GTACS_II_Answers_to_Industry_Questions_12_Apr.docx

GTACS II Second DRAFT RFP Questions from Industry

1. XXX is one of the largest USG Service provider in Afghanistan and Iraq (AFG: >4,000 workforce; all 34 provinces and IRQ: > 2,000 workforce), and we have a significant number of cleared FSRs maintaining and operating USG assets in theater.

Q: Is the government interested in understanding the full pre-deployment activities and timelines, and country specific legal and cultural obstacles and mitigation activities as part of the proposal write up?

A: The Offeror shall provide a summary of contractor required activities prior to deployment. Per solicitation Sections L and M, the Offeror shall demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the procedures and the capability to execute the process.

2. XXX operates a DoD approved CRC which allows us to deploy in-country in less than 7 days and ensures operational 24/7 situational awareness of the deployed personnel.

Q: Is the intent of the government to allow the offeror to use its own CRC to ensure agile and cost-effective deployment?

A: No, only the Government CRC is authorized.

3. Q: Can the offeror use past performance from a different branch of the armed forces?

A: The Offeror may reference or use a previous effort from a different branch of the armed forces in response to the solicitation

4. SECTION (iv) VOLUME IV PRICE-COST: This section states that "This is a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee and Cost (no fee) rate check for the Government provided manpower and material costs”.

Q: How are contractors who would propose on Firm Fixed Price (FFP) basis to respond to this volume in the solicitation?

A: FFP Instructions are contained in Volume IV Price-Cost under 1. FFP Instructions.

5. SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS: of this solicitation provides instructions to Offerors for proposal submission for each factor. This section addresses only a small portion of Logistics & Supportability Management and that concerns development of an ETM. The PWS requirement for Integrated Logistics Support is broader in context, “The contractor shall implement ILS as a multi-functional technical management discipline associated with the design, development, test, production, fielding, sustainment, and improvement modifications of cost effective C3 systems,” Attachment 0001 provides even more amplification with requirements for sparing, tools and test equipment, nomenclature, etc.

Q: Can the Government clarify the extent that the ETM and EITM requirements need to be addressed in the proposal?

A: Per solicitation Section L, ETM is threshold requirement. However, the Offeror may choose to address IETM in lieu of ETM as part of proposal.

Also, per Attachment 0001 paragraph 1.0 Scope/Purpose and “Header” section, Attachment 0001 is not applicable at the base IDIQ contract level. Attachment 0001 is included herein for informational purposes only to be used at the DO/TO level. Similarly, attachments 0002 and 0003 are also applicable at the DO/TO level.

6. SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS, SECTION M EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Q: Please confirm that offerors must address both ETM and EITM requirements?

A: Offerors are not required to address both ETM and IETM. Per solicitation Section L, ETM is threshold requirement. However, the Offeror may choose to address IETM in lieu of ETM as part of proposal.

7. SECTION M EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Q: Please confirm that offerors may bid both partnered with a small business prime on the small business track and with a small business subcontractor on the other than small business track?

A. Only one proposal will be accepted from any Offeror’s team at the base IDIQ level. However, the above suggested arrangement or teaming is acceptable at the DO/TO level where small business set-aside threshold is applicable.

8. ATTACHMENT 0003: In the previous draft, there is a table “Requirements for Technical Manuals, Page-Based.”

Q: Could the Government clarify the meaning of the second, third, and fourth columns?

A: The header for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th columns specify the manual type. The content for each of the columns specify whether the particular requirement is applicable. “R” stands for required.

9. This one is more of a comment than question:

Reference: Model Contract, Page 26 of 124, Section H – SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.

Paragraph H.18 – Use of CHESS and DoD ESI Agreements.

Industry Comment and Recommendation:

In March 2018, the U.S. Army’s PEO C3T Common Hardware Systems-4 (CHS-4) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract was approved by the DoD as a Strategic Sourcing Preferred Source for the US Army and all DoD agencies. DoD’s endorsement of the CHS-4 contract as a strategic source is consistent with and serves to further its earlier action implemented as a part of AFARS Part 5139, granting users of the CHS-4 contract an exemption from the requirement to obtain an ITAS waiver to Army Regulation (AR) 25-1. The purpose of these actions is to facilitate the rapid development and procurement of Commercial IT equipment to meet the tactical requirements of all DoD programs. With this DoD mandate it would appear that a distinction between sourcing tactical and non-tactical commercial IT hardware is appropriate and necessary in the GTACS II solicitation.

Therefore, it is recommended that Solicitation Provision H.18 be revised as follows:

H.18 – Use of CHS-4, CHESS and DoD ESI Agreements.

H.18.1 – Contractors shall purchase commercial IT hardware and software to be used in a non-tactical environment through the Army’s Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) program. Purchasers shall satisfy these IT requirements by utilizing the CHESS contracts and DoD Enterprise Software Initiative (ESI) agreements first, regardless of dollar value.

H.18.2 – Contractors shall purchase commercial IT hardware and software to be used in a tactical environment through the Army’s Common Hardware Systems-4 (CHS-4) program. Purchasers shall satisfy these IT requirements by utilizing the CHS-4 contract and DoD Enterprise Software Initiative (ESI) agreements first, regardless of dollar value.

A. Paragraph H.18.2 will not be included in the solicitation.

10. Reference: L.9.4 All questions shall be submitted via email tokevin.o.andralliski.civ@mail.mil < Caution-mailto:kevin.o.andralliski.civ@mail.mil > andgrace.a.battle.civ@mail.mil < Caution-mailto:grace.a.battle.civ@mail.mil > no later than 4:00PM Eastern Time on20 Feb 2018. Offerors shall NOT submit questions via the Army Single Face to Industry (ASFI) or FedBizOpps websites.

Q: Question: Assume 20 FEB 2018 is incorrect.

A. The due date for questions will be updated in the final solicitation accordingly.

11. Reference: F.7.2.b Q: States that the customer has had a pattern of costs overruns as being a criteria for successful performance. Looks like in this draft the “no” was deleted in reference to cost overruns.

A. The final solicitation will be revised as follows: “The contractor has not had a pattern of cost overruns”.

12. Draft RFP, SF33 (Block 9) Q: Is the date and time noted (04:00 pm 2018FEB27) correct?

A: The date and time will be updated in the final solicitation.

13. Draft RFP, Section L Q: L.9.4 states questions are due no later than 4:00 PM Eastern Time on 20 Feb 2018. Please confirm the date is 15Mar2018.

A: The due date for questions will be updated in the final solicitation accordingly.

14. Draft RFP, Section M TECHNICAL EVALUATION APPROACH cites two subfactors:

Subfactor 1- System Design Management Subfactor 2- Logistics & Supportability Management However, the discussion of the evaluation approach states:

(a) Understanding of the Requirement

(b) Feasibility of Approach Q: Subfactors 1 and 2 don't appear to be in alignment with (a) and (b). Please provide a clarification of the intended evaluation approach.

A: The Government believes that the two technical evaluation sub-factors are in alignment with the evaluation approach of (a) Understanding of the Requirement and (b) Feasibility of Approach. Understanding of Requirements is based on Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the requirements outlined or referenced from Section “L” such as IEEE 15288.1-2014, MIL-STD-40051-2C and the referenced PWS paragraphs. Feasibility of Approach is used to assess the Offeror’s proposed approach for complying with GTACS II requirements listed in Section “L”.

15. Draft RFP, Section M Paragraph 1.b. states, "The evaluation will consider aspects such as the technical and engineering management approaches chosen for the awarded previous efforts and the effectiveness of their approach, as it relates to the feasibility of their proposed technical approach for GTACS II."

Q: Does this mean that only incumbent GTACS I contractors will be evaluated, thus excluding any new industry partners?

A: This does not mean that only GTACS 1 contractors will be evaluated. Previous efforts performed for other DoD agencies or other similar type of contracts are also applicable.

16. Draft RFP, Section M Paragraph 2.b. states that major subcontractors are defined as those performing 10% or greater of the "proposed effort".

Q: Does this 10% rule applies only to labor and not materials/supplies?

A: The 10% rule applies to total effort to include both labor and materials/supplies.

17. RFP Section F.7.2 b, page 16 of 124, (Period of Performance successful performance criteria): The reference reads that successful performance [includes] “the contractor [having] had a pattern of cost overruns.”

Q: Will the Government change the criterion to “The contractor has not had a pattern of cost overruns”?

A: The final solicitation will be revised as follows: The contractor has not had a pattern of cost overruns.

18. RFP L-15 (clause), page 108 of 124: Reference includes requirements for offerors that differ based on whether a proposal will be at least $100M or under $100M.

Q: Is it intended that offerors should be responding to these requirements at this IDIQ level, or are these requirements intended to be addressed in responses to TO requests for proposal?

A: The Offeror shall not respond to EVMS submission requirement per section L-15 at IDIQ base contract level. EVMS submission requirement per Section L-15 is to be addressed at DO/TO level.

19. RFP L-15 (b) (clause), page 108 of 124: Reference includes requirements for offerors who submit proposals under $100M. These requirements include “(b)(1)(i) [a description that includes] a “matrix that correlates each guideline in ANSI/EIA-748 (current version at time of solicitation) to the corresponding process in the offeror’s written management procedures.”

Q: If the Government intends for offerors to respond at this IDIQ proposal stage, will the referenced matrix be allowed in an appendix and be exempt from page count restrictions?

A: The Offeror shall not respond to EVMS submission requirement per section L-15 at IDIQ base contract level. EVMS submission requirement per Section L-15 is to be addressed at DO/TO level.

20. RFP L-15 (c) (clause), page 108 of 124: Reference includes steps for identification of subcontractors; agreement as to selected subcontractors to comply w/ EVMS; and the offeror ensuring that selected subcontractors comply with EVMS.

Q: Is it intended that these subcontractor steps are only required at the TO level?

A: Yes, EVMS requirement listed in Section L-15 is applicable at DO/TO level.

21. RFP L.9.4, page 109 of 124: The date has already passed for question submittal; the referenced paragraph states that questions are due 20 Feb 2018.

Q: Recommend updating the due date in the final RFP.

A: The due date for questions will be updated in the final solicitation accordingly.

22. RFP K.10, page 105 of 124: A list of 11 additional NAICS codes is included in the referenced section. These codes have a variety of Small Business (SB) size standards, different in some cases from the size standard of the overarching code (334220). Some codes (423xxx, for example) have a more-restrictive size standard than that of the overarching code.

Q: Does the Government intend to apply the overarching SB size standard (334220) to individual Task Orders (TOs) or will individual TOs have their own size standards drawn in part or full from the additional 11 codes?

A: No, the Government will not apply the overarching SB size standard (334220) to individual Task Orders (TOs). Each DO/TO will have their own NAICS code, depending on the specific requirement.

23. RFP K.10, page 105 of 124: A list of 11 additional NAICS codes is included in the referenced section. These codes have a variety of Small Business (SB) size standards, different in some cases from the size standard of the overarching code (334220). Some codes (423xxx, for example) have a more-restrictive size standard than that of the overarching code.

Q: Is an offeror who qualifies as an SB at the IDIQ level for NAICS 334220 allowed to bid on a TO that is solicited under one of the 11 additional NAICS codes if that offeror does not meet the size standard requirement for that additional code?

A: No. The Offeror shall meet the size standard under that NAICS code.

24. RFP L.2.b, page 111 of 124, File Packaging: Reference states that 11 x 17 foldouts are permissible for very large tables or graphics.

Q: Would the Government please confirm that a single 11x17 one-sided page will count as one page?

A: Correct. 11x17 fold-outs which are only permissible for very large tables or graphics will be counted as one page.

25. RFP L.2.c (iv), page 115 of 124, Volume IV Price-Cost: Under the Subsection iv heading, a document heading precedes a file name: “DATE_COMPANYNAME_VOL_3_COST_NARRATIVE.docx.” Immediately following, a “Notes” paragraph includes, “Date format for document name shall be mmddyy.”

Q: Will the Government please confirm that the date format mmddyy is for the file name?

A: Note there are a couple of typos on this page. “DATE_COMPANYNAME_ VOL_3_ COST_NARRATIVE.docx” should read “DATE_COMPANYNAME_ VOL_4_ COST_NARRATIVE.docx”. Also “DATE_COMPANYNAME_ VOL_3_ COST.xlsx” should read “DATE_COMPANYNAME_ VOL_4_ COST.xlsx”.

Correct. The date format “mmddyy” is for the file name.

26. RFP Section H.2.1: The reference states, “…Small Businesses in the unrestricted suite will not be able to compete on small business set-asides.”

Q: Are SBs allowed to bid on unrestricted TOs?

A: Yes, SBs are allowed to bid on unrestricted TOs.

27. Various, Pages 3-8, 16, etc.

Q: The Continuation Sheet and other parts of the RFP still contain a number of editing marks (\*Riched20 10.0.14393) the Government may wish to remove from the Final RFP.

A: The Government intends to address these markings in the final solicitation.

28. F.7.2, Page 16 Q: Please clarify whether “acceptable proposal” as defined in item (a) means a proposal for which the contractor received an award.

A: “Acceptable proposal” does not mean a proposal for which the contractor received an award. “Acceptable proposal” means the offeror’s proposal was evaluated in accordance with that order’s best value criteria (e.g. LPTA, trade off) and was determined to be eligible for award selection.

29. F.7.2, Page 16 Q: Item (b) says, “The contractor has had a pattern of cost overruns;” we assume this should be “The contractor has not had a pattern of cost overruns.”

A. Correct. The final solicitation will be revised as follows: The contractor has not had a pattern of cost overruns.

30. G.2, Page 19 Q: This section omits the email and internet address.

A. The email and internet addresses will be included in the final solicitation.

31. G.3, Page 19 Q: The last paragraph of this section is incomplete. It omits the location of the training.

A. The CPARS training location will be included in the final solicitation.

32. H.19, Page 26 Q: H.19 contains an outdated reference to the value at which an EVMS is required. It states, “For Cost reimbursable or incentive contracts and subcontracts valued at $50 million or more, the contractor shall have an earned value management system that has been determined by the cognizant Federal agency to be in compliance with the guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748.”

A. Section H.19 will be deleted from solicitation as EVMS requirements are also addressed in Section I-161.

33. I-161, Page 60 Q: However, I-161 says, “If this contract has a value of less than $100 million, the Government will not make a formal determination that the Contractors EVMS complies with the EVMS guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748 with respect to the contract.”

Please confirm that the correct value is $100 million as referenced in I-161 and as defined in https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA005138-15-DPAP.pdf.

A. Correct. The value of $100M as stated in I-161 is correct.

34. L-15 (Notice of Earned Value Management System), Page 108 This section requires to contractor to provide either documentation that the Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) has determined its proposed EVMS to be compliant with ANSI/EIA-748, to submit a comprehensive plan for compliance, or (for proposals less than $100 million) submit a written description of its management procedures to comply with the EVMS clause of the contract, including a matrix correlating each ANSI/EIA-748 guideline to the contractor’s procedures.

Q: Will the Government confirm that this evidence is to be provided in response to Task Order RFPs as required?

A: Confirmed. EVMS submission requirement per Section L-15 applies to Task Order proposals.

35. L.9.8, Page 109 The RFP states, “All Offerors and proposed subcontractors must, therefore, affirm whether or not they are providing any scientific, engineering, and/or technical assistance (SETA), or similar type of support, to any of the various PM technical offices through an active contract or subcontract.”

Q: Please provide a list of the “various PM technical offices” to which this provision applies.

A: The reference applies to all PM shops reporting to PEO C3T to include PM Tactical Network/PM WIN-T, PM Mission Command, PM Tactical Radios, Project Management Office Network Enablers, and the Joint Tactical Network Center.

36. L.9.8, Page 109 The RFP states, “All Offerors and proposed subcontractors must, therefore, affirm whether or not they are providing any scientific, engineering, and/or technical assistance (SETA), or similar type of support, to any of the various PM technical offices through an active contract or subcontract.”

Q: Is this detailed information, which could apply to dozens of team members at the IDIQ level, required as part of the IDIQ proposal submission or is it only required for team members who are proposed subcontractors for specific Task Order RFP responses?

A: The requirement applies to all team members at the IDIQ base level; hence this is required as part of the IDIQ proposal submission. The reference applies to all PM shops reporting to PEO C3T to include PM Tactical Network/PM WIN-T, PM Mission Command, PM Tactical Radios, Project Management Office Network Enablers, and the Joint Tactical Network Center.

Task Order requirement would be addressed during Task Order solicitation.

37. L.9.11, Page 109 The RFP states, “Offerors shall ensure and provide evidence that the person signing the offer has the authority to bind the entity identified on the SF33.”

Q: What evidence will the Government accept?

A. This language has been removed.

38. L.9.16, L (Proposal Submission Requirements), Pages 110 and 111 L.9.16 states that each volume should include an Executive Summary Section. The proposal instructions say that the Cover Page, Table of Contents, and Acronym List are excluded from the page count.

Q: We assume the Executive Summary Section in each volume is excluded from any page count. Is this assumption correct?

A: No, it is not correct. The Executive Summary is not excluded from page count. Note that the Technical Factor page limit is being increased from 50 to 55 pages per response listed below.

39. L.9.17, Page 110.

The RFP states, “Note that the evaluation of major subcontractors, affiliates, or other team members proposed may be influenced by the level of commitment by that team member to perform as proposed. Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate (by submitting letters of commitment, subcontracts, teaming agreements, or other commitments) the level of commitment by team members who have been proposed for inclusion in evaluation. Any agreements provided should be complete and demonstrate the level of commitment and the work intended to be performed.”

Recommendation: For the following reasons, we recommend that the Government remove this paragraph from the Final RFP:

- The amount of work actually provided to each subcontractor will vary based upon the nature of the Task Order RFPs the Government issues, the places of performance, and other factors beyond the control of the offeror.

- There is no mechanism in the RFP for the Government to evaluate whether offerors have lived up to their commitments and there are no penalties for failing to do so.

- The RFP already includes appropriate provisions for evaluating offerors’ compliance with Small Business subcontracting requirements, including appropriate penalties for non-compliance, such as being off-ramped.

- Because the evaluation would be based on an unenforced commitment, it does not provide an objective basis for evaluating an offeror as superior to another offeror.

A. No change. Requirement stays as previously specified. The Government understands that the commitments may contain conditions or clauses that are dependent on the Task Orders to be released by the Government.

40. L (Proposal Submission Requirements), Page 110 The RFP states, “Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line.”

We assume that a blank line is not required after:

- The last paragraph on a page, if it would result in a blank line at the top of the next page

- The last paragraph in each row of a table or the last paragraph in a graphic Q: Are these assumptions correct? If not, please clarify.

A. The Government concurs with above assumptions.

41. L (Proposal Submission Requirements), Pages 111-119 The RFP is inconsistent in its use of Roman and Arabic numerals to describe four of the five required volumes. For example, page 111, item (b) uses “I, 2, 3, 4, and 5” to describe the volumes, while the detailed instructions for each volume on pages 111-119 use “I, II, III, IV, and V”.

Q: Please clarify which we should use and update the Final RFP to reflect this.

A. Page 111 will be revised to reflect Roman numerals in final solicitation. It should read Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, Volume IV and Volume V accordingly.

42. L (Proposal Submission Requirements), Page 111 For the Past Performance Volume, we assume that the 20 page limit for the Offeror narrative portion refers to the information requested under “Section 2 Performance” on page 113 and that the information provided in response to “Section 1 Contract Descriptions” on page 113 and “Section 3 New Corporate Entities/Joint Ventures/Predecessor Companies” on page 114 is excluded from the page count.

Q: Is this assumption correct?

A. No, it is not correct. The 20 page limit encompasses Section 1 (Contract Descriptions), narrative portion of Section 2 (Performance) excluding items a – h, and Section 3 (New Corporate Entities/Joint Ventures/Predecessor Companies.

Note that the solicitation permits an additional 2 pages for Predecessor Companies to document the history of the evolution from the predecessor company, and provide explanation for why the past performance information of the predecessor company should be attributed to the offeror. Section 4 (Questionnaire) is also excluded from the 20 page limit.

43. L (Content Requirements), Page 111 The RFP states, “All price data shall only be contained in the COST.xlsx file.”

Q: Where should Offerors provide the completed Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs?

A. Offerors should not complete Section B in response to the IDIQ base solicitation.

44. L (Content Requirements), Page 111 The RFP states, “All price data shall only be contained in the COST.xlsx file.”

Q: Please confirm that all price data is to be contained in Volume IV Price-Cost (including the Cost Narrative, the Cost.xlsx file, and pricing attachments).

A. Correct. All price data is to be contained in Volume IV Price-Cost.

45. L (Proposal Submission Requirements), Page 112 We assume that no response is required in our Past Performance Volume to “Section 4 Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire” since we are providing the list of POCs directly to the Contracting Officer via email.

Q: Is this assumption correct, or does the Government also wish us to include the POC list in our proposal?

A. The assumption is correct. The Offeror does not need to include the POC list in the Past Performance Volume.

46. L (Technical Subfactor 1), Page 112 The RFP requests the Offeror to “provide technical risk charts tracking from program award through design reviews to their final disposition.”

Q: Can the Government clarify its expectations for “technical risk charts”? The methods of tracking technical risk for the past/current efforts will vary from project to project based upon contractual requirements, methodologies employed, and so on. It would be helpful if the Government could define the minimum information it is looking for.

A: The Offeror shall provide technical risk charts per the various stages of the referenced program which outlines status of the risk at each stage of the program. The risk chart should provide description of the issue and the associated risk rating.

47. L (Volume II Past Performance), Page 113 The RFP states, “Each Task Order under an IDIQ contract shall be considered a separate instance of Past Performance.”

Q: If the Offeror or its subcontractor has received a Single-Award IDIQ, will the Government consider this a single instance of past performance?

A. Prime offerors or major subcontractors may use individual task orders under a single-award IDIQ contract as separate instances of Past Performance.

48. L (Labor Category: Senior Engineer), Page 116 The requirements state, “Requires a Master of Engineering degree or Physical Sciences with a minimum of ten years related experience, or a Bachelor of Engineering degree from a four year accredited college/university and 12 years related experience.”

Q: For the Bachelor’s Degree, is a Physical Sciences degree also acceptable?

A: No. Physical Sciences degree is not acceptable for the BS degree. Requirement stays as previously specified.

49. The Government has previously released two separate Draft Solicitations/RFPs dated 17 Aug 2017 and 12 Mar 2018. However, the Government has not released a revised PWS for review and comment.

Q: Does the Government anticipate revising the most recent Draft PWS, dated 10 Aug 2017? Does the government anticipate releasing an updated Draft PWS for review and comment prior to RFP release?

A. The correct date of the PWS is 02 November 2017. Copy of the PWS is hereby provided.

50. With regards to the release of the 2nd DRAFT Solicitation W15P7T18R0003, Global Tactical Advanced Communication System II (GTACS II) and Services, there is no Section C Description/Specs./Work Statement included.

Q: Will potential offerors have a chance to review the DRAFT Section C, prior to release of the FINAL RFP?

A. The PWS dated 02 November 2017 will be incorporated in Section C of the final solicitation.

51. FBO Solicitation Notice: “Furthermore, the Government is anticipating a late second quarter or early third quarter FINAL solicitation release”.

Q: Does the RFP release timing statement refer to Fiscal Year or Calendar Year?

A. The RFP release timing statement refers to Fiscal Year.

52. RFP, Section L, Page 108, L-15 (a-c): Notice of Earned Value Management System Clause 252.234-7001 Q: We request clarification regarding the Volume in which offerors should respond. Since the requirement is placed outside of the Volumes in Section L, can the Government please clarify how we should submit the referenced documentation and specify a format and page limit for doing so?

A: The Section L-15 EVMS requirement does not apply at the base IDIQ contract level. The requirement would apply at the Delivery Order or Task Order level.

53. RFP, Section L, page 112, L-2: Proposal Submission Requirements, (i) Volume I: Technical: “For both Sub Factors (System Design Management and Logistics & Supportability Management) listed above, the Offeror shall describe similar contract examples that are currently active and being executed on or awarded in or after January 2013.”

Q: Will the Government consider revising the sub-factor contract example recency requirement from contract examples that are currently active and being executed on or awarded in or after to January 2013 to contract examples that are currently active and being executed on or awarded in or after to January 2011?

A: No change. The contract example recency requirement remains at January 2013.

54. RFP, Section L, page 110, L-2: Proposal Submission Requirements, (b) File Packaging, “Section 2 of Volume I, Logistics & Supportability Management, Date_CompanyName_Vol_1_Supportability Management.docx (50 Page limit for Volume I) Q: Since the Government added a requirement for offerors to describe their Field Service Representative deployment and SATCOM system maintenance approaches in Sub Factor 2, will the Government consider increasing the Technical Volume page count from 50 to 60 pages?

A: The Technical Volume page count will be increased from 50 to 55 pages.

55. RFP, Section M, page 121, M-D-2 (ii): Past Performance Evaluation Approach: “RELEVANCY. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to the following: similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Q: Can the Government clarify if it intends to review the past performance citations in aggregate or on a stand alone basis in order to assess relevancy?

A. Each past performance effort proposed that is determined to be recent will undergo an individual relevancy determination.