Management Approach Factor. However, the Attachment 0003 Cross Reference Matrix, lists Obsolescence under the Volume 3 Supply Chain Approach Technical Evaluation. Please clarify where Offerors are to include responses to the obsolescence evaluation – in Volume 2 or Volume 3? | Obsolescence is a supply chain issue. The Cross Reference is the correct listing. We will issue an amendment to relabel this criteria as L.3.3.2.5 |
Obsolescense should be included in Volume 3.
| 36 | RFP Section L.3.3.2.1 (“Purchasing System”) is evaluated under the Volume 3 Supply Chain Management Approach Factor. However, the Attachment 0003 Cross Reference Matrix, lists Purchasing System under the Volume 2 Program management Approach Technical Evaluation. Please clarify where Offerors are to include responses to the Purchasing System evaluation – in Volume 2 or Volume 3? | The purchasing system should reflect an element of the Offeror's supply chain system. Volume 3 is correct. |
| 37 | RFP Section L.1.12 requires Offerors to submit a crosswalk of the proposal. The Attachment 0003 Cross Reference Matrix does not list a “crosswalk”. Please clarify if the “crosswalk” and the Cross Reference Matrix are the same document? | Yes, the terms are synonymous. |
| 38 | The Attachment 0003 lists Executive Summary under Contract Documentation. However, there are no instructions pertaining to the contents of the Executive Summary. Please clarify if this was supposed to be the Cover Letter or identify the requirements for an Executive Summary (i.e., elements, page limits, etc.)? | An Executive Summary is not a requirement and is considered a separate document that does not count against the page counts of any volume. |
| 39 | For items listed under Contract Documentation that are not applicable, should Offerors type in “NA” in the Cross Reference Matrix or leave the items blank? | N/A is preferable to reflect that the item has been addressed. |
| 40 | Please clarify what information the Government is requesting for Purchasing System under Contract Documentation? | The Government is requesting information on the software used, limits/capabilities of that system, data & file retention, as described in Section L. |
| 41 | Please clarify what information the Government is requiring for Accounting System under Contract Documentation? | This is not mandatory for the proposal evaluation, but is required for future delivery orders where Progress Payments may be applicable. |
| For Progress Payments, the Government asks for information pertaining to DCMA/DCAA approved accounting systems, including approriate documentation: memos, SF-forms, etc. | FAR and DFARS Part 32, 52.232-16 | ||
| 42 | RFP Section L.3.3.1 and M.3.3.1 do not list Incidental Services in the instructions or evaluation criteria. Please clarify the instructions and evaluation criteria regarding SOW 4.1 Incidental Services. Are Offerors to submit this with Volume 2 and will the Government increase the page limits for Volume 2 so Offerors may provide a sufficient response to address all elements for SOW 4.1 (i.e., SOW 4.1.1-4.1.5)? | Evaluation of incidental services would be requirement specific at the order level. | |
| 43 | Item# 13,26,27 and 64 have been identified as End of Life (EoL) by the source of supply. Will the Government be removing and/or replacing this item with another item? If not, please advise how to proceed with meeting the quote requirement for small businesses (70%). | Several items have been removed from the PEL, therefore the number of items to be quoted has also been decreased. However, the percentage of items to be quoted remains intact, e.g. 70 of 100 items is 70%, but 60 of 85 items is 70% as well. | |
| 44 | Would the government consider granting an extension beyond the initial due date of November 25, 2024 to allow contractors additional time to gather comprehensive data and provide the most accurate and competitive pricing for the MAAC contract? This would enable us to ensure that our proposal aligns fully with the government's objectives and reflects the most thorough analysis possible. | Amendment 0001, dated November, 15, 2024, extended the solicitation to Tuesday, December 10, 2024. | |
| 45 | Could the government please confirm whether the cover, cover letter, table of contents, and crosswalk matrix are excluded from the page limitations in each volume? This clarification would be greatly appreciated to ensure compliance with the submission guidelines. | Yes, all of these documents are not counted against the individual Volume page limits. | |
| 46 | Could the government please confirm if 10-point font is permissible for tables and charts, and if 8-point font is acceptable for graphics? This clarification would be helpful in ensuring that all materials are presented in compliance with formatting requirements. | All narrative text must be 12-point font. Any chart, table, diagram, etc. must use a font and font size that is legible. There is no size requirement for any visual aids. | |
| 47 | Does the Government have an anticipated number of awards it wishes to make for this acquisition? | There is no limit on the amount of awards. | |
| 48 | “The Government anticipates multiple contract awards resulting from this solicitation. This solicitation is being issued as an unrestricted acquisition; however, a portion of contract awards will be reserved for small businesses IAW FAR 19.503.” Does the Government anticipate how many Small Businesses awards they will make? | We have reserved four awards for small businesses. | |
| 49 | If a Small Business is to provide a minimum of 70% of all items on the Price Evaluation List (PEL), will it have an opportunity to provide pricing for the remaining items (30%) post award? | The minimum is 70%for a small business. You are welcome to provide pricing for as many products as possible. |
The PEL is a representative sample of requirements only. There will be post-award requirements within scope of contract that will be competed.
| 50 | “All small business contractors that receive IDIQ awards will be authorized to receive small business set aside orders for the first five years of the IDIQ base period.” How will the Government determine which orders are to be set aside for small businesses? Is it by a certain dollar threshold? | The Government intends on setting aside delivery orders under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT). This is at the discretion of the individual delivery order's Contracting Officer. |
| 51 | When is the estimated start date of this ID/IQ? | The estimated timeline is Spring 2025, after all necessary approvals, briefings, and reviews are completed. |
| 52 | Does NAVSUP WSS have historical data on the volume of commercial and non-commerical items procured across the ten (10) Integrated Weapons Systems Team (IWST) categories? | There are tens of thousands of items that fall under this request and cannot be provided. |
| 53 | “Note that there could be future supplies/services that require security clearances or classification requirements that will only be competed among MAAC prime Contractors with the necessary clearance.” Will the Government require bidders to disclose if they possess a Facility Clearance in order to allow the Government to determine if they have enough potential IDIQ awardees to compete future bids requiring a security clearance? | Yes. This documentation is necessary to be included in such orders and will be part of the post-award evaluation on orders for requirements with security clearances or classification requirements. |
| 54 | Does the Government anticipate the number of Task Orders that will be issued in a given year? This is important due to the requirement for IDIQ awardees to bid above a certain percentage, and it would be advantageous to Industry to understand the future volume of orders under this IDIQ. | No, there is the potential for multiple users on the program, across multiple government agencies, and no way to estimate that number. |
| 55 | In order for OTSB and Small Businesses to receive a “Very Relevant” rating for its Past Performance relevancy, it requires “Past Performance which includes long-term-contracts of 5 years or more, with a ceiling of at least $100M.” This is a extremely challenging threshold to meet for many small businesses, as true small businesses do not possess multiple $100M contracts. Would the Government please consider reducing or removing this threshold for small businesses? At a minimum, could the Government please consider requiring bidders to possess one (1) contract of $100M to satisfy this requirement, as opposed to four. Since the orders more than likely will not be $100M. For instance a $3M contract with relevant scope used by a Bidder as Past Performance could be deemed relevant as opposed to a $100M IDIQ. | The Government is asking for this level of award history due to the expected volume of the MAAC program. |
However, we ask each vendor to submit their best examples, regardless of the dollar figure.
56 Section M.5.3 of the RFP states, Items evaluated by the Government to have fair and reasonable pricing may be incorporated into the resultant contract(s) as part of a Rapid Ordering Catalog. The Government will remove any PEL items not determined to be fair and reasonable at time of award.” For those items not deemed to be fair and reasonable at the time of award, will IDIQ awardees be able to reduce their pricing for those items post award? Offerors would be allowed to revise PEL prices as part of negotiations, should they occur.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .