Download DEFENDANT`S SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX

Case 1:01-cv-00459-GWM
Document 45-2
Filed 10/15/2004
Page 8 of 11
for planning purposes and will apply only to those Offerors determined to be within the
Competitive Range:
EVENT
Release of Clarification
Date
Requests(CRs)/Deficiency Reports(DRs)
13 Dec 95
Receipt of CRs/DRsResponses
29 Dec 95
Release of Request for Best & Final Offers (BAFOs)
25 Mar 96
Receipt of BAFOs
01 Apt96
To ensure proposal eligibility, your offer should include your most favorable terms possible on
initial submission. Successful responses demandthe Offeror read the RFP, identify and comply
with mandatoryrequirements in all sections of the RFP, follow the proposal submission
instructions and finalize proposal(s) in sufficient time to facilitate an intense quality control
review and to makeadjustments prior to submission.
b. Listed beloware exarnples of errors and inconsistencies in proposals whichresulted in
CRs/DRsbeing issued during the evaluation process on Desktop IV. As it is our firm intent to
award DT-Vbased on initial off.ers without discussions, vendors are advised to ensure their
initial proposal(s) are flee of these types of errors and inconsistencies.
Incomplete B-Table submissions.
Omissionof prices for individual CL~N’s/SLITXrs.
Omissionof an electronic B-Table.
NiJsused cost model, thereby making proposal submission non-conforming.
(5) Submissionof unreadable, locked, password protected and/or virus infected
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
diskettes.
(6) Incorrect use of abbreviations as defined in the.RFP~Off’erors did not provide
prices of next higher assemblies for items that were not separately priced
(7) Offerors added penalties inappropriately for Buy AmericanAct (BAA)/Trade
Agreements Act (TAA)pricing.
(8) Pages in excess of the mandatorypag~ limitation.
(9) Conflicting information amongmatrices, narrative, and executive summary/cover
letter.
Completenessand accuracy, especially in mathematicalcalculations, is critical to a successful
proposal. Failure to provide a mandatoryi-equirement or intentionally taldng exception to
mandatoryterms and conditions in an attempt to force discussions is a risk. Off’erors whoreiy
upon the Governmentto identify inconsistencies and deficiencies in their proposals jeopardize
their eligibility. MinorClarification Requests(MCRs),whichwill not affect the propbsal rating,
as defined in AFFARS
para. AA-307.a.(2), maybe issued by the Goverrmaentfor the purpose
eliminating minor;trregularities, informalities or apparentclerical mistakes.
331
USAF 7893