NSCV_Q_A_Set_2_21Dec15.docx

H92222-15-R-0037 – Question & Answers – Set 2

Q – 1: Section L.2.2.1 (Page 159 of RFP) reads "A cover sheet should be in each volume, clearly marked as to volume number, title, “original” or copy number, solicitation identification, date and the offeror's name."

According to Section L.2.2.1, does the Government want volume, title, original or copy citation, solicitation ID, date, and Offeror’s name marking on the CD Label, or only on the cover sheet within the electronic file A – 1: L.2.2.1 refers to the cover sheet within the electronic file. L.2.3.2 provides the following directions for the CD-ROM/DVD: “For the electronic copy, indicate on each CD-ROM/DVD the volume number and title.”

Q – 2: Section L.2.2.2 (Page 159 of RFP) reads "Modeling and Simulation data must be provided on separate CD- ROMs/DVDs and marked accordingly directly onto the media (i.e., permanent marker). These media discs must not have adhesive labels attached. "

Does the Section L.2.2.2 permanent marker requirement apply only to the Modeling and Simulation data CD-ROMs/DVDs?

A – 2: There is no Section L.2.2.2; however, L.2.3.1 does reference the sentence in question. The requirement for permanent marker is solely for Modeling and Simulation data CD-ROMs/DVDs.

Q – 3: Section L.2.2.2 (Page 159 of RFP) reads "All appropriate markings including those prescribed IAW FAR 52.215-1, Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and 3.104, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor's Bid or Proposal Information, Source Selection Information, and classification will be applied."

Does the Government want FAR 3.104 and 52.215-1 Restricting Disclosure, Use, and Protection markings, as described in Section L.2.2.2, applied on the CD or with in the electronic file?

A – 3: There is no Section L.2.2.2; however, L.2.3.1 does reference the sentence in question. All appropriate markings should be applied where necessary. All appropriate markings should be applied on both the CD-ROMs/DVDs and in the electronic file.

Q – 4: Section L.2.3 (2) Electronic Format (Page 160 of RFP) reads "Each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD."

1. According to L.2.3 (2), does the Government want 2 CDs which include all volumes in separate directories for a total of 2 CDs?

or

2. Does the Government want 2 CDs of each volume for a total of 8 CDs?

A – 4: The Government does not have a preference. Offerors may submit each Volume separately, or combine the Volumes. However, as required by L.2.1, Table 1, 2 electronic copies of each Volume shall be submitted.

Q – 5: Section L.3.1.2 (Page 160 of RFP) reads "Designate on the volume cover which proposal package contains the original, executed copy of the RFP, and which contains copies."

Since there is not a requirement for a hard copy submission in Section L.3.1.2, how would the Government like the contractor to deliver the Original Executed copy of the RFP?

A – 5: The Government does not have a preference. Offerors may complete an electronic copy or scan in their executed copy of the RFP, etc. As required by Section L.2.3, proposals shall be provided on CD-ROMs/DVDs.

Q – 6: L.3.2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Management Plan. (Page 165 of RFP) Lists the following Minimum Key Personnel:

Item 4.2.3.2 (Page 8 of Attachment 1 NSCV SOW) lists the following as Key Personnel:

Would the Government please clarify which Key Personnel require a resume submission? Is it per RFP Section L.3.2.2.3 Subfactor 3, page 165, or per Item 4.2.3.2 of the SOW, Attachment 1, page 9?

A – 6: The requirements for Key Personnel for this Contract are detailed in SOW 4.2.3.2. This section provides the billets that the Contractor must provide for execution of the Contract. It is not implied that each billet has to be a separate individual. RFP Section L.3.2.2.3 provides details regarding what will be evaluated, which is a subset of the Key Personnel detailed in the SOW. The language in L.3.2.2.3 was revised under RFP Amendment 01 to make the Key Personnel titles consistent with SOW 4.2.3.2. While only a subset of Key Personnel is being evaluated during the source selection, the awardee is required to meet all requirements of the SOW.

Q – 7: Can the Government please confirm that the proposal due date is 18 January 2016 at 2 pm EST as indicated on fbo.gov, though this date is a Federal Holiday (MLK Day). The SF 33 does not currently contain this information.

A – 7: The proposal due date was revised and incorporated into L.1.1 under Amendment 01. FBO.gov has also been revised to reflect the new proposal due date and time.

Q – 8: RFP Section L 5652.214-9001 Instructions on Completing Standard Form (33, 26 or 1449) Solicitation, Offer, and Award (2005) states “Offerors shall transmit the original signed copy to the designated addresses on the appropriate block of the SF 33/26/1449).

(a) The offeror shall submit one signed original face.

(b) All offers shall be sent electronically to the address shown in Block 8 of the SF 33.”

1. How would the Government like this original document provided since the proposal must be submitted via CD-ROM/DVD as stated in RFP Section L.2.3.1

2. Block 8 of the SF33 does not provide an email address to send the electronic SF33 to. Can the Government please clarify how the electronic SF33 should be sent?

A – 8:

1. The Government does not have a preference. Offerors may complete an electronic copy or scan in their executed copy of the RFP, etc. No paper copy should be mailed. As required by Section L.2.3, proposals shall be provided on CD-ROMs/DVDs.

2. Proposal delivery instructions are detailed under L.1.3 Classified Information and L.1.8 Delivery Instructions.

Q – 9: RFP Section L 5652.215-9005 Estimated Prices for Data (2000), page 155, states “In accordance with DFARS 215.470 the offeror shall provide estimated data prices for each data item set forth on the DD Form 1423 "Contract Data Requirements List."

To clarify Section L 5652.215-9005, page 155, in what volume would the Government like DD Form 1423 CDRL estimated data prices provided?

A – 9: Prices for technical data shall be provided in Volume 4 – Area 3 – Price. Amendment 01 incorporates additional clarifying language.

Q – 10: RFP Section L 5652.215-9007 Bill of Materials (1998) states “Offerors shall submit a consolidated bill of materials including materials to be furnished by subcontractors. The materials contained in the bill of materials shall be listed in descending order according to dollar value by unit price.”

To clarify Section 5652.215-9007 BOM, in what volume would the Government like the consolidated BOM provided?

A – 10: Clause 5652.215-9007 Bill of Materials was removed under RFP Amendment 01.

Q – 11: RFP L.1.1 states “Offers’ shall submit with their proposal a list of names and telephone numbers of persons authorized to conduct negotiations.”

To fulfill RFP Section L.1.1, page 156, in what volume would the Government like authorized negotiator contact information provided? Does the Government desire other identifying (title, or position) and contact information (email) for these person(s)?

A – 11: Volume I, Qualifying Criteria.

Q – 12: RFP L.3.3.2 Past Performance Information Sheets states “…Offerors shall submit any applicable SF 294s and SF 295s or Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) reports, for those contracts/projects submitted under Past Performance.”

IAW Section L.3.3.2, page 166, Does the Government want small businesses under NAICS 336112 to provide SF 294s and SF 295s and/or eSRS?

A – 12: Yes, if those documents are applicable to the past performance information sheet you are submitting.

Q – 13: RFP L.3.3.2 Past Performance Information Sheets states “…Performance Information Sheets for each contract is limited to five pages (does not include organizational history, SF 294, Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts, and SF 295, Summary Subcontract Report or eSRS reports or audit data)…

There is no other reference within the RFP to Organizational History. In addition to the Past Performance Information requested in L.3.3.2, does the Government want offerors to provide Organizational History information within the Past Performance Volume?

A – 13: No.

Q – 14: Within Volume 3: Past Performance, RFP L.3.3.1 (5), page 166, states “The offeror shall provide either a copy of the results from the latest approved purchasing system review by the cognizant DCMA or an explanation as to why they do not have a recent approval (within the last 3 years from date of the issuance of this RFP).”

Will Purchasing System Review supporting documentation, as requested in Section L.3.3.1 (5) be included in the page count?

A – 14: No. Offerors’ purchasing system review information falls under “explanation if required” which is excluded from the page count under Past Performance.

Q – 15: RFP L.3.2 provides an example of the Cross Reference Matrix, page 161. In the column titles “Government SOW/P. Spec” the instruction states “…This column shall address all paragraphs in Section’s xx and yy of the P-Spec.”

According to Table 2, Cross Reference Matrix (CRM), page 161, will the Government please explain what paragraphs xx and yy are, and the criteria that must be addressed?

A – 15: This column shall document the Government SOW and/or Performance Specification reference. “xx” and “yy” were detailing that offerors can have multiple applicable references in each block.

Q – 16: RFP Section A (Solicitation Contract Form Min/Max) page 2, Is the anticipated order of 556 vehicles over 5 year period, or does the “life of the contract” citation include the 2 option years; meaning an estimated 556 over 7 years?

A – 16: “Life of the Contract” means seven years.

Q – 17: Section B, page 5, and Section F of the Solicitation lists the requirement for Item number 1003 as OEM Mitsubishi L200, but L.3.2.1 Factor 1: Vehicle Configuration, page 162 and L.3.2.2.1.2 Subfactor 1: Design and Production Process, page163, state a Ford Ranger; as does the Pricing Matrix, Attachment 3.

Would the Government please clarify whether Vehicle B is a Mitsubishi L200 or a Ford Ranger? The Pricing Matrix, Attachment 3, and L.3.2.1, page 162, and L.3.2.2.1.2, page 163, reference a Ford Ranger, while the H92222-15-R-00327 52.211-9 Desired Delivery Schedule, CLIN 1003, page 5 states an OEM L200.

A – 17: The required OEM vehicle under CLIN 1003 is the Ford Ranger. This was updated under RFP Amendment 01.

Q – 18: Reference the DD 254 continuation page, Ref 11h (pasted below), we would like to request a COMSEC account for this contract. Can you point us to the correct POC at SOCOM to do this?

Ref 11h: If accountable COMSEC information or material is needed by the contractor ONLY in support of this contract and the work location is within CONUS the contractor may seek to establish an SOCOM COMSEC User Account supported by HQ, USSOCOM (CA817021) if desired. Approval to establish or maintain a SOCOM COMSEC user account is at the sole discretion of the COMSEC manager. If a SOCOM user account is approved, advanced credentialing of SOCOM COMSEC office personnel is required to facilitate official visits, inspections (including no-notice inspection) and other support as may be needed. SOCOM COMSEC office inspectors and NSA staff have sole inspection authority of all SOCOM COMSEC user accounts and materials provided by CA817021.

A – 18: The Government will not sponsor any COMSEC account requests during the pre-award stage. The offeror is required to have or be able to obtain a COMSEC account for execution of this Contract. If the winning offeror does not have an active COMSEC account, the Government will sponsor through the USSOCOM COMSEC account process.

Q – 19: Is there a DD-254 in support of this proposal effort and supporting the classified annex?

A – 19: Yes. This is RFP Attachment 11 which is posted on FBO.

Q – 20: Referencing the response to question 22 under Q&A Set 1: The Government stated “Automatic Transmission is the standard configuration for the Toyota Land Cruiser 70 series vehicles. Unless CLIN X008 (Manual Transmission) is exercised, vehicles shall be configured with Automatic Transmission.” However, a brochure from Toyota is in conflict with the Government’s response. The OEM specifications from Toyota, the 5-speed manual transmission is listed as “standard” equipment, not the automatic. Please clarify.

A – 20: Per the requirements in the Performance Specification, Automatic Transmission shall be standard configuration for the Toyota Land Cruiser 70 series vehicles. Unless CLIN X008 (Manual Transmission) is exercised, vehicles shall be configured with Automatic Transmission. If Automatic Transmission options are not available from the OEM, the Contractor shall develop and integrate this capability into the vehicle to fulfill this requirement.

Q – 21: Performance Specification: Section 2.5 contains two subsections numbered 2.5.2. Request the Government clarify the numbering of PSpec Section 2.5.

A – 21: The numbering error (duplicate 2.5.2) in Performance Specification Section 2.5 shall be fixed in an Amendment to the RFP.

Q – 22: The following OEM vehicles are not manufactured for any market worldwide. Request the Government remove them from the CLINS and from the Price Matrix:

Toyota Land Cruiser 76 Right-hand Drive Gasoline Engine (RHDG) CLIN 1005; Price Matrix 1005, Vehicle D, Variation 2 Toyota Land Cruiser 78 Left-hand Drive Gasoline Engine (LHDG) CLIN 1006; Price Matrix 1006, Vehicle E, Variation 1 Toyota Land Cruiser 78 Right-hand Drive Gasoline Engine (RHDG) CLIN 1006; Price Matrix 1006, Vehicle E, Variation 2 Toyota Land Cruiser 79 Right-hand Drive Gasoline Engine (RHDG) CLIN 1007; Price Matrix 1007, Vehicle F, Variation 2

A – 22: The Government will remove the 4 OEM gas engine vehicle configurations above (TLC76 RHDG, TLC78 LHDG, TLC78 RHDG, TLC79 RHDG) from the Price Matrix in an Amendment to the RFP.

Q – 23: Price Matrix: SOW Section 4.1.1 states, “The C4ISR design package shall be a Government owned level II Technical Data Package (TDP),” so DFAR 252.227-7013 applies. Please confirm that the C4ISR Design TDP should be costed in CDRL A001 in Year 1.

A – 23: The C4ISR design package shall be a Government owned level II TDP. This shall be priced in CDRL A001 in Year 1.

Q – 24: Given the reduced signature configuration requirements for the LOS antenna on the NSCV vehicles and P-Spec section 2.48.1.Z that states the antennas “shall maintain their commercial appearance and prevent unaided detection as tactical vehicles from an observer” for the reduced signature vehicle antenna, is it permissible to separate the waveform propagation between more than one antenna as providing the reduced signature antenna while keeping within the RF-3187 specifications is near impossible to stay within the same performance specifications.

A – 24: The Performance Specification language in 2.48 merely states “The NSCV at GVWR shall maintain their commercial appearance and prevent unaided detection as tactical vehicles from an observer…". There is no specific discussion on the antenna. The Government is aware of lower profile antennas that will help the vehicle to maintain a reduced visual signature. It is acceptable for offerors to separate the waveform propagation between more than one antenna assuming the trade-off in performance with signature reduction does not significantly impede the use of the LOS communication system. Our intent was to optimize the performance of the LOS Antenna (the RF-3187) while maintaining low visibility on the vehicle, understanding doing both may be difficult due to physics.

Q – 25: What is the intended switch configuration for radio RF propagation concerning the single switch that’s listed in Annex B as the previous radio configuration used 3 failsafe transfer switches which allowed switching between LOS to WB between both radios (handheld and manpack). Current parts list for cables contradicts what is called out for the single coax switch (item 1-19) that’s call out in Annex B.

A – 25: The Government does not intend to provide a full C4ISR design in which to incorporate into the vehicles. Items listed in Annex B Tab 2 with a “Suggested” in Column E are provided as examples only from past integration configurations. The coaxial switch assembly (item 1-19) may be a combination of switches, dependent upon each offeror’s design approach. Items listed in Annex B Tab 2 with a “Required” in Column E show the end items that will make up the backbone of the C4ISR configuration. The Government has purposefully not detailed any required design package (i.e. number of required RF cables, switches, remote assemblies, etc) to allow for innovative approaches to be proposed.

Q – 26: Is any of the equipment in the new C4ISR configuration intended to be dismounted from the vehicle during mission except the radios (e.g., THOR II and ROVER-e)?

A – 26: The radios, ROVER-e, DAGR and THOR II all need to be accessible for easy removal (no tools required) during a mission.

Q – 27: Reference P-Spec 2.3.8.c – Does the OEM opening requirement apply to the entire door opening or only where the door stops are installed? Most armor designs with ballistic returns reduce the OEM opening to reduce modifications to OEM body and retain door seals.

A – 27: The OEM opening requirement refers to the amount of travel the door is able to achieve. This requirement language does not relate to the amount of area/space that the door opening creates.

Q – 28: Reference P-Spec 2.3.9.d – As written, the rear doors require fewer turns to fully open/close? (10 rear vs 25 front). Is this the government’s intent? Is that assuming only a 4-inch window opening?

A – 28: The Government requires a maximum of 25 revolutions for the front and rear windows that recess 80% or more of the OEM opening. The 10 revolutions requirement is for any rear windows that recess 4”. The Performance Specification language will be updated in an Amendment to the RFP.