Attachment_17_Additional_Questions_and_Answers_6.25.18.pdf

M67004-18-R-0014 Attachment 17

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO VENDOR SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

1. RFP Reference: Section G-3 Invoicing, Vouchering and Payment Instructions

Topic: Overtime

Comment #1: Overtime is an element of labor costs within the Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs and is not separately recorded in Section B. As such, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs, to include overtime, should bear the same fee as regular labor.

Comment #2: Offerors are required to comply with their Disclosure Statement which may require all

Travel and Materials/ODC/CAP to be reimbursed at actual cost plus applicable indirect rate burdens.

Recommendation: Recommend G-3 be revised to reflect “Travel and Materials/ODC/CAP shall strictly be reimbursement of actual cost plus applicable indirect rate burdens pursuant to their Disclosure

Statement and shall not bear fee.

Government Response: Section G-3 has been revised to state “Overtime, Travel, Materials, Other Direct

Costs, and Contractor Acquired Property shall strictly be reimbursement of actual cost and applicable indirect rate burdens pursuant to their Disclosure Statement and shall not bear fee.”

2. RFP Reference: Section G-3 Invoicing, Vouchering and Payment Instructions

Topic: Contract Type

Comment: It appears that this clause only applies to the Cost Plus Fixed Fee, and Cost CLINs and not the

Firm Fixed Price CLINs given the amount of detail to be provided on the invoice.

Recommendation: Recommend the Government amend the Solicitation to state that this clause is applicable to the Cost Plus Fixed Fee and Cost CLINs only.

Government Response: Section G-3 has been revised to clarify the applicability for CPFF and Cost

Reimburseable CLINS.

3. RFP Reference: Section B (CLIN description), Section C Para 1.B.6, Section H-11 Over and Above, Section G-3 Invoicing, Vouchering and Payment Instructions and Section L, paragraph 10.4.2 Cost

Reimbursable Material, Travel and Overtime

Topic: Over and Above pricing

Comment: There appear to be conflicting terms with regard to over and above work:

- Section B CLINs X014 show the contract type as CPFF.

- Section C Para 1.B.6 states "Over and Above support" requires separate pricing and negotiation

- H-11 states that the pricing structure will “not be limited to fixed price but will be determined based on the type and scope of the work to be performed”.

Although each task order will be on a cost plus fixed fee basis, the costs and fee of the over and above work should be subject to negotiation, including the negotiation of which elements of cost should be fee bearing.

Recommendation: Recommend the solicitation be revised to reflect:

- Section B, CLIN x014 descriptions: Delete Material and Overtime shall not be subject to fee.

- Section H: Change the last sentence to read, “The pricing structure of the effort under this CLIN will be determined based on the type and scope of work to be performed.”

- Section L, para 10.4.2: Remove the last sentence that reads, “Fee is not permitted on Cost

Reimbursable Material, Travel, or Overtime.”

Government Response: Noted. Fee is not permitted on Cost Reimbursable Material, Travel, or Overtime

4. RFP Reference: Section L, para 10.4.2 Cost Reimbursable Material, Travel and Overtime

Topic: CLIN reference

Comment: This paragraph incorrectly references “CLIN X013 Over and Above”.

Recommendation: Recommend L, para 10.4.2 be revised to reflect “CLIN X014 Over and Above”.

Government Response: Section L, para 10.4.2 has been revised to reference CLIN X014.

5. RFP Reference: Section M, Factor E Cost/Price

Topic: CLIN reference

Comment: This paragraph incorrectly references “CLIN X013 Over and Above, CLIN X014

Exercise/Contingency/Emergent Requirements, CLIN X015 Travel (associated with CPFF CLINs) and

CLIN 0017 Contract Transition”.

Recommendation: Recommend L, para 10.4.2 be revised to reflect “CLIN X014 Over and Above, CLIN

X015 Exercise/Contingency/Emergent Requirements, CLIN X016 Travel (associated with CPFF CLINs) and CLIN 0018 Contract Transition”.

Government Response: Section M-4 para 3 was revised by Amendment 0002 to correct CLIN references.

6. RFP Reference: Section H-8-7 and Section L, Section 10 Volume VI-Cost/Price Proposal, para

10.5(f)

Topic: Indirect Rate Ceilings

Comment: The nature and structure of both the MCPP contract and requirements do not lend themselves to the establishment of indirect rate limitations; therefore, we respectfully request the associated requirement be removed. As the contract will be CAS covered, each Offeror will have to employ its overhead rates in accordance with its disclosed accounting practices. These rates will be reviewed and monitored by DCAA/DCMA. The application of indirect rate caps is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of a cost reimbursable contract (or CLIN). The types of cost recovered through indirect rates include the costs associated with running the businesses that provides the corporate structure necessary for contractors to have the financial ability to execute in a dynamic environment. Caps on those rates create an artificial barrier to recover relevant indirect expenses, thus inhibiting industry’s ability to innovate and support MCPP contract objectives.

Government Response: In the absence of established Forward Pricing Rate Agreements, the

Government’s intent is to execute a contract with established Indirect Rate Ceilings within which the

Government can anticipate incurred costs.

7. RFP Reference: Section B

Topic: Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs

Comment: Typically for a Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLIN, Schedule B represents the Estimated Costs, the

Fixed Fee and the Cost Plus Fixed Fee and not the “Max Cost, Fixed Fee and Total Max Cost + Fixed

Fee. Stating Max Cost could be misinterpreted to mean Fixed Price or a Not To Exceed Amount.

Recommendation: Recommend Schedule B be revised to reflect the following terminology for the Cost

Plus Fixed Fee CLINs as follows (using CLIN 0002ab as an example):

EXAMPLE:

ITEM

NO

SUPPLIES/SERVICES MAX

QUANTITY

UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0002AB Undefined Undefined Undefined

USNS Pililaau

The MCMC shall provide all necessary resources to execute all tasks and responsibilities to the established standards in accordance with Section C.3

Maintenance Activities.

CPFF

CPFF completion IAW FAR 16.306(d)(1)

FOB: Destination

ESTIMATED MAX COST

FIXED FEE

TOTAL ESTIMATED MAX COST + FEE

Government Response: The Procurement Desktop Defense (PD2) represents the services in the example as a Max Quantity due to the fact that the resultant contract will be an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite

Quantity contract. Schedule B CLINS will be selected for Task Orders issued after contract award, the

Max Quantity identifies the maximum number of items that may be ordered against specific CLINS.

8. RFP Reference: Section B

Topic: CLIN 0002AN (for example)

Comment: Some Cost Plus Fixed Fee completion CLINS show a Max Quantity of “12” and a Unit of

“Set”. It appears this is for a firm fixed price whereby the contractor would be reimbursed for 12 fixed monthly payments which is not applicable to cost plus fixed fee. This raises confusion on contract type since Cost Plus Fixed Fee completion does not have pre-established quantities, units, and unit prices for purposes of ordering and reimbursement to the MCMC.

Plus Fixed Fee CLINs as follows (using CLIN 0002AN as an example):

SUPPLIES/SERVIC

ES

MAX

QUANTITY

UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0002AN 12 Undefined Set Undefined Undefined

MCPP-Norway CONUS

The MCMC shall provide all necessary resources to execute all tasks and responsibilities to the established standards in accordance with Section C.3

Maintenance Activities.

CPFF

ESTIMATEDMAX COST

TOTAL ESTIMATEDMAX COST + FEE

Government Response: The Government has clarified the definition of a set in Section A of the RFP for

MAP-K and MCPP-N. The amount identified as the “Unit Price” is the cost estimated for performing maintenance services for the equipment identified in the Set. See response to question 7 above regarding max quantities.

9. RFP Reference: Section B

Topic: CLIN 0003AA (for example)

Comment: Some Cost Plus Fixed Fee completion CLINS show a Max Quantity of “51” and a Unit of

“Ship Set”. It appears this is for a firm fixed price whereby the contractor would be reimbursed for 51

Ship Sets. This raises confusion on contract type since Cost Plus Fixed Fee completion does not have pre-established quantities, units, and unit prices for purposes of ordering and reimbursement to the MCMC.

Plus Fixed Fee CLINs as follows (using CLIN 0003AA as an example):

SUPPLIES/SERVIC

ES

MAX

QUANTITY

UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0003AA 51 Undefined Ship Set

Undefined

Undefined

Lighterage Phase Delta

The MCMC shall provide 51 pieces of lighterage in accordance with

Section C.6 Navy of the attached SOW

CPFF

ESTIMATEDMAX COST

TOTAL ESTIMATEDMAX COST + FEE

Government Response: CLIN X003 (Lighterage Phase Delta) has been revised to segregate ship sets associated with specific MPF ships. The amounts and type of watercraft that are associated with each ship are identified in Attachment C.1-9 and the revised historical information.

10. RFP Reference: Section B

Topic: CLIN 0003AB (for example)

Comment: Some Cost Plus Fixed Fee completion CLINS show a Max Quantity of “10” and a Unit of

“Task”. It appears this is for a firm fixed price whereby the contractor would be reimbursed for a Task.

This raises confusion on contract type since Cost Plus Fixed Fee completion does not have pre-established quantities, units, and unit prices for purposes of ordering and reimbursement to the MCMC.

Recommendation: Recommend the Government clarify its intention with regard to quantities and units on cost plus fixed fee completion CLINs in Schedule B.

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SER

VICES

MAX

QUANTITY

10 Undefined

UNIT

Undefined

Task

UNIT PRICE

Undefined

MAX AMOUNT

0003AB

Control Systems Support (CSS)

CPFF

In accordance with C.6.H SYSCOM Software Support Activity (Tenant)

CPFF completion IAW FAR 16.306(d)(1)

FOB: Destination

MAX COST

TOTAL MAX COST + FEE

Government Response: CLIN X003AL & AM have been revised to segregate hull types associated with technical refresh. The estimated CLIN quantities represent hull types projected for tech refresh during specified periods. Reference SOW Attachment C.6-46 for amplifying information for the tech refresh statements of work. CLIN identification as CPFF “completion type” signifies completion of tech refresh for specific hull types.

11. RFP Reference: Section B

Topic: CLIN 0005AA (for example)

Comment: Some Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINS do not indicate whether they are “completion” or “level of effort”.

Recommendation: Recommend the Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs in Schedule B reflect either

“completion” or “level of effort”.

Government Response: Noted. Each CLIN and related SLINs have been revised to appropriately identify whether the CLIN type is CPFF-LOE or CPFF- Completion.

12. RFP Reference: Section B

Topic: CLIN 0005AA (for example)

Comment: Some Cost Plus Fixed Fee completion CLINS show a Quantity of “12” and a Unit of

“Months”. It appears this is for a firm fixed price whereby the contractor would be reimbursed for 12 fixed monthly payments which is not applicable to cost plus fixed fee. This raises confusion on contract type since Cost Plus Fixed Fee completion does not have pre-established quantities, units, and unit prices for purposes of ordering and reimbursement to the MCMC

Recommendation: Recommend Schedule B be revised to reflect appropriate terminology for the Cost

Plus Fixed Fee CLINs.

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SER

VICES

MAX

QUANTITY

UNIT

Undefined

UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0005AA Undefined Undefined

Maritime Prepositioning Ships Supply

CPFF

In accordance with C.4 Supply. MPS support is defined as all support required to meet the MMC.

FOB: Destination

MAX COST

TOTAL MAX COST + FEE

Government Response: CLIN X005 and related SLINs have been revised to identify the appropriate

CLIN/SLIN type as CPFF- LOE. In addition, the Level of Effort in terms of number of hours have been incorporated for each SLIN.

13. RFP Reference: H-8.3 Fee on Task Orders

Topic: Term v. Completion form

Comment: Paragraph (a) states, “Fee is subject to proportionate downward or upward adjustment as a result of changes in scope. This includes hours originally estimated but not actually ordered on a term task order.” Please clarify that the statement, “This includes hours originally estimated but not actually ordered on a term task order” applies only to the level of effort CLINs.

Government Response: Section H-8.3 a) states “The same ratio of fee awarded in the initial contract award will be used in any task orders issued unless a lower fee is negotiated.” The fixed fee shall be prorated based on the qty ordered under each Task Order as compared to the maximum order qty identified in the ID/IQ. For example, a given LOE identified by the Government for a particular IDIQ

CLIN is 100,000 hours. Subsequent to ID/IQ award a Task Order is issued which contains 50,000 of the hours from the ID/IQ CLIN. The fixed fee included on the Task Order will be 50% of the fixed fee associated with the ID/IQ CLIN since the task order represents 50% of the ID/IQ CLIN value

(50,000/100,000). If the contractor provides less than number of the hours included in the task order, an equitable downward adjustment of the associated fixed fee for that task order will be made. As an example, if the fee on the ID/IQ CLIN is $1,000,000, the amount of fee included in the task order would be $500,000; should the contractor provide only 40,000 hours in lieu of the 50,000 hours, the fixed fee would be reduced to $400,000 ($500,000 x (400,000/500,000). For example, a given completion type

CLIN identified by the Government for a particular IDIQ CLIN has a qty of 2 ship sets. Subsequent to

ID/IQ award a Task Order is issued which contains 1 ship set from the ID/IQ CLIN. The fixed fee included on the Task Order will be 50% of the fixed fee associated with the ID/IQ CLIN since the task order represents 50% of the ID/IQ CLIN value (1/2). As an example, if the fee on the ID/IQ CLIN is

$1,000,000, the amount of fee included in the task order would be $500,000.

14. RFP Reference: Schedule B

Topic: 900x CLINs -

Comment: We note these CLINs are “deleted”. Should they be removed from Section B entirely or do they represent placeholder CLINs?

Recommendation: Recommend the 900x CLINs be removed from Section B in their entirety.

Government Response: All 900x CLINs have been deleted from the requirement.

15. RFP Reference: Schedule B

Topic: Level of Effort CLINs

Comment: The only reference in the Solicitation to the Level of Effort (LOE) CLINs is in Section B and includes a statement that the LOE is in accordance with FAR 16.306(d)(2). Section H does not specifically address Cost Plus Fixed Fee Level of Effort (term) payment of the fixed fee, such as any adjustments to the fixed fee based on the under or over delivery of hours and reimbursement of the fee as the work progresses.

Recommendation: Recommend Section H-8 include terms to support Cost Plus Fixed Fee Level of

Effort (term) payment of fixed fee.

Government Response: FAR 16.306 (d) describes the fix fee payment conditions for CPFF- Completion and CPFF-LOE. Section H-8.3 has been revised to provide clarification and reference FAR 16.306(d).

16. RFP Reference: SOW Section J, Exhibit A, pg 470 of 511

Topic: CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRLs)

Comment: SOW Section J, Exhibit A provides a comprehensive list of CDRLs by CLIN and SOW reference. The Navy CDRLs listed in Exhibit A do not match the multiple CDRLs, DD Forms 1423-1, provided for each CLIN.

Recommendation: Request BICmd clarify which lists of CDRLs are correct, Section J Exhibit A or the

ATCH #8 DD Forms 1423-1.

Government Response: Navy CDRLs have been verified against Section J, Exhibit A, and all DD 1423-

1’s.

17. RFP Reference: SOW Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices (multiple pages) and Section C.6

Navy (pg 327, lines 4, 24, 27)

Topic: SLIN/CLIN STRUCTURE AND INACCURACIES

Comment: SOW Section B identifies multiple SLINs/CLINs for MCMC Navy supplies or services.

Section C.6 further delineates when specific CLINs will be used based on Organization or maintenance phases. While the specific requirements in C.6 appear to accurately align with Section B, three instances of CLIN references on page 327 under Phase B and Phase C Maintenance do not align with Section B.

For example, page 327 lines 4 and 27 reference CLIN X005AG which is not a valid CLIN according to

Section B. Page 327, Line 24 states that CLIN X005AF is for Technology Refresh however, Section B states that X003AB is for Control Systems Support (CSS) / Technology Refresh.

Recommendation: Request provide correct CLINs on page 327, lines 4, 24, and 27.

Government Response: CLINs and SOW have been revised as necessary to ensure each task is appropriately referenced.

18. RFP Reference: Section I

Topic: FAR 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages

Question: The FAR prescription 11.501(a) states, “Use the clause at 52.211-11, Liquidated Damages --

Supplies, Services, or Research and Development, in fixed-price solicitations and contracts for supplies, services, or research and development when the contracting officer determines that liquidated damages are appropriate (see 11.501(a))”. Since the MCPP solicitation/contract is now predominantly cost reimbursable (only exception being transition and program and risk management), it would appear that this clause is not applicable to the MCPP solicitation/contract.

Recommendation: Respectfully recommend the Government remove FAR 52.211-11 Liquidated

Damages clause in its entirety from the solicitation and contract.

Government Response: Although the resultant contract may be predominantly CPFF and Cost

Reimburseable, the Program Management (CLIN X001) effort is considered to be a Firm Fixed price effort. The referenced Liquidated Damages associated with delay of ship departure is within the responsibility and control of the Program Management team of the MCMC. In addition, FAR 52.211-11 has been revised to include Liquidated Damages associated with government reinspection of nonconforming services.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_000.htm#P1491_209617 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/11.htm#P215_33602

19. RFP Reference: L-5 6, ITO for Volume III

Topic: Workload Matrices

Comment: Section L-5 6 states, “The Offeror shall provide a workload matrix with analysis of manning levels by labor category (to include description of responsibilities for exempt employees) and by location to meet all USMC workload requirements; the workload matrix shall correlate and provide traceability to the required Employee Qualifications provided in SOW Attachment C.1-7.” Later in the same section, it states, “Offerors shall provide a workload matrix with analysis of manning levels by labor category to meet all USMC workload requirements, to include, intermittent support and “Over and Above” requirements; the workload matrix shall correlate to the required Employee Qualifications provided in

SOW Attachment C.1-7.”

Recommendation: It appears that the customer is requesting two matrices. Is this the case, or does the customer intend for offerors to submit one matrix?

Government Response: Section L-5 6 has been revised for clarification.

20. RFP Reference: Section C.11 Management Support Systems

Topic: Software Maintenance

Comment: C.11.D.1 states “The MCMC shall perform maintenance on voice, video and data service delivery software (including telephone service delivery equipment) IAW CmdO 2620.1, USMC Cyber

Security regulations and directives, and any applicable End User Licensing Agreements (EULA). The

MCMC shall obtain authorization from the Government prior to conducting maintenance procedures that interrupt normally available services. CmdO 2620.1 outlines available maintenance windows and authorization procedures. Service interruptions for maintenance procedures must be scheduled prior to execution.”

Question: Is MCMC responsible for software maintenance of the vendor installed telephone service delivery equipment software or will there be vendor support?

Government Response:

RFP states, in part "The MCMC shall perform maintenance on voice, video and data service delivery software (including telephone service delivery equipment) IAW CmdO 2620.1, USMC Cyber Security regulations and directives, and any applicable End User Licensing Agreements (EULA)." Telephone service delivery equipment is resident on the Marine Corps Enterprise Network (MCEN) and therefore must be meet regulatory requirements associated with cyber security and vulnerability management.

Software maintenance in this respect requires the MCMC to perform those actions necessary to ensure telephone service delivery equipment software is scanned, patched, updated and upgraded consistent with the cyber security regulations and practices required to maintain the Authority To Operate (ATO).

Vendor support will be made available in those instances that required tasks that are outside cyber security related functions

21. RFP Reference: L.10.4.1

Topic: Service Contract Act (SCA)/CBA Wages and Benefits

Comment: Section L.10.4.1 of the Draft RFP stated “Personnel subject to the DOL WD/CBA should be proposed at the same rate for all ten years.” This language was removed and not included in the final

RFP.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Government stipulate in Sections L and M that all bidders are to use the labor categories and price the wages and benefits specified in the CBA for the base year and all option periods.

Government Response: The referenced phrase was removed from the final RFP. The government will not restrict offerors from propose rates higher than stated in the CBA or Area Wage Determination.

22. RFP Reference: SF33

Topic: Proposal Due Date

Comment/Recommendation: Please confirm if the proposal is due July 25th at 12am or 12pm.

Government Response: The RFP due date has been extended by Amendment 0002 to August 27 at 3:00 pm eastern time.

23. RFP Reference: H-10(a)(1) Travel Procedures for Shipboard Personnel

Topic: Lodging and Subsistence for Shipboard Personnel in Port

Comment: H-10 (1) of the RFP states: “The MCMC shall not be reimbursed for lodging or subsistence for shipboard personnel while in Port during the MMC”. Shipboard personnel’s permanent duty station is aboard ship at OCONUS locations so while in port these employees are considered on TDY status in accordance with the JTR, Chapter 2: Standard Travel and Transportation Allowances 0201-0206, set forth below:

“TDY In Connection with Fitting-out Conversion of a Ship or Service Craft Per diem is authorized for a Service member during each fitting-out or conversion period. This period includes the day the ship is commissioned or service craft is placed in-service, and the day the ship is decommissioned or service craft is placed out of service. Per diem ends on the day the

Service member’s assignment is changed from either of the following:

1. TDY In connection with fitting-out or conversion of a ship or service craft to permanent duty aboard that ship or service craft.”

Since the ship while in-port is essentially is taken out of service the shipboard personnel are entitled to travel allowances.

Recommendation: Recommend this restriction be removed since the MCMC will incur these travel costs and the Shipboard personnel CLINS are CPFF.

Government Response: Travel has been revised per Amendment 0002.

24. RFP Reference: Historical Workload and Section C.7

Topic: Shipboard Staffing

Comment/Recommendation: Since shipboard staffing is a Proposal Focus Area, will the Government dictate the minimum shipboard staffing requirements to include MOS designation, exempt, and non-exempt?

Government Response: Shipboard support has been identified as a CPFF-LOE type CLIN. The

Government has revised all CPFF-LOE CLIN/SLINs to identified the estimated number labor hours. The estimated hours represent the Government’s best estimate to fulfill the requirements and is provided for advisory and estimating purposes.

25. RFP Reference: Section I, DFAR 252 252.237-7023 CONTINUATION OF ESSENTIAL

CONTRACTOR SERVICES (OCT 2010) and 252.237-7024 NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF

ESSENTIAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES (OCT 2010) and Section L 6.

Topic: Continuation of Essential Services Plan

Comment: DFAR 252.237-7024 states “The offeror shall provide with its offer a written plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services during periods of crisis.” There is no requirement in Section L for this Plan, however Section L 6. Volume II-Management Proposal does require offerors to address “mission essential contractor services”.

Recommendation: Please confirm that the Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan is excluded from the page count?

Government Response: Clarified by Amendment 0002.

26. RFP Reference: Section B Page 3/581

Topic: Period of Performance

Background: In CLIN 0001 of Section B, the quantity has been adjusted to 12 months.

In CLIN 0001 of Section F, the dates have been adjusted to 01APR2019 – 31MAR24.

In L-5, #2 ESTIMATED PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION, the Phase-

In Period states “90 days/estimated to begin 01 April 2019”, and the Base Period states “From Award

Date continuing for 5 years.”

Question/Comment: The Period of Performance for the Base Period Year 1 is not consistent between

Section B, Section F and Section L and leads the offeror to propose 12 months of costs for the base period and the phase-in of 3 months.

Will the client clarify if the Base Period Year 1 is inclusive (3 Months Transition + 9 Months Base

Period) or exclusive (3 Months Transition + 12 Months Base Period) of the Transition Period?

Recommendation: The Base Period Year 1 CLINs in section B are updated from 12 months to 9 months. The dates in Section F are updated from 01APR2019 – 31MAR2024 to 30JUN2019 –

31MAR2024 These changes will make the sections match up.

Government Response: Section F has been revised in Amendments 0001 and 0002. Section B, Section

F, and Section L are correct as currently written. The structure provides flexibility for ordering during the phase-in and basic ordering period.

27. RFP Reference: Section H-10 Travel Procedures

Topic: Travel Reimbursement

Question: The Government appears to have proposed guidelines for travel reimbursement that could be interpreted as operating against the spirit and intent of cost reimbursement principals under the FAR and appear to penalize the contractor for employment termination events beyond its control in the performance of the contract.

- Para H.10(c)(1): This paragraph suggests that reasonably incurred travel expenses will not be reimbursed if contractor personnel are removed from the MCPP contract for cause (such as unsatisfactory performance, improper conduct or similar cause). This appears to be penalizing the contractor for removing personnel for behavior or performance issues, which arguably would be in the best interest of the Government. If the remedy for the performance or behavior issue is employment termination, the contractor, as the employing entity, remains responsible for returning that terminated employee to their home of record from which they were deployed in support of the contract. The contractor, and indirectly the government, relocated the employee to the OCONUS assignment and have an employment relationship good faith obligation to return the departing employee to their CONUS home of record. Unless there was an arbitrary contractor-directed removal of an OCONUS employee supporting the MCPP contract, it is unclear as to why the Government would object to the reimbursement of reasonable contract administration travel expenses incurred by the contractor as a result of the relocation of contractor personnel back to their CONUS home of record.

- Para H.10(c)(1) and H.10(d)(1): Statements in these paragraphs suggest that if an employee, that was hired by the contractor in good faith, resigns or is otherwise terminated by the contractor for unsatisfactory performance, improper conduct or similar cause, the Government would expect to recoup any associated travel cost if the employee resigns his/her position. Again, this seems to penalize the contractor for employment termination events beyond its control.

Under applicable U.S. state or territory employment laws where contractor personnel are considered “employees at will” (Florida is an “at-will” state), either the contractor or the employee have the right to terminate employment relationship for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, it seems appropriate that the Government should reimburse the contractor in the event relocation costs to the CONUS home of record are incurred by the contractor as a result of an employee voluntary resignation from performing services in support of the contract.

Recommendation: Respectfully recommend the Government remove H.10(c)(1) and H.10(d)(1) in their entirety.

Government Response: The Contractor is expected to conduct due diligence during the hiring process, and if necessary, execute a condition of employment agreement that specifies travel costs associated with termination for cause or voluntary resignation prior to completion of term of assignment will be recouped from the employee.

28. RFP Reference: Section B and Section C

Topic: CLIN/SLIN Descriptions

Comment/Recommendation: Recommend the Government provide the related SOW section/paragraph in each of the CLIN/SLIN descriptions. This will allow offerors to understand how to price the specific

SOW sections/paragraphs in support of each CLIN/SLIN.

Government Response: Each CLIN/SLIN list the related SOW section and paragraph, as well as each paragraph of the SOW is labeled with the corresponding CLIN.

29. Since several Offerors have the necessary qualifications and perform efforts similar to what is being procured under this Solicitation, would the Government consider changing the Technical evaluation criteria to a Pass/Fail in order to increase competition and reduce proposal costs for all bidders?

Government Response: The complexity of the requirement(s) describe in the RFP necessitate the ability to select the offeror who represents the Best Value to the Government by conducting a Trade-Off

Assessment.

30. In order to ensure a level playing field during the evaluation phase and more closely align to the

Government’s Most Probable Cost(MPC) model, will the Government consider providing the minimal amount of hours by labor category required for each section of work for all the Cost Reimbursable

CLIN’s?

Government Response: The Government has identified the number of hours associated with the CPFF-

LOE CLINS. The number of hours identified represents the Government’s best estimate of the level of effort to fulfill the requirements and is provided for advisory and estimating purposes.

31. Respectfully request the proposal due date is extended by 45 days to allow the above suggestions to be incorporated into the Solicitation.

Government Response: The RFP was extended an additional 30 days by Amendment 0001 and by another 33 days by Amendment 0003. Proposals are due August 27, 2018 at 3:00 pm eastern standard time.

32. SF 33, Submission Date – The submission date on the SF33 of the amended solicitation is 12:00 AM on July 25.

Could the Government confirm that proposals must be received by July 24 at midnight? RFP p. 1 of 490

Government Response: Corrected.

33. ATTACHMENT 5 – In which proposal volume does the Government require offerors to submit the DD 254?

RFP p. 202 of 490

Government Response: As revised in Section L-5 Paragraph 12.1.1, the completed DD 254 is to be submitted with the required documentation in Volume VIII.

34. SOW C.2.B MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT – What is the maintenance seclude average turnaround time?

RFP p. 231 of 490

Government Response: It is unclear as to what specific turnaround time this is refering to, however, Offerors shall refer to SOW C.3 and the MMC schedule with the spreadload of each specific vessel for additional information pertaining to maintenance requirements.

35. SOW C.3 MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES – How much GFP and what type of GFP will be turned over for testing (special tools)? RFP p. 250 of 490

Government Response: It is unclear as to what testing (special tools) are being referred to, however, refer to

Attachment 7 for a complete listing of GFE/GFP (to include special tools).

36. SOW C.3 MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES – Who will be responsible for paying for upkeep of GFP for testing?

RFP p. 250 of 490

Government Response: Costs associated with upkeep of GFP will be assigned to CLIN X013AC.

37. SOW C.3.A.8 Modification Instructions (MIs) on ME and CESE assets – At what echelon level of maintenance does BIC perform? RFP p. 256 of 490

Government Response: Field Level of Maintenance (LOM) is any maintenance that does not require depot maintenance. Maintenance tasks performed within the Field LOM are categorized as organizational and intermediate.

38. SOW C.7 SHIPBOARD – Will all shipboard activities be recorded/loaded into GCSS as they are being completed? RFP p. 340 of 490

Government Response: Yes, based on guidance in 1.D.2.c., “documentation of all of these actions in the Global

Combat Support System – Marine Corps (GCSS-MC)”, 2.B.1, “The MCMC shall ensure maintenance tasks are entered in to the GCSS-MC system with a 95% data accuracy rate”, 2.B.6, .”There shall not be more than a 24 hour lag between actual maintenance readiness and GCSS-MC reporting for both ashore and afloat phase maintenance.”

39. L-5 Instructions to Offerors/3. PROPOSAL FOCUS AREAS, Shiftwork (Management Proposal) (C.2) – We would appreciate it if the Government could provide the current shift schedule for MCPP operations. RFP p. 469 of

Government Response: Per H-1 of the RFP, a standard workday is defined as any eight hours of productive labor during the core business hours of 5 a.m. through 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. The contractor is responsible for proposing an adequate work schedule to meet the requirements of the SOW. Any proposed hours deviating from the standard workday must be approved by the Government.

40. SECTION L-5.3. PROPOSAL FOCUS AREAS, Watercraft Maintenance Center (WMC) (Navy Technical)

(C.6) – Will the relocated 300-ton Crawler Crane be made available for contractor use for lighterage operations? p.

469 of 490, and SOW p. 307

Government Response: Yes, for lighterage operations at BIC.

41. L-5.3. PROPOSAL FOCUS AREAS, Watercraft Maintenance Center (WMC) (Navy Technical) (C.6) and SOW

C.6.A – Does Blount Island currently have the capability and space/availability to conduct lighterage maintenance operations? RFP p. 469 of 490, and SOW p. 309

Government Response: No, BIC does not have adequate facilities for full time lighterage maintenance operations.

42. L-5.7. VOLUME III - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – USMC: Text concerning Workload Matrix and Manning

Levels is presented in both the second paragraph about Maintenance / Maintenance Management and in the third paragraph that addresses Manning and Workload Matrix. RFP p. 477 of 490

Please confirm if the Government would like two Workload Matrix and Manning Level responses in the USMC

Technical proposal – both our USMC Maintenance / Maintenance Management Methodology, and also a separate

Workload Matrix and Manning Level response for the overall Technical volume?

Government Response: Section L-5.7 Volume III Technical Proposal has been revised to clarify the requirement for a workload matrix.

43. L-5.13. VOLUME IX – ORAL PRESENTATION – Could the Government please confirm if Offerors must submit Oral Presentation Briefing (slides) with other proposal documentation at the submission date of July 25, or do Offerors wait to submit Oral Presentation Briefings upon the Government’s request to schedule an Oral

Presentation? RFP p. 485 of 490

Government Response: Reference Amendment 0002 for clarification.

44. M-4 EVALUATION FACTORS/1. FACTOR A: MANAGEMENT (VOLUME II); FACTOR B: USMC

TECHNICAL (VOLUME III); AND FACTOR C: NAVY TECHNICAL (VOLUME IV) – The Draft Solicitation

Section M requirements are highly detailed in comparison to the amended RFP issued on May 24. Would it be advisable for Offerors to refer to both of these documents to provide detailed requirements for the Factor A:

Management, Factor B: USMC Technical, and Factor C: Navy Technical volumes? RFP p. 487 of 490

Government Response: Offerors shall only comply with the RFP issued on 11 May 2018, as amended.

In addition to the above, the following areas of the RFP have been revised:

C.6.F.1.a

H-21