The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
RFP HC1028-16-R-0001
Attachment 6, Question and Answers
Q&A Template
| Numb |
| RFP or PWS Reference |
| Questions |
| Government Response |
| RFP Amd # |
| 1 |
| RFP, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and 2, paragraph 3(c)(2) |
| 1. Will past performance and experience of subcontractors be given any consideration in evaluation of proposals? |
| Yes, subcontractor past performance and experience will be considered for all subcontractors, teaming partner, and/or joint ventures that will perform a major or critical aspect of the requirement. Request for Proposal (RFP) Amend 0001, HC1028-16-R-0001 0001, will be released to add subcontractor past performance information and submission requirements. |
| 0001 |
| 2 |
| PWS, paragraph 14 |
| 2. The statement in the RFP "KEY PERSONNEL: All key personnel shall be considered EKMS support experts." appears to mean that all 7 positions are to be considered key personnel. Does this mean that the government requires resumes for each position? If so, should Personally Identifiable Information be redacted from the resumes? |
| Yes. The contractor shall identify key personnel and shall provide individual and corporate expertise and experience commensurate with the technical requirements listed above. PII can be redacted in resumes at the offeror’s discretion. |
| 0001 |
| 3 |
| PWS, paragraph 14a |
| The third bullet under 14.a Key Personnel - Demonstrated Skills, state "The EKMS support key personnel shall have competencies and experience in the following areas:" and lists "Military Sealift experience and/or expertise," among the requirements. |
Could this requirement be dropped or amended to read "Military Sealift, Navy or DoD?"
Yes. MSC has recently grown in more Navy oriented ventures; therefore, the RFP will be amended to change “Military Sealift” to “Navy” experience and/or expertise instead.
| 4 |
| Pg. 24 – Evaluation Factors and Basis for Award Determination (c) |
And
Pg. 26 – (2) Past Performance Factor
| Please confirm that per, page 24 (Evaluation Factors and Basis for Award determination, there is no page limit for Past Performance? |
| According to the RFP, Pg. 26 – (2) Past Performance Factor, “Cited past performance efforts shall not exceed 5 pages.” |
| 5 |
| Attachment 3 – Past Performance Reference Sheet |
| Does the government expect a past performance narrative in addition to the Past Performance Reference Sheet (Attachment 3) or does a compilation of the past performance sheets constitute the Past Performance Factor in its entirety? |
| The Government can utilize other sources of past performance information available to us beyond the past performance reference sheets. For instance, we can look up contracts on the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). This information will be incorporated into the past performance evaluation factor in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and 2 in RFP Amendment 0003. |
| 0003 |
| 6 |
| RFP_HC1028-16-R-0001_modification_0001_information file (page 6 of 9) |
“Offerors shall submit no more than 3 recent past performance efforts and no more than 1 past performance effort for each significant subcontractor for evaluation.”
| Are the past performances from significant subcontractors in addition to the 3 past performances from the prime? |
| Yes. Offerors can submit up to 3 recent past performance efforts for efforts that they performed as the prime and 1 past performance effort for each significant subcontractor. So, for example, if an offeror has 2 significant subcontractors that are anticipated to perform work on this effort, they can submit up to 5 past performance instances (3 for themselves, 1 for each subcontractor). |
| 7 |
| RFP Section 3.3.d Cost/Price Factor Plug Number for Travel (page 27 of 50) |
| RFP Section 3.3.d Cost/Price Factor Plug Number for Travel (page 27 of 50) calls for specific values to be used for Travel Costs. Please clarify that these plug numbers will ultimately account for the cost of overseas housing and cost of living allowances (HOLA/COLA), where applicable and for the forward deployed COMSEC resources. In other words, while the Government will ultimately authorize and pay actual reimbursable travel costs during execution of the contract, we understand the Travel ODC plug numbers to be estimates that include the HOLA/COLA costs. Please confirm. |
| Travel Cost do not include cost associated with sustaining forward deployed resources i.e. HOLA/COLA. Travel costs are restricted to allowable expenses (Cost for transportation, lodging, meals and incidental expenses) IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 31.205-46 as to meet PWS 6.1.5 Subtask 5. |
| 8 |
| Attachment 5 CLIN Pricing and Payment Plan |
| Does the Government expect a pricing narrative in addition to the Pricing Template (Attachment 5) or does the Pricing Template spreadsheet constitute the Cost/Price Proposal in its entirety? |
The pricing template constitutes the cost/price portion of the proposal in its entirety. The only narrative expected is if the offeror decides to submit a payment plan that divides the total dollar amount into 12 equal monthly payments as indicated in the RFP (page 27 paragraph (b)). A justification will then be required for this payment plan.
| 9 |
| (3) Cost Price Factor (a) (Page 27 of 50 |
| Page 27 of 50 indicates there will be “…surge pricing as requested below,” however Surge Pricing does not appear to be required in the RFP response. Please clarify. |
| Surge pricing is not required. This verbiage will be removed in RFP Amendment 0003. |
| 0003 |
| 10 |
| (3) Cost Price Factor (c) (Page 27 of 50) |
| The Government is requesting labor categories, labor hours, number of employees for each labor category, rates, etc. However, according to FAR Part 16.201 & 16.202, Firm Fixed Price contracts do not specify the hours required to perform a contract. In addition, as per clause (b) of FAR Part 16.201 “Time-and-materials contracts and labor-hour contracts are not fixed-price contracts.” Finally, as per FAR Part 16.202-1 “A firm-fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract. This contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss.” The Government is asking that the contractor take the associated risk of a FFP contract and associate payment and a payment schedule along with named deliverables while simultaneously asking for price data specific to a T&M contract. Would the Government please clarify the request for labor categories, rates, and hours when these have no bearing on a FFP contract nor on the deliverable/payment schedule required by the Government as part of this RFP. |
| According to FAR 16.602(c) “a time-and-materials contract may be used only when it is not possible at the time of placing the contract to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of confidence.” Also, according to FAR 16.601(d) a time and materials contract may only be used if “no other contract type is suitable.” According to FAR 16.202-2, a Firm-Fixed Price contract is suitable for acquiring commercial items or services when the Government can establish a fair and reasonable price such as when, “there is adequate price competition, there are reasonable price comparisons with prior purchases of the same or similar supplies or services made on a competitive basis…, or available cost or pricing information permits realistic estimates of the probable costs of performance.” Since we are procuring commercial items that have already been procured under a previous effort (performed by Tetrad Digital Integrity) and we anticipate having adequate price competition, this will be a Firm-Fixed Price Contract. The contractor shall propose labor rates, estimated labor hours, labor categories, etc. IAW the RFP for each option period. This detailed information is necessary to determine fair and reasonable prices. The payment schedule is formulated based on the estimated labor hours required for each milestone for this effort. |
| Defense Base Act insurance is required for execution of this contract and is considered cost reimbursable by the Government. Where is this cost expected in the price/cost proposal? As part of the Travel ODCs, Equipment ODCs, or elsewhere? |
| Defense Base Act insurance is already included in the equipment ODC plug number. Please use the provided plug number for ODCs. |
| 12 |
| PWS 6.4.2 Subtask 2 – On-call COMSEC assistance. Provide MSC Local Elements with on-call COMSEC support during working hours based on the contractor’s “on-site” location identified in paragraph 9. Maintain active on-call database. On-call log provided in Task 6.8’s Monthly Status Report |
| Will the contractor be required to develop the “on call database” or is it in use today and will only require updates to existing database? |
On-call database exist today and will require updates.
| 13 |
| PWS Para 6.4.2 |
| Para 6.4.2 discusses on-call COMSEC support during working hours. Does the government envision any after hour’s on-call support requirement? |
| No after-hours COMSEC Support required. |
The RFP is based upon use of the EKMS COMSEC System. Does MSC envision moving to the NSA KMI COMSEC system during the life of this contract?
Transition to KMI is to occur; however, it will have no impact on requirements identified in PWS (outside of name change) in that the administration of KMI is restricted to MSC government positions.
| 15 |
| PWS, Para 13 |
| The RFP identifies up to 140 Local Elements that must be managed by the COMSEC team. Are any of these LE’s shipboard accounts that must be tracked and visited wherever they may be located? You have also identified 3 team member locations, one in Guam, one in Singapore and one in Japan where travel will be required along with workspaces in para 13. Are there any other travel locations that the government anticipates that will require COMSEC travel support? Would the government be willing to identify the anticipated number of trips to each location in order to provide better ODC travel estimates? |
| Please use the plug numbers provided in the RFP for Travel ODC. |
| Top Secret COMSEC handling requires Two Person Integrity (TPI). How does the government envision meeting the TPI requirement at the four locations with a single COMSEC team member in San Diego and OCONUS locations? |
| TPI is not required for OCONUS positions in that SSU’s do not handle TS. All resources in support of the contract will have access to TS material when they visit MSC ships; however, the ship’s force is responsible for maintaining TPI. |
| 17 |
| PWS Page 16. 9. Place of Performance |
| COMSEC TS integrity usually requires 2 persons (minimum). Will USG be providing additional COMSEC responsible persons at San Diego and OCONUS locations? |
| TPI is not required for OCONUS & San Diego Location in that SSU’s do not handle TS. All resources (contractors) in support of the contract will have access to TS material when they visit MSC ships; however, the ship’s force is responsible for maintaining TPI. |
| 18 |
| PWS Page 16. 9. Place of Performance |
| Are the OCONUS locations (Guam, Japan, Singapore) accompanied or unaccompanied positions? |
| MSC doesn’t identify if positions are accompanied or not. |
| 19 |
| PWS Page 16. 9. Place of Performance |
| Are OCONUS personnel authorized US government housing, medical, and other base access privileges? |
| OCONUS resources are entitled to receive a U.S. government-issued contractor identification card and are authorized to utilize the exchange, commissary and medical facilities. |
| 20 |
| PWS Page 16. 9. Place of Performance |
| Related to above, are OCONUS personnel (and family if accompanied) in Japan & Singapore under USG SOFA (Japan) or equivalent (Singapore) for visa requirements? |
| OCONUS resources are covered under the appropriate Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) |
| 21 |
| PWS/ 9. Place of Performance |
| TS COMSEC Accounts require TPI (EKMS-1B, Para 510.a.). The Tier 2 Account in Norfolk is fine as there are 3 personnel. However, San Diego, Guam, Japan and Singapore LEs are only 1 person. How are the LE’s supposed to meet EKMS-1B, Para 414.a. or 510.d. requirements? |
| TPI is not required for OCONUS & San Diego Location in that SSU’s do not handle TS. All resources (contractors) in support of the contract will have access to TS material when they visit MSC ships; however, the ship’s force is responsible for maintaining TPI. |
| 22 |
| PWS Page 16. 9. Place of Performance |
| Is there separate funding for MOB/DEMOB of personnel to OCONUS locations (Guam, Singapore, Japan)? |
There is no additional funding for MOB/DEMOB.
| 23 |
| PWS / 6.1.4. Communications |
| Will this be covered by the ODC costs, GFE or both? |
| Cost associated with maintaining communications are covered by ODC (Cell phone usage cost) and GFE (Government computers provided). |
| 24 |
| Question in response to Question 7 above |
| As per the RFP, “Cost/price proposals will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR Part 15.404 in order to determine if they are reasonable and complete.” Costs associated with sustaining forward deployed resources (i.e. HOLA/COLA) are required to effectively execute this contract. Consequently, it would seem in the best interest of the Government to ensure all offerors provide the Government with costs associated with forward deployed resources. How will the Government ensure that all offerors propose costs associated with sustaining forward deployed resources (i.e. HOLA/COLA) such that during the cost/price evaluation all offerors provide a “reasonable and complete” cost/price proposal? |
| HOLA/COLA are not associated with the cost reimbursable travel and ODC CLINs. The offeror’s proposal should include costs associated with forward deployed resources. |
| 25 |
| Question in response to Question 7 above |
| As per the Government, "The pricing template constitutes the cost/price portion of the proposal in its entirety." Given the pricing template provides for only Labor, Travel, and ODCs - of which the costs for the latter two are specified by the Government - there is no clear indication as to where the offeror should propose costs associated with sustaining forward deployed resources (i.e. HOLA/COLA). Please clarify where the offeror should propose these required costs. |
Costs associated with sustaining forward deployed resources are costs that WILL NOT be included in the cost reimbursable travel and ODC CLINs.
And 6.1.4
| How many EKMS Tier Two Parent Accounts listed in PWS exist and where are they located. The assumption is more than one Parent Account for contingency support. |
| This assumption is inaccurate. MSC is currently supported by a Tier Two Account located in Norfolk. |
| 27 |
| PWS 6.2 |
| Are the Ship Support Units (SSUs) listed in the PWS equipped as EKMS Tier 2 or Tier 3 entities? |
| As stated in the PWS, SSUs are “COMSEC Tier Three Shore Local Element Management.” |
| 28 |
| PWS 6.3 |
| Are visits to MSC Local Element ships limited to pier side availability, or is underway time to be considered for support services? |
| Visits to all MSC Tier 3 Local Element ships is limited to pier side availability. |
| 29 |
| PWS 14. A Other Pertinent Information or Special Considerations |
| The USG states “The contractor shall identify key personnel and shall provide individual and corporate expertise and experience commensurate with the technical requirements listed above”. Will the USG clarify the requirement for corporate expertise and experience as part of an individual’s resume? |
| The company’s experience and expertise as well as the proposed key personnel’s experience and expertise is in reference to the technical requirements of the PWS. |
| 30 |
| RFP: Evaluation Factors and Basis for Award Determination, |
Technical/Management Approach Factor The USG states “In order to be eligible for award, the contractor’s proposal must sufficiently address all aspects of the PWS” Also, Technical/Management portion of the proposal must be limited to 10 pages. Also, USG states “The contractor must demonstrate a plan to fully meet or exceed each task”. Further in this section, USG provides five (5) Subfactors for evaluation purposes.
Question: Will the USG please clarify the requirement to demonstrate a plan to fully meet or exceed each task in the PWS or each task listed in the evaluation criteria section. Also, if the response is each PWS task area, 10 pages are not sufficient to address each PWS task section. Lastly, if the response is each PWS section, seems the evaluation criteria should be modified as well.
The contractor should propose a plan that explains how to fully meet or exceed each task. Regarding the specific evaluation criteria, the best value analysis for the award decision, will be based on the factors and subfactors, which will be used in the trade off analysis.
The page limit will remain 10 pages. IAW with the RFP, “The following items will not be considered when calculating page limits: cover page, table of contents, glossary, executive summary, generic resumes, past performances, OCCI mitigation plans, and Section 508 compliance.”
| 31 |
| RFP: Evaluation Factors and Basis for Award Determination, |
Technical/Management Approach Factor, section 3, subfactor 3 & 4.
| Should Information Friendly or Foe (IFF) crypto be Identification Friendly or Foe (IFF) crypto |
| Identification Friendly or Foe is correct. The Addendum to 52.212-1 and 2 as well as the PWS will be changed accordingly in RFP Amd 0004. |
| 0004 |
| 32 |
| RFP: Past Performance Factor |
| USG states “Cited past performance efforts shall not exceed 5 pages”. Please clarify that the 5 pages refer to the maximum page count for all 3 past performance references and not 5 pages per past performance. |
| Cited past performance efforts shall not exceed 5 pages per past performance referenced. RFP Amd 000, is changed to clarify the page count for all 3 past performance references: “Cited past performance efforts shall not exceed 5 pages per past performance reference.” |
| 0004 |
| 33 |
| RFP Section: ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 AND 2 |
| Will the USG please clarify the requirement for two volumes only 1). Technical/Management Volume and 2). Cost/Price Volume. ? |
If this is the case, where should the past performance references be included? Within the Technical Volume or as a separate volume?
Past performance would not be included in the technical/management section. The RFP also states that “cover page, table of contents, glossary, executive summary, generic resumes, past performances, OCCI mitigation plans, and Section 508 compliance” will not be considered when calculating the Technical/Management portion of the proposal.
| 34 |
| PWS 7, Performance Standards; and RFP Section: QASP, Section 5. |
| Will the government provide a copy of the COMSCINST 2280 instruction? |
| COMSCINST 2280.3D will be made available in Attachment 8 of RFP Amd 0004. |
| 0004 |