Attach_12_Q A.doc

Installation & Logistics Management Services (ILMS)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO HSCG44-13-R-ILMS – FINAL

QUESTION#1. “In RFP Section E.18 and the answers to the Draft RFP Questions 2 and 28, the Government indicates that the offer (8(a) prime contractor) for this solicitation may be an SBA-approved 8(a) small business joint venture. In reviewing RFP Section E.7.4 regarding past performance references, we understand the reference to the 8(a) small business being the “8(a) Prime Contractor” which, in the instance described in the previous sentence, would be the 8(a) joint venture. Therefore, we understand all of the requirements in RFP Section E.7.4., associated with the “8(a) Prime Contractor,” would apply to either corporate member of the 8(a) joint venture that is bidding as prime contractor. Please confirm.”

ANSWER#1: An SBA approved JV is required in order for you to pursue this project. Recommend you pursue clarification with your local SBA district office.

QUESTION#2: “In RFP section E.7.4, we request further clarification regarding the total number of past performance references required for a compliance response.

QUESTION 2A. “ Please confirm or clarify that the reference from the 8(a) Price Contract “not to exceed 6 past performance reference means a number which could be less than 6 but not more than 6.”

ANSWER 2A: The Contractor is to submit up to six (6) Past Performance examples. The Contractor may submit less than six but may not exceed six past performance examples.

QUESTION 2B. “Please confirm or clarify that these “not to exceed” six (6) past performance reference could all come from the 8(a) Prime Contractor, which could be an 8(a) Joint Venture Prime Contractor.”

ANSWER 2B: A maximum of two (2) Past Performance references shall be submitted from the 1st Tier Subcontractor. Therefore, the Prime Contractor shall then submit the remainder, as agreed to. For instance, if the 1st Tier Subcontractor submits two (2) references, the Prime Contractor would submit four (4) past performance references not to exceed the maximum six (6) past performance references.

QUESTION 2C. “Please clarify the meaning of the requirement “the 8(a) Prime Contractor may choose to submit references for the same/similar services on behalf of him/herself and include no more than two (2) examples representative of efforts performed by the 1st Tier subcontractor, teaming partner or Joint Venture.” If an 8(a) Joint Venture Prime Contractor is the 8(a) Prime contractor in our proposal is it correct to assume that companies that constitute that joint venture would be able to provide references as the “8(a) Prime contractor” without any further restrictions? Please confirm or clarify.”

ANSWER 2C: The 1st Tier Subcontractor may be a subcontractor, Teaming Partner or Joint Venture Company, chosen by the Prime to function as their 1st Tier subcontractor. The Prime’s 1st Tier Subcontractor is required to submit, as a maximum, two (2) Past Performance references. The Prime Contractor then submits the remaining past performance references (See Answer 2B).

QUESTION#3: “In RFP Attachment 8, Past Performance Questionnaire, the Offeror notes that there is no signature block for the customer signature. We believe having the customer signature on the last page of Attachment 8 will meet the requirements that state “Documents submitted without a signature will not be considered.” Please confirm.”

ANSWER #3: All Past Performance Questionnaires received (to date) have been endorsed. If questions occur regarding validity, the Contract Specialist will contact the individual.

QUESTION#4: “RFP Attachment 1, PWS, Section 1.5.2, Facility Secret Clearance, page 4, PWS Paragraph 1.5.2 stipulates that the ‘Classified Information Non-Disclosure Agreement (SF-312 – Attachment 8) be read and signed by contractors. The released RFP does not include an SF-312 form and Attachment 8 is for Past Performance Questionnaires.”

QUESTION4A: “Does the NDA in Attachment 4 replace the SF-312 Form?”

ANSWER 4A: The RFP, Attachment 1, SOW, Paragraph 1.5.2, Facility Secret Clearance, has been amended to reflect DHS Form 11000-6 (08-04). The SOW Paragraph was further corrected to reflect Attachment 4 (the NDA) in lieu of Attachment 8.

QUESTION 4B: “Is Attachment 4 to be signed and returned with the proposal submittal in Section III (Administrative)?”

ANSWER4B: Yes.

QUESTION#5: A) “Section 5.4.10 of the PWS, Initial Installation aboard Coast Guard Cutters and Shore Units. Is the reference to “initial Installation” the equivalent to “Prototype Installation” as described in the Engineering Change Process Guides? B) Alternatively, what types of installations are included in the term “initial installation?”

ANSWER#5: A) Yes. The governing document for management of C4IT systems deployed in the Coast Guard is COMDTINST 5230.66A System Development Life Cycle (SDLC). The term "Initial Installation" is similar in usage to references made to "Prototype" within COMDTINST 5230.66A System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Practices Manual and in this RFP's ILMS SOW. The Coast Guard's usage of the term "Prototype" when referring to tasking associated with either the ILMS contract or the SDLC process does not extend to include R+D work, as the Coast Guard's purpose in using a "Prototype" is to validate requirements, define a problem, search for alternative solutions, and/or test the design of commercial items. B) Any type of installation may have an “initial installation”.

QUESTION #6:“The final RFP includes a number of significant contract changes from the draft, particularly the new contract requirements in Section C.47 Teaming Arrangements. The creation of the Core Team in C.47 results in conflicts in both technical and contract requirements that need clarification if contractors are to submit a fully responsive, best value proposal.”

QUESTION 6.1: “Are past performance references permitted from all Tier 1 subcontractors or only the Core Team?”-+ ANSWER 6.1: As set forth in the RFP, Paragraph E.7.4 FACTOR 3: Past Performance, past performance references are due only from the Prime and his/her proposed Tier 1 subcontractor.

QUESTION 6.2: “Does the substitution of Core Team members in C.13 procedures apply to all subcontractors?”

ANSWER 6.2: Core Team members are those personnel designated by the Prime Contractor (see definition of “Core Team” in Paragraphs B.4.C.1.1 Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour/Firm-Fixed-Price Pricing, Paragraph (a) and Paragraph C.47, Teaming Arrangements. The Prime Contractor determines its “Core Team” members and apply the requirements of C.13 to those personnel with the appropriate company.

QUESTION 6.3: a) “Please clarify substitution statements in the following: C.47(e) states that Core Team members cannot be substituted but C.47(f) states that Core Team members cannot be substituted except in exceptional cases. b) In addition, the references to “Core Team members” in Sections B and C are not reflected in the RFP Section E proposal evaluation criteria and instructions.

ANSWER 6.3: a) RFP Clauses C.47 (e) and C.47(f) have been revised and coordinate with C.13. b) Evaluation Criteria for Core Team members does not exist in the RFP, Section E. Core Team/Non-Core Team definitions are provided to better define the requirements labor categories and apply the applicable fixed hourly rates in Attachment 2, Pricing Spreadsheet.

QUESTION 6.4: “Does the government intend the Core Team members to be separately identified in Section E? If yes, please provide revisions showing such distinctions.”

ANSWER 6.4: See Answer#6.3, above.

QUESTION 6.5: “Once the clarifications are provided, Offerors will need time to establish compliant teaming arrangements and respond to the clarified requirements. Accordingly, will the government provide a two week extension to the proposal due date?”

ANSWER#6.5: Your request for a time extension has been forwarded to the Contracting Officer for consideration.

QUESTION#7: “RFP Attachment 8, Past Performance Questionnaire. Can a signed and scanned Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 8) be emailed to Linda Nash-Gallaher by the Offeror’s clients rather than sent by regular mail?”

ANSWER#7: Yes, as long as the Questionnaire is completed (see Answer #3, above). The Questionnaire must also be received by the time specified in the RFP.

QUESTION#8: “Answers to Draft RFP Questions – Question 13, Page 6. Are the Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 8) to be provided to the government separately and received by the Offeror’s clients directly or are copies of the completed questionnaires also to be included as part of the proposal submission?”

ANSWER#8: The Answer provided to #13 stated neither Past Performance Questionnaires nor Attachments 2 and 3 are included in either Section count. The revised RFP, Clause E.7.4.1 Past Performance Questionnaire, requires Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 8) to be submitted to the Contract Specialist separately, in accordance with the RFP provisions. The Questionnaires are not required to be a part of the proposal submission. However, a listing of the Prime’s subcontractor’s/Team/Joint Ventures is required to coordinate with the Past Performance Questionnaire. This would be included in Attachment III of the Proposal (does not count against the page count).

QUESTION#9: “a) Is the Offeror required to submit six (6) past performance references or a lesser number not to exceed six (6)? For example, can the Offeror submit four (4) past performance references with examples from the prime and 1st Tier subcontractors, teaming partners or joint venture? b) Also, is the prime required to submit a minimum number of past performance references or can the references up to six (6) be submitted by the 1st Tier subcontractors, teaming partners or joint venture (not to exceed two for each) and none by the prime?”

ANSWER#9: See Answer #2 above.

QUESTION#10: “Are the Representations and Certifications excluded from the page count (10 pages) for the Section III Administrative and Price Proposal?”

ANSWER#10: Commercial Representations and Certifications are located in Section E, Clause E.18 FAR 52.212-3 – Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items (APR 2012). They are excluded from the page count.

QUESTION#11: “Is the SF 1449 Form excluded from the page count (10 pages) for the Section III Administrative and Price Proposal?” Please also note that the SF 1449 Form referenced as being provided by the government in RFP Section A was not included with the solicitation document. Please clarify.”

ANSWER#11: The SF Form 1449 is now Attachment 10, and is attached to the RFP. This form is to be submitted in Section III, Administrative documents. It is excluded from the page count.

QUESTION#12: “a) Can a cover letter be submitted in addition to the SF 1449? b) If so, would both be excluded from the page count? c) Could the cover letter be included in front of the Section 1, Tab in Volume binder?”

ANSWER#12: a) Yes; b) Yes, as long as the cover letter is limited to one 8 ½ x 11 page, 12 font page; c) Yes; Section 1 of Section III, Administrative documents.

QUESTION#13: “Although the file name has changed to Attach_1_SOW.docx, the SOW is still referred to as a PWS within the file. Question 22 indicates that the PWS has been revised to a SOW. Can the government please clarify?”

ANSWER#13: The stated revision was correct. Please refer to Attachment 1, SOW with additional highlighted revisions.

QUESTION#14: “The answer to this question (Question 23, page 8) states that 8 point font size can be used for tables and graphics. However this language cannot be found in the final RFP. Will the government please revise the RFP to reflect this requirement?”

ANSWER#14: See revised RFP, Section E, Clause E.3, Proposal Preparation Instructions, Section III, Page 45.

QUESTION#15: “Will the government please clarify if 11x17 foldouts will be counted as one page or two pages?”

ANSWER#15: One page.

QUESTION#16: “Will addressing Sub-Factors 1 and Sub-Factors 2 meet the requirement for Factor 1?”

ANSWER#16: All factors and significant sub-factors (as applicable) affecting contract award, and their relative importance are clearly stated in the solicitation (Refer to the RFP, Clause E.7.1 Evaluation of Offers.) .

QUESTION#17: “RFP Section C.12 on Key Personnel has a sentence that reads “The Contractor’s Program manager as identified in the SOW.” Please clarify, is the Teaming Coordinator designated as the key personnel position? The Teaming Coordinator is not identified in the ILMS PWS/SOW as indicated by RFP Section C.12.”

ANSWER#17: The requirement for a Teaming Coordinator has been revised. Please refer to the RFP, Clause C.47, Teaming Arrangements, paragraph (g).

QUESTION#18: “Please confirm that the Offeror’s Program manager may also serve as the Program’s Teaming Coordinator. RFP Section C.12 has a sentence that reads “[the] Contractor’s Program Manager and Teaming Coordinator as identified in this SOW.” However, the Teaming Coordinator is not identified in the PWS/SOW. RFP Section C.47 states that [e]ach ILMS Contractor receiving an award shall designate an overarching Team Coordinator (e.g., Program manager). The Teaming Coordinator shall serve as a single point of contact representative for the Prime Contractor and all prospective subcontractors.” Based on RFP Section C.47, the Offeror believes that our proposed Program Manager can also serve as the Teaming Coordinator. Please confirm that this would be acceptable based on the RFP requirements. In addition, if the Offeror uses the Program Manager as our program Teaming Coordinator, we believe that this would satisfy any resume requirements for the Teaming Coordinator (if any).”

ANSWER#18: See Answer #17, above.

QUESTION#19: ”In Question 14, pages 6-7, the answer states that the additional 3CD Roms shall duplicate the Contractor’s entire Section 1 – Technical Proposal and duplicate its entire Section III – Past Performance minus Past Performance Questionnaire information. However, the RFP, Section E.3 Requirements for Proposal Format, states that three (3) additional CD Roms shall duplicate in their entirety (with all attachments) the Offeror’s (1) Technical/Management Proposal; 2) Past Performance Narrative Proposal; and 3) Administrative Information. Please clarify that all three (3) sections (Section 1 – Technical Proposal, Section II – Past Performance Information minus the questionnaires, and Section III – Administrative Information minus the price proposal) are to be included in the addition three (3) CD Roms.”

ANSWER#19: See RFP, revised Section E.3 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Requirements for Proposal Format.

QUESTION#20: “Regarding the requirement for the 3 CD ROMs, RFP Section E.3 page 44 states “Three (3) CD Roms shall also be provided in the same format as the original binder submission (minus pricing). Each of the three (3) CD Roms should contain individual files for each of the three (3) Sections – Section I – Technical/Management Proposal and Section II – Past Performance Information.” Please clarify the reference to the “three (3) Sections to be included in the three CD-ROMs.”

ANSWER#20: See RFP, revised Section E.3 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Requirements for Proposal Format.

QUESTION#21: “RFP Section B.1 indicates that RFP Attachment 3 (CLIN Structure) is to be completed and does the government’s answer to Draft RFP Question 36. However the RFP Section E.8 instructions for the pricing proposal no longer include Attachment 3. Please clarify if the Offer is to include the revised Attachment 3 in their Volume III Administrative and Pricing Proposal.”

ANSWER#21: The Contractor is required to use the information contained in Attachment 3 when completing Attachment 2, Pricing Spreadsheet.

QUESTION#22: “The Year 1 through Year 5 “TO Pricing’ spreadsheets now include columns for ‘On-Site Rate’ and ‘Off-Site Rate’. Each of them has a related column for ‘on-Site Total Rate’ and ‘off-Site Total Rate’, respectively. The latter Totals are computed by multiplying the ‘Estimated Hours’ for each ‘Labor & Activity Description’ times the respective ‘On-Site and Off-Site Rate’. So, there is no allocation of hours between On-Site and Off-Site work when summing the columns to yield Total On-Site and Off-Site Labor. Please clarify what Labor Totals should be transferred to the ‘Pricing Summary’ spreadsheet, given that the ‘EST LABOR HOURS’ theron (527,000 for each year) presumably represents both On-Site and Off-site Labor.”

ANSWER#22: The government’s estimated 527,000 estimated labor hours are to be applied in determining the total on-site and off-site hours. See revised Attachment 2 for extended columns to yield the total summary for on-site and off-site hours.

QUESTION#23: “Please confirm that although the QAs were titled Amendment No. 1, they were posted as an Amendment to the Draft and are not considered Amendment No. 1 to the solicitation.”

ANSWER#23: The Q&As were posted to initial FedBizOpps announcement and as such, Amended the announcement. The government considers this as Amendment 0001.

QUESTION#24: “Response to Question 28 indicates that the offer be valid for a period of 180 days while the solicitation document section E.2.11(c) requests that the Offer hold prices for 30 days. Pleas revised the RFP if the request is for the offer to be valid for 180 calendar days.”

ANSWER#24: The RFP reflects the Offeror to be valid for 180 calendar days.

QUESTION#25: “Does the certification from the SBA Office go in Section III or is this a post award request?”

ANSWER#25: SBA Certification from the SBA Office must be applicable for the instant project (e.g., ILMS). All certifications should be included in the Offeror’s proposal (Section III, Administrative/Administration).

QUESTION#26: “E.3, Requirements for Proposal Format, second paragraph, page 45 of 65 Please confirm Section I should be titled Section I Technical Proposal and not Technical/Management Proposal.”

ANSWER#26: Refer to the revised RFP, Section E, Clause E.3, Proposal Preparation Instructions.

QUESTION#27: “E.9, second paragraph, page 49 of 65. This sentence refers to Section III as Price Proposal (Volume III), please confirm that this should be Section III – Administrative and Price Proposal.”

ANSWER#27: The RFP, Section E, Paragraph E.9, requires the Contractor’s Administrative and Pricing Proposal to be submitted in Section III - Administrative and Price Proposal.

QUESTION#28: “The following language is not clear: ‘The Prime contractor may team with up to four other small businesses. The Prime contractor does not have to be teamed with other firms as long as the team members meet the size standard corresponding to the NAICS codes for this contract.” Please clarify that the teaming arrangements for this contract are as follows: a) Core Team is defined as the Prime and up to four (4) team members (a total of five companies); b) these four (4) team members may be large or small businesses; c) other team members in addition to the Core Team may be added; d) these other team members may be large or small businesses.”

ANSWER#28: Clarification is provided in the RFP, Section C, Paragraph C.47, Teaming Arrangements (highlighted areas).

QUESTION#29: “The following language is not clear: ‘The Prime contractor may team with up to four other small businesses. The Prime contractor does not have to be teamed with other firms as long as the team members meet the size standard corresponding to the NAICS codes for this contract.’ Can the four (4) Core Team Members (minus the Prime) and other Team Members be large businesses?

ANSWER#29: Refer to Answer#28 above.

QUESTION#30: E.7.4, Factor 3, Past Performance, second paragraph, pages 47 and 48 of 65. This section refers to 1st Tier Subcontractors and teaming partner. Can past performance references be provided by 1st Tier Subcontractors and teaming partner or only the Core Team members?”

ANSWER#30: Please refer to Answers #2 (in its entirety) and the clarification of Core Team provided in #28, above.

QUESTION#31: “Paragraph 1.4.2, the last sentence in the first paragraph incorrectly references section 1.4 for a description of PM responsibilities. Is the correct reference 1.3.1?”

ANSWER#31: Paragraph 1.4.2 of the SOW refers to Paragraph 1.4, which, in turn cites Paragraph 1.3, Contractor Personnel.

QUESTION#32: “Will the Government be issuing an amended SOW? The Q&A from the DRFP make several references to changes to the SOW that are not reflected in the SOW released with the RFP.”

ANSWER#32: The revised SOW is attached.

QUESTION#33: “Is it acceptable to submit resumes for positions other than the PM and his/her alternate?”

ANSWER#33: The RFP, Section E, Clause E.7.3.1, Factor 3, Sub-Factor 1: Evaluation of Key Personnel Resume and the ability of the Offeror to maintain a stable workforce, clearly states only resumes for Key Personnel are required for this factor. As such, additional resumes (other than his/her alternate) are not required and will not be evaluated.

QUESTION#34: “Please clarify if the Government is allowing 2 past performance per 1st Tier subcontractor or a total of 2 for the 1st Tier subcontractors.”

ANSWER#34: Refer to Answer #2 (in its entirety) above.

QUESTION#35: “Is the Design and Documentation support described in Section 5.3 specifically intended for the SEI system only?”

ANSWER#35: No, these services may be included on any task order (TO) and used in support of any system.

QUESTION#36: “This section makes reference to section H.8 for a description of the government workspace/supplies that will be provided. The referenced section does not exist in the RFP. Please clarify if the government will provide computers for government site contractors.”

ANSWER#36: Clause B.4.C.1.1. has been revised to reference Clause C.37, Government Furnished Resources, which states the Government will provide government furnished equipment (GFE), when available, to perform Contract support services, unless specifically stated otherwise in the SOW (e.g., TO SOW).

QUESTION#37: “This section makes reference to the Program Manager AND Teaming Coordinator as identified in the SOW. The SOW does not refer to a Teaming Coordinator. Please clarify.”

ANSWER#37: Refer to Answer#17, above.

QUESTION#38: RFP, E.9, Instructions for Preparation of the Price Proposal. “Would the Government clarify the statement, ‘The amount of data needed may vary depending on the requirements”? Since the government is supplying the positions and hours to be proposed in Attachment 2, are the evaluation criteria mentioned in E.9 applicable to contractor proposal responses to this solicitation or to future task orders associated with the ID/IQ?”

ANSWER#38: RFP, E.9, Instructions for Preparation of the Price Proposal, has been revised.

QUESTION#39: RFP E.9, Instructions for Preparation of the Price Proposal, “Would the Government provide clarification and provide further instructions on the proposal content requirements on “the data necessary to support the offer”? Do all subcontractors need to supply to the Government, either directly or through the Prime in a sealed package, cost build-up backup information?”

ANSWER#39: A) The RFP, Clause E.9, states the Offeror’s price proposal shall be evaluated for completeness, price realism and reasonableness. For completeness: the government will assess how the offeror’s pricing, as submitted, can be traced to its origin (e.g., unit pricing structure(s); price realism: how overall pricing, in totality as well as unit pricing, fares in comparison to competitive, historical and perceived prices for the same/similar services; and for price reasonableness, compared to the general public or the general public/a competitive business would bear in a business environment. Proposal pricing should be provided in response to these factors, as applicable. B) No. This is a FFP Contract. If price breakdown information is required for T&M orders, it will be requested at the TO level.

QUESTION#40: RFP, Paragraph 5.7, Training. “Answer #49 from the DRFP makes reference to this section being incorrectly worded and it would be corrected. The current SOW does not reflect this change. Will it?”

ANSWER#40: Yes. Refer to Attachment 1, SOW, which has been restructured to capture training requirements in Paragraph 5.5, System Field Support. Training Support Requirements now falls there under, and is numbered Paragraph 5.5.6, Training Support Requirements.

QUESTION#41: “SOW, Paragraph 5.3, “This section is not listed in Section E, Paragraph E.7.2.1 of the RFP as a section to be evaluated nor is it listed in section technical section 1.1 as a part of the Scope. Please clarify if this section will be evaluated as it is a part of the scope of this contract.”

ANSWER#41: The previous paragraph 5.3, System Design and Documentation Support, has been reconfigured to fall under Paragraph 5.2, C4IT System Documentation Support. The requirements contained therein can be found in 5.2.3 System Design Support.

QUESTION#42: “RFP, Paragraph 5.7, Training “This section is not listed in the E.7.2.1 of the RFP as a section to be evaluated nor is it listed in section technical section 1.1 as part of the Scope. Please clarify if this section will be evaluated and it is a part of the scope of this contract.”

ANSWER#42: Refer to Answers#40 above. Note that Paragraph 5.7, Training now falls under Paragraph 5.6, System Field Support.

QUESTION#43: “Is it actually the Government’s intention to limit a core team to a prime contractor and 4 subcontractors?”

ANSWER#43: Refer to the revised definition of “Core Team” in the RFP, Section C, Clause C.47.

QUESTION#44: “Was it the Government’s intention to state 50 percent of the effort under each task order or 50 percent of the effort over the entire contract?”

ANSWER#44: As set forth in 13 CFR, Section 125.6, states that for service contracts, 8(a) Prime Contractor concerns will perform at least 50 percent of the cost of the contract incurred for personnel with its own employees. Recommend you pursue clarification of “cost of the contract” as it applies to an ID/IQ contract and Task Orders awarded there under over the “entire contract” with your local SBA district office.

QUESTION#45: “Would the Government define PEP as used in SOW, Section 5.2.1.3.12?

ANSWER#45: “PEP” is an acronym for Prototype Evaluation Plan. All initial installations require a PEP.

QUESTION#46: a) “Is it the Government’s intent for the Contractor to treat only the Not to Exceed figure for Travel and Per Diem as fixed? Or, are the NTE numbers provided for Travel, Per Diem, Material Costs, and ODCs to be proposed without deviation? b) Or, is the Government’s intent to have only Travel and Per Diem NTE figures fixed and allow the Contractor to deviate from the NTE’s for Material Costs and ODCs?”

ANSWER#46: a) The NTE figures for Travel and Per Diem, Material Costs and ODCs, as they appear in each Period within Attachment 2 are firm estimates. The Contractor is not to deviate from these figures. b) See response to a).

QUESTION#47: Ref: Q&As HSCG44-13-R-ILMSDRAFT, Page 1, Question#44: “Paragraph 5.7 is not reworded. Was it correctly worded in the draft or is there another version of the PWS?”

ANSWER#47: Yes, please refer to Answer #40, above. Also, previous Answer#44, Installation & Logistics Management Services (ILMS), QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO HSCG44-13-R-ILMSDRAFT that set forth the intent of the SOW, Para. 5.7: “…to supply just-in-time training at CG units which facilitates their transition from a legacy system to a new system.”

QUESTION#48: “‘The requirements (within Attachment 1, Page 37 of 65, Section C, Clause C.47, Teaming Arrangements) states, “The Prime contractor does not have to be teamed with other firms as long as the team members meet the size standard corresponding to the NAICS codes for this contract.’ Please clarify.”

ANSWER#48: The RFP, Clause C.47, Teaming Arrangements, has been revised.

QUESTION#49: Ref: Solicitation, Page 37 of 65, Section C.47, Teaming Arrangements. The requirement states, “As such, the 8(a) member of the core team is responsible for performing 50 percent of the effort under each task order. The remaining effort may be provided by one or more small or other business. The prime contractor may team with up to four other small business… “Should this be rewritten to indicate the Prime may team with small or other businesses?”

ANSWER#49: Refer to Answers #44 and #48 above.

QUESTION#50: Ref: Solicitation, Page 37 of 65, Section C.47, Teaming Arrangements. “Should the words “an employee of” be omitted?”

ANSWER#50: Refer to Answer #48 above.

QUESTION #51: “Given that TEDSS awardees are involved in the department of C3CEN’s engineering designs and plans, this knowledge potentially provides them advance information/insights and possibly an unfair advantage for future ILMS task orders. Will the Government exclude awardees of the TEDSS contract due to possible OCI issues?”

ANSWER#51: RFP Clause C.27 CG-912 Clause – Organizational Conflict of Interest for Contracts Awarded by the U.S. Coast Guard C4IT Office of Contracts Operations has been incorporated into the RFP to address this subject.

QUESTION#52: Ref: Solicitation, Page 48 of 65, Section E.7.4.1, Past Performance Questionnaire. Please confirm that it is also acceptable to have questionnaires sent to the Contracting Officer electronically by e-mail to Linda.L.Nash-Gallaher@uscg.mil, prior to the closing of the proposal due date.”

ANSWER#52: Past Performance Questionnaires are being forwarded to the Contract Specialist who is receiving them on behalf of the Contracting Officer.

QUESTION#53: Re: Solicitation page 44 of 65, Section E.3 “Does an 11x17 foldout count as 1 page?”

ANSWER#53: See Answer #15, above.

QUESTION#54: Ref: Q&A, Question #22 states ‘Paragraph 5, Requirements encompasses Sub-Paragraphs 5.1… The PWS has now been revised to be a SOW. Please refer to the revised Attachment 1. “Is Attachment 1 posted with the new Solicitation the correct document?”

ANSWER#54: See Answer #32, above.

QUESTON#55: Ref: Solicitation page 44 of 65, Section E.3 states ‘Three (3) CD Roms shall also be provided in the same format as the original binder submission (minus pricing)….Further down, in paragraph 9 it states, “The Contractor shall submit three (3) additional CD Roms* that shall duplicate, in their entirety (with all Attachments) the Offeror’s 1) Technical Proposal; 2) Past Performance Narrative Proposal and 3) Administrative Information.’ “ Is it the Government’s intent that the three (3) additional CD Roms* that shall duplicate, in their entirety (with all Attachments) the Offeror’s: 1) Technical/Management Proposal 2) Past Performance Narrative Proposal and 3) Administrative Information – Excluding Pricing Information?”

ANSWER#55: The RFP has been further revised to clarify this information.

QUESTION#56: “Ref: Section E.3, Page 44. “Is it necessary to number each paragraph, even if the paragraph is within the same section that discusses a specific section of the SOW?”

ANSWER#56: While it is necessary to initially identify each initial (first) paragraph to correlate your information with a specific section of the SOW, it not necessary to re-state the same number(s) in sequential paragraph(s) when expanding your thought within the same section of the SOW.

QUESTION#57: “Do foldout pages count as 1 page or 2?”

ANSWER#57: See Answer #15, above.

QUESTION#58: Ref: Section E.3, Page 45. “Since each section is to be evaluated separately is it desirable that each section be submitted under a separate binder cover for the original written copy?”

ANSWER#58: Tabs separating each of the three (3) Sections within the one (1) binder is acceptable.

QUESTION#59: Ref: E.7.2.1, Sub-Factor 1, Understanding of the Government’s Requirements, page 46-47. “The RFP states that the Contractor’s detailed narrative shall set forth its understanding of the Government’s requirements as set forth in a., through e. However, the requirements stated in the SOW, 5.0, Requirements, do not match the categories a., through e., in E.7.2.1 in Sub-Factor 1 section. Is this an oversight, the Government intends to include tasks 5.3, Design and Documentation Support and 5.7, Training Support Requirements in the E.7.2.1, Sub-Factor 1 a., through e., list?”

ANSWER#59: See Answers provided in #40 and #41 above.

QUESTION#60: “Ref: SOW .1, Support Services, Page 12, As set forth in this RFP, Contractor support services shall be required in areas 5.1.1 through 5.1.5. “In Section 5.0, Requirements with 13 tasks, within tasks 5.1, support services only 5 tasks are listed. Is this an oversight, should all tasks, including 5.3 Design and Documentation Support, 5.7 Training and Support Requirements, be included under 5.1 Support Services list?”

ANSWER#60: Refer to Answers #40 and #41 and above.

QUESTION#61: “Is there a font type requirement for the proposal, i.e., Times Newman Roman, etc.”

ANSWER#61: There is no font type requirement for the proposal. Typically, the government recommends either Times New Roman or Courier New.

QUESTION#62: “For the electronic files submitted on the CD-ROM, can the files be in PDF format?”

ANSWER#62: Yes.

QUESTION#63: “a) For the ‘Original’ binder, should the binder include all three (3) sections? b) Or should each section be submitted in a separate binder for a total of three (3) binders?”

ANSWER#63: a) Yes; b) See Answer to #58, above.

QUESTION#64: “Can text in graphics be 8 point font?”

ANSWER#64: See Answer #14, above.

QUESTION#65: “In the solicitation, the deadline for questions is listed as January 31, 2013. However, on the FedBizOpps website, the deadline for questions is listed as January 22, 2013. Please clarify the deadline for questions regarding the solicitation.”

ANSWER#65: The deadline for questions was January 31, 2013.

QUESTION#66: “Can the past Performance Questionnaire be submitted via email?”

ANSWER#66: See Answer#7, above.

QUESTION#67: “Will the government allow more than two (2) past performances from the First Tier subcontractors within the Past Performance Volume to reflect a cumulative team experience?”

ANSWER#67: See Answer #2B, above.

QUESTION#68: “Will the government allow additional pages in Volume III to allow room for Administrative Information such as the ‘E.18, FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications?”

ANSWER#68: As set forth in Answer#10 above, Offeror Representations and Certifications are excluded from the page count. Thus, Volume III page count will not be expanded.

QUESTION#69: “The Solicitation states that the NAICS Code for this procurement is 541330, Engineering Services with a size standard of $14.0M; however according to the SBA Size Standards, NAICS Code 541330 Engineering Services has an exception for Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture which has a size standard of $35.5M, as a majority of the work under this PWS requires Marine Engineering (shipboard related services, wouldn’t the exception to the NAICS Code apply in this case? If not, then why are these services not considered Marine Engineering is defined as the branch of mechanical engineering that deal with the design construction, installation, operation and repair of the machinery of vessels; which is the work required in the PWS?”

ANSWER#69: As set forth in Amendment 0003, issued February 5, 2013, the U.S. SBA, Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) denied the appeal to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. The NAICS Code designation of 541330 and Size Standard of $14.0M remains.

QUESTION#70: “The Solicitation states that the NAICS Code for this procurement is 541330, Engineering Services with a size standard of $14.0M; however according to the SBA Size Standards, NAICS Code 541330 Engineering Services has an exception for Military & Aviation systems/equipment, wouldn’t the exception to the NAICS Code apply in this case? If not, then why are these services not considered Military or Aeronautical applications? The mission of the U.S. Coast Guard is to protect the public, the environment, and the U.S. economic interest – in the nation’s ports and waterways, along the coast o international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security while working together with military to personnel to save lives, enforce the law, operate ports and waterways and protect the environment. How can the U.S. Coast Guard claim not to be a part of the U.S. Military when the very mission statement includes the military and the PWS requires the same type of operations.”

ANSWER#70: See Answer #69, above.

QUESTION#71: “Given that the Coast Guard has set precedent by using NAICS Code 541330 for military equipment installations on previous contracts, is it the government’s intention to limit completion in this case by not invoking the exception allowed under SBA size standards for NAICS Code 541330 Military and Aeronautical Systems ($35.5M) when Title 10 USC clearly defines military ‘armed services’ to include the Coast Guard?”

ANSWER#71: See Answer #69, above.

QUESTION#72: This procurement is being procured under the guidelines of FAR Part 12 Commercial Items, however to use part 12 the services that are being procured must first meet the definition of a Commercial Item as defined by FAR Part 2.101. The services described in the PWS require complex and specialized engineering services along with cleared personnel and facilities (see DD 254) as well as requirements to satisfy DHS, USCG, NAVSEA, DISA, ABS, ISO, Welding, NDT, CAS, classified storage, and GFP/M/E standards and specifications.

The requirements and capabilities are not commonly found in the commercial market place. To have this work defined at the Task Order level would then make the item non-commercial at the Task Order level. Most commercial operations do not require the level of insurance, the complex contract clauses provided in this procurement, nor have requirements for OCONUS coverage as this procurement requires. Request the government review the scope of services against the commercial market to verify that these services and market prices are available for these services to meet the definition and requirements of FAR Part 12.”

ANSWER#72: The below response was previously provided under Answer#62, Installation & Logistics Management Services (ILMS), QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO HSCG44-13-R-ILMSDRAFT. The procurement shall remain within the guidelines of FAR Part 12, Commercial Items.

QUESTION#73: “Can the Government please clarify how many pages will be counted against an 11x17 foldout?”

ANSWER#73: See Answer#15, above.

QUESTION#74: “Can the Government please clarify the number of copies required for the final proposal submission? The instructions state requirements that are contracting and unclear – One original copy and 3 CD Roms; One original copy and 1 CD Rom + 3 additional CD Roms (Tech and PP only); One original copy and 3 CD Roms + three binder Copies. ..”

ANSWER#74: See Answer #19, above.

QUESTION#75: “Can the Government please clarify how many of the six past performances are acceptable for 1st tier subcontractors?”

ANSWER#75: See Answer #2B, above.

QUESTION#76: “For bidding purposes, should Offerors assume that all work will be performed on a Government site, or should the rates proposed cover work at both Government and contractor facilities?”

ANSWER#76: Refer to the RFP, Section E, Clause E.8 FACTOR 4 – Price, which identifies the requirement for on-site and off-site rates.

QUESTION#77: “a) Is it ‘General and Specialized Experience’ that may be substituted for Education,” or is it “General or Specialized Experience may be substituted for Education?”

b) Must both criteria be met to be an acceptable substitute, or does meeting one or the other meet the substitution requirement?”

ANSWER#77: a) Each individual Labor Category must be considered on a case-by-case basis. As such, Offerors are required to consider the requirements of the individual labor category separately. In general, both General and Specialized Experience must be met in order to substitute experience for education; b) See Answer #77, above.

QUESTION#78: “By what method or process will the Government establish the ‘competitive range’ and assign companies to it?”

ANSWER#78: The following response, previously addressed under Answer#69, Installation & Logistics Management Services (ILMS), QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO HSCG44-13-R-ILMSDRAFT is provided: As set forth in the RFP, Clause E.7.1, Evaluation of Offers, and Clause E.22, Discussions, the government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions. However, Paragraph E.22, Discussions, has been revised should discussions be conducted (See FAR 15.306(c) (1).

QUESTION#79:“a) The RFP appears to identify only 1 Key Personnel position that of “Project Manager”. Does the Government only want Offerors to identify 1 Key Person or are there other positions (or multiple resumes in the same position) that the Government wishes to have identified and resumes provided for evaluation? Is it the key person the Program Manager or Project Manager? b) Where in the proposal response should resumes be provided? b) What is the page limit for each resume? c) will the government confirm that resume page will be excluded from (or outside of) the 25 page Technical proposal page limit?”

ANSWER#79: a) see Answer#33, above; b) see RFP, revised Section E.3 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Requirements for Proposal Format; c) the government does not limit resume pages; d) see response in a) within this Answer.

QUESTION#80: “The Place of Performance provided is government facilities. However contractor facilities are also required. A) Will the government require separate government and contractor site rates or will a single rate per labor category be required for all work locations? B) Will the government specify if the charges for Warehousing include Attachment 2, Pricing Spreadsheet under the NTE for ODCs, the NTE for Material Support, or are they to be separately priced on a TO basis? C) Will Warehouse pricing be evaluated in the award of the IDIQ? D. Are all certifications provided as attachments exempt from inclusion in response page count requirements?”

ANSWER#80: The below stated responses were previously provided in Answer#72, Installation & Logistics Management Services (ILMS), QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO HSCG44-13-R-ILMSDRAFT. 1) Attachment 2 has been revised to reflect both on-site and off-site unit and total pricing; 2) the Government anticipates that the loaded labor rate will contain indirect costs that would include those costs associated with the office and warehouse space (up to 20,000 sq. ft.). Warehouse space in excess of 20,000 sq. ft. will be proposed and evaluated at the task order level. 3) Requirements for Warehousing in excess of 20,000 sq. ft. will be proposed and evaluated at the task order level. However, the loaded labor rates will be evaluated at the IDIQ level. 3) Warehouse pricing will be evaluated at the TO level; 4) Certifications that are included in the proposal as an “Attachment” do not count against the page count per Section E of the SOW.

QUESTION#81: “Solicitation page 17, Section C.16, Travel, paragraph b) states that “annual estimates total…” which appears different that the amount provided in Attachment 2. Request clarification.”

ANSWER#81: The RFP has been revised. Section C, Paragraph C.22 now addresses Travel, which does not conflict with Attachment 2.

QUESTION#82: “Is there missing text in Solicitation C.8 particularly, “if the Coast Guard does not adhere (/) To time period(s) specified for deliverable(s) the contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer Program manager and/or the Contracting Officer Representative (COR).”

ANSWER#82: The RFP Section C, Paragraph C.8 Review of Deliverables, has been revised.

QUESTION#83:” A) The Solicitation and PWS provide guidance on Normal Work Hours, including guidance on a 40-hour maximum to the workweek. If more than 40 hours in a week are required on a task by an employee required to receive overtime pay, B) how will authorizations and adjustments to the rate be obtained?”

ANSWER#83: The government does not anticipate overtime. However, the RFP, as revised, incorporates FAR Clause FAR 52.212.4, ALT 1, by reference. If more than 40 hours are required at the task order level, overtime work shall be approved by the Contracting Officer in advance. B) Authorizations will be approved by the KO; adjustments to the TO will then be negotiated at the TO level.

QUESTION#84: “It appears that the rates being proposed in Attachment 2 will serve as ceiling labor rates for all task orders proposed under the resultant contract. It is clear that discounts can be proposed for individual task orders, but it is unclear why discounts would be proposed in Attachment 2. Please clarify.”

ANSWER#84: Same rationale applies.

QUESTION#85: “a) Attachment 7 provides a Wage Determination (WD) covering portions of North Carolina and Virginia and Virginia and no other WDs are provided in the RFP. Please clarify whether an Offeror is to provide pricing applicable to all potential work locations specified in B.8 or for the areas covered by the provided WD only. b) If pricing is to be provided for all locations, will the Government please provide the appropriate WDs or leave the basis for the pricing of ceiling labor rates to the discretion of each Offeror? c) If pricing for locations other than those covered by the WD provided is left to the discretion of each Offeror, how will the Government evaluate the realism of each offeror’s pricing as it relates to the ability to provide services at all potential work locations?”

ANSWER#85: a) Work locations identified in the RFP, Clause B.7 Place of Performance, coincide with the geographical areas identified in Attachment 7, Wage Determination DOL W.L. 05-2543, Rev#14 (e.g., Portsmouth, VA.) b) Sub-Paragraph (b) of Clause B.7, Place of Performance, refers to other location(s) where performance may be required (within CONUS) that are unknown. If deemed necessary, WDs for geographical areas outside DOL W.L. 05-2543 will be attached to the individual task order(s) at the time of issuance of the TO RFP. c) Proposed pricing will be evaluated IAW the RFP, Section E, Paragraph E.9 Instructions for Preparation of the Price Proposal.

QUESTION#86: Can the Government please clarify the name of the program? The PWS states it as “installation and Logistics Management Services.” The RFP states it as “Installation, Logistics and Maintenance Support Services.” Attachment 5 states it as Installation, Logistics and Management Services and as “Installation and Logistics Management Support Services.”

ANSWER#86: Installation and Logistics Management Services (ILMS).

QUESTION#87: “The Government states:”…The Government anticipates that teaming may occur at the contract level” and then goes on to say: ‘A Core Team’ is any combination of a Prime contractor plus up to four (4) core team members submitting a proposal for an IDIQ award and identifying themselves as a ‘collective resource for contract performance.’ (A) Please clarify the Government’s definition of a ‘Core Team’, Collective Resource’ and ‘Collective Effort’ as used in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this section; (B) Can the Government clarify why the Prime Contractor’s Core Team is limited to four (4) subcontractors; (C) Can the Core Team be comprised of the various categories of Small Business as well as Medium and Large businesses? (D) Does the Prime Contractor have to identify members of his ‘team’ as a ‘core team’ or can the team members just be considered price subcontractors? (E) Does the Government differentiate between ‘Core Team’ members and subcontractors? If so, please provide that differentiation.

ANSWER#87: (A) See Response provided in Answer#6.2, above; (B) See Answer #6 in its entirety; (C) and (D) The only requirement for the Prime Contractor to identify Subcontractors at any level is in Section III of the Administrative and Price Proposal. Otherwise, unless at the JV level, they may be considered ‘price’ subcontractors; (E) Yes; refer to the RFP, Section, C, Clause C.47, Teaming Arrangements.

QUESTION#88: “In subparagraph (b) the Government states “The Prime contractor may team with up to four other small businesses. (A) Are the four other small businesses mentioned in this subparagraph (a)? (B) Is the government placing a limitation on the number of businesses that can be on a Prime Contractor’s team?”

ANSWER#88: See Answer#87, above.

QUESTION#89: “In subparagraph (b) the Government states: ‘The Prime contractor does not have to be teamed with other firms as long as the team members meet the size standard corresponding to the NAICS codes for this contract. (A) Is the Government placing a requirement on a Prime Contractor’s team members that each team member must meet the NAICS code size standard?

ANSWER#89: (A) Yes. Refer to RFP, Section, C, Clause C.47, Teaming Arrangements, subparagraph (c).

QUESTION#90: “In subparagraph (f) the Government states: ‘As it relates to this ILMS effort, a core team member shall not be substituted; however, in exceptional cases the substitution may be permitted as long as the substitution is an employee of a ‘small’ company as defined under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS codes for this contract and meets the capability standards set forth in both SBA rules and regulations and this SOW.” (A) Can the Government clarify the connection between the substitution of a Core Team member with ‘an employee of a ‘small’ company as defined under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS codes for this contract…’ as used in this subparagraph?”

ANSWER#90: (A) Refer to RFP, Section, C, Clause C.47, Teaming Arrangements, subparagraph (c). If still unclear, recommend you obtain specific guidance re: business compliance requirements relating to the NAICS code/size standards from your local SBA district office.

QUESTION#91: “In this section, the Government states: “A…