Questions_and_Answers.pdf

M67004-18-R-0014

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO VENDOR SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

1. RFP Reference: RFP Section: L-5 Matrix 4.1

Topic: Page limits for Volume II. Management

Comment: Given the number of topics and subtopics offerors must cover in Volume II. Management, including detailed responses to two of the Proposal Focus Areas, we believe 40 pages is insufficient to respond to the requirements.

Recommendation: Recommend the Government increase the Management Volume page to 50 pages.

Government Response: Noted. It is the Government’s intent for offeror’s to be succinct in their response. The Government believes the page count is adequate to respond to the requirements of the

RFP.

2. RFP Reference: RFP Section: L-5 Matrix 4.1

Topic: Executive Summary

Comment: Under Volume I in the Executive Summary, the ITO specifies, “one copy of the Executive

Summary shall be included in all volumes.” Does this refer to all contents, including the Master Table of

Contents, or just the Overview section?

Recommendation: Recommend the Government require only the Executive Summary Overview in all volumes to avoid confusion with volume table of contents, and confirm that is not included in the page count.

Government Response: The Government clarified Section L Paragraph 4.1 Matrix Table Volume I to state that only the Executive Summary Overview shall be included with each volume. Section L paragraph 4.2.3 excludes the executive summary overview, as well as the proposed Organizational Chart and Manning Document from the page count of subsequent volumes.

3. RFP Reference: RFP Section L-5 Paragraph 4.2.3

Topic: Contents in All Volumes

Comment: Paragraph 4.2.3 states, “Offerors shall include a copy of the Executive Summary, proposed

Organizational Chart, and Manning Document as the preface to all volumes.”

Question: Will the Government clarify if we are to create a tab for this preface in every volume, and place it after Standard Proposal Information?

Government Response: As stated in Paragraph 4.2.3, Offerors are required to provide the Executive

Summary Overview, proposed Organizational Chart, and Manning Document as the preface to all volumes.

4. RFP Reference: RFP Section L-5 Matrix 4.1

Topic: Standard Proposal Information

Comment: The matrix specifies Standard Proposal Information in every volume.

Recommendation: Please define Standard Proposal Information. Is it the Table of Contents, List of

Tables and Figures, and Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronym List, or is it something else?

Government Response: Punctuation has been added to Section L-5 Paragraph 4.1 Matrix Table to clarify what is considered “Standard Proposal Information” for each Volume (e.g. Table of Contents, List of

Tables and Figures, Glossary of Abbreviations & Acronyms).

5. RFP Reference: Section M-4 1, Evaluation Factors for Factors A through C

Topic: Evaluation of Proposal Focus Areas

Comment/Recommendation: Considering the importance of the Proposal Focus Areas in the

Management and Technical volumes and Oral Presentation, request that the Government provide detailed criteria on how they will evaluate offerors’ responses to these items.

Government Response: The Government will consider the Offeror’s response pertaining to Proposal

Focus Areas during evaluation of Offerors understanding of the MCPP requirement.

6. RFP Reference: Sections L-5 4 and L-5 13

Topic: Due Date for Oral Presentation Volume

Comment: Section L-5 4, Proposal Organization, states, “[a] complete proposal is defined as one consisting of nine (9) separate volumes within the required page count, in the number of copies and number of binders specified below. Strict compliance with these proposal preparation instructions will be considered in the evaluation of the proposal.” Section L-5, paragraph 4.2.9.6 states, “Entire Contract

Proposal is due at RFP closing; See SF33 Block 9.”

However, Section L-5 13 states, “offerors shall provide an electronic copy of the PowerPoint slide presentation for the Oral Presentation within 3 days prior to the scheduled briefing. Offerors shall provide

12 hard copies at the briefing,” which was confirmed at the bidder’s conference on May 22.

Recommendation: Please clarify whether, for the purposes of the July 25 submittal, the complete proposal is eight volumes, with the ninth to be delivered 3 days prior to the scheduled briefing.

Government Response: The Government has revised Section L-5 Paragraph 4.2.9.6 to clarify that

Volume IX Oral Presentation is the only Volume not due at RFP closing.

7. RFP Reference: Section L-5, paragraph 4.2.3

Topic: Instructions for Volume Contents

Comment: Section L-5 4.2.3, No Cross-Referencing, states, “(a) Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Offerors shall include a copy of the Executive Summary, proposed Organizational Chart and

Manning Document as the preface to all volumes. The Executive Summary, proposed Organizational

Chart and Manning Document will not count towards individual volume page limitations.”

Recommendations: Given these instructions:

Are the Executive Summary, Organizational Chart, and Manning Document to be included in Volume

IX Oral Presentations? Government Response: Yes

Does the Manning Document encompass the workload matrices in Volumes III and IV? Government

Response: No, these are two separate requirements. Section L-5 Paragraphs 7 and 8 have been clarified to identify these as separate requirements.

If we are submitting the Organizational Chart and Manning Document in all volumes, do these have to be submitted in the body of the volume as well, or can the volume reference the Preface?

Government Response: Offerors shall address manning requirements as specified in each Volume in addition to providing the Organizational Chart and Manning Document in the preface of each

Volume. For example, in Management, can we reference the Org chart in the preface rather than including it a second time in the body of the document? Government Response: When practicable, the Offeror should effectively reference or correlate information provided in their proposal response to the information contained in the preface.

Can Volumes III and IV reference the manning document rather than replicating it? Government

Response: The proposal information required in Volumes III and IV (workload matrix and manning analysis) are separate from, but supported by, the manning document. Section L-5 Paragraphs 7 and

8 have been revised to clarify this requirement.

8. RFP Reference: Section L-5, Paragraph 4.2.8.2(a)

Topic: Binder Size for Volume VI, Cost Price

Comment: Paragraph 4.2.8.2(a) states “Each additional hard copy of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring loose-leaf binder, which shall permit the volume to lie flat when open.”

Recommendation: Recommend that offerors be allowed to use 11” x 17” binders for the cost volume to allow the volume to lie flat when open, and ease evaluation.

Government Response: The RFP does not limit the size of binder to be used by Offerors.

9. RFP Reference: Section L-5, Paragraph 4.2.9.3(a) Page Limitations

Topic: Resumes and Letters of Intent

Comment: Paragraph 4.2.9.3(a) states, “All appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc. are included in the page count.”

Recommendation: Recommend the Government allow offerors to place resumes and letters of intent in an appendix at the end of the Management Volume and that these be excluded from page count, to maintain the flow of the volume contents.

Government Response: Resumes and letters of commitment are exempt from the page count as specified in L paragraph 4.2.9.4.

10. RFP Reference: Section L-5 4.1 Table 4.1, Paragraph 4.2.8.3, and Paragraph 4.2.2

Topic: Five E-Copies of the Cost/Price Volume Required

Comment: Paragraph 4.2.8.3(c)(1) states, “A separate CD-ROM of all cost breakdown elements (CPFF) utilizing the Cost Model Workbook provided at Attachment #11 is required. The Cost Breakdown workbook shall also contain a spreadsheet which provides a summary of all CLINs, inclusive of FFP

CLINs, subtotaled by each period within the Ordering Period (Base and Optional). The CD-ROM shall not be password protected or otherwise “locked” or “hidden” to permit thorough evaluation of proposal formulas.”

Paragraph 4.2.2 Price/Cost Information states, “All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in Volume VI, Cost/Price Proposal. Cost proposal information shall be provided in the format contained in paragraph 10. The CD-ROM shall contain both Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) and Excel (.xls) files for respective documents.”

Section 4.1, Matrix Table, indicates that 5 E-Copies of the Cost/Price Volume are required. Section 4.2.2 states that the information on the CD-ROM be provided in the format contained in paragraph 10 (which is everything required in the Cost/Price volume). However, Section 4.2.8.3(c)(1) indicates that a separate

CD ROM of only Attachment #11 is required.

Recommendation: Will the Government please clarify if we are to submit 5 E-Copies of the Cost/Price volume in its entirety and an additional 5 copies of only Attachment #11, which would be a total of 10

CD-ROMs? Or, are we to provide a total of 5 E-Copies as indicated in paragraph 4.2.2?

Government Response: The Government has revised Section L paragraph 4.2.8.3 (c)(1) to clarify that

Attachment #11 submission should be included with the Cost/Price Volume submission, and not as a separate submission.

11. RFP Reference: Section L-5, Paragraph 4.2.9.1(a)

Topic: Paragraph Numbering

Comment: Paragraph 4.2.9.1(a) states “All pages shall be printed double-sided on recycled paper as much as practical. For example, original letters are exempted from the double-sided requirement. All pages shall include an appropriate header and footer which identifies the Solicitation number, contractor name and DUNS number, date, volume number and page number. All paragraphs shall be uniquely numbered and associated with the relevant Factor identified in section M. Offerors shall provide SOW cross-referencing in their proposal as applicable to facilitate evaluations and to demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement.”

Recommendation: Is it the Government’s intent that offerors are to uniquely number each individual paragraph in the entire proposal? It would be excessively cumbersome to number each individual paragraph. We would recommend that the Government require numbering of relevant sections, and all subsequent paragraphs below that heading level be exempt from numbering. Will the Government please clarify the intent of this statement?

Government Response: The Government’s intent has been clarified, as revised in Section L paragraph

4.2.9.1. The Government requires proposal paragraphs to be uniquely numbered within each Volume.

12. RFP Reference: Section L-5, Paragraph 4.2.9.4

Topic: Page Limitations

Comment: Paragraph L.4.2.9.4 states, “All pages exempt from the page count shall be marked as

“exempt” in lieu of containing a page number.”

Recommendation: Will the Government allow unique page numbering of exempt pages such as front matter, resumes, and letters of intent, to ease evaluation? In addition, would the Government consider exempting volumes without page limitations from this requirement?

Government Response: The Government has revised Section L paragraph 4.2.9.4 to allow numbering of exempt pages in addition to marking the page “exempt”.

13. RFP Reference: L.4.1 Matrix Table Volume V – Past Performance

Standard Proposal Information, Table of Contents, List of Tables and Figures, Glossary of Abbreviations

& Acronyms – Unlimited pages, and Section L-5 9.1 Past Performance Questionnaire

Topic: Past Performance Citations

Comment: The Matrix table does not include past performance citations.

Recommendation: Recommend the government update the Matrix Table to include the write ups for each project that the offeror will be submitting as proof of past performance.

Government Response: Revised table at Section L paragraph 4.1 Volume V, as well as correct numbering in paragraph 9 of Section L.

14. RFP Reference: Section L-5, Paragraph 4.2.9.4 Pages Counted

(a) Each page shall be counted except the following. All pages exempt from the page count shall be marked as “exempt” in lieu of containing a page number.

(1) Cover pages

(2) Table of Contents

(3) List of Tables and Figures

(4) Glossaries

(5) Tabs

(6) Dividers

(7) Blank pages

(8) Labor Category Descriptions/Position Descriptions

(9) Resumes

Topic: Marking of exempt pages.

Comment: Does the Government intend for offerors to place the word “exempt” on Tabs, Dividers, and

Blank Pages?

Recommendation: Recommend the government NOT require the word Exempt to be placed on Tabs, Dividers, and Blank Pages.

Government Response: The Government’s intent is correct as written.

15. RFP Reference: Section L-5, Paragraph 4.2.9.3(a) Page Limitations

Topic: Page Limitations

Comment: Recommend the Government allow offerors to place the workload matrices for the Volume

III Technical USMC and Volume IV Technical Navy in an appendix at the end of the appropriate volumes and that these be excluded from page count.

Government Response: Workload matrices shall be included in the page count.

16. RFP Reference: RFP Section: L-5, Matrix 4.1

Topic: Page Limitations for Volume III. Technical USMC

Comment: Given the number of topics and sub-topics offerors must cover in Volume III. Technical

USMC, including detailed responses to the Proposal Focus Areas and the workload matrix with analysis of manning levels by labor category to meet all USMC workload requirements, we believe 50 pages is insufficient to respond to the requirements.

Recommendation: Recommend the Government increase the Volume III. Technical USMC page count to 75 pages.

17. RFP Reference: RFP Section: L-5, Matrix 4.1

Topic: Page Limitations for Volume IV. Technical Proposal - Navy

Comment: Given the number of topics and sub-topics offerors must cover in Volume IV. Technical

Proposal Navy, including detailed responses to the Proposal Focus Areas and the workload matrix with analysis of manning levels by labor category, we believe 50 pages is insufficient to respond to the requirements.

Recommendation: Recommend the Government increase the Volume IV. Technical Proposal Navy page count to 75 pages.

18. RFP Reference: Section L, Section 10 Volume VI-Cost/Price Proposal, para 10.5(f)

Topic: FPRA

Comment: The absence of a FPRA is not an indication of risk or stability of a contractor. Since the determination of whether an FPRA is executed is determined by DCMA and not the contractor, an

Offeror should not be penalized by requiring it to submit Indirect Rate Ceilings. Additionally, an

Offeror’s Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP) has been audited by both DCAA and DCMA, which results in DCMA’s preparation of the Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR). In the case of an

FPRP, the contractor must be transparent with regard to it indirect costs and rates to ensure DCAA is able to actively monitor its indirect costs and works with the contractor to determine if any of the indirect rates require adjustment. This is accomplished by DCMA’s periodic indirect cost monitoring process which provides the same risk mitigation control to the Government as would be gained by a FPRA. Therefore, it is recommended that the Government rely on the FPRR in lieu of an FPRA to minimize risk and not penalize the company by requiring it to submit Indirect Rate Ceilings.

Government Response: It is not the Government’s intent to penalize Offerors. It is the Government’s intent, in the absense of an FPRA, for the offerors to analyze historic and current indirect rates, as well as consider future corporate and business strategies that will impact indirect rates to arrive at proposed indirect rate ceilings.

19. Topic: Reimbursement of Training

RFP References: L.6; L.10.4.1; C.1.H.2.b

10.4.1: All employee training labor and associated training costs shall not be a direct charge under this contract.

Section L 6. VOLUME II – MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL: Volume II shall address the following:

Management Structure, Organizational and Staffing Strategies (to include shiftwork, cross utilization, exercise/contingency staffing, and overtime mitigation), quality control (early detection of deficiencies, trend analysis, and management involvement), production planning via Microsoft Project

(SOW Attachment C.1-3 MMC Notional POAM), mission essential contractor services, use of business intelligence technology (to include all business systems identified in the SOW), employee training plan, transition plan and schedule (Section H-21 of the contract).

1.H.2.b: MCMC is responsible for ensuring all personnel are trained to perform required duties as stated within the SOW and maintain such training requirements with minimal impact to production schedules in accordance with applicable Command Orders and Technical Manuals. The MCMC shall maintain training documentation for all employees and shall make training records/certifications available to the government upon request. Training for all MCMC personnel shall not be a direct charge under this contract; the MCMC shall internally manage/coordinate and process all training and associated travel to meet the requirements of this contract.. Additionally, MCMC employees shall complete government required training on an annual basis as outlined in Attachment C.1-6.

Comment: Sections L.6 and SOW Paragraph 1.H.2.b requires MCPP-specific training and Section L, paragraph 10.4.1 states training is not a direct charge under the contract. Offerors are required to comply with their respective Disclosure Statements, which does not account for contract-specific, directed training as an indirect cost. It would not be appropriate for other government contracts utilizing the same indirect rate structure to bear costs for contract specific training.

Recommendation: Recommend Section L, Paragraph 10.4.1 be revised to reflect, “All employee training labor and associated training costs shall be in accordance with an Offerors disclosed practices.”

Government Response: The Government has revised the RFP to clarify the Government’s recognition of the fact that Offeror’s must submit a proposal that complies with their Disclosure Statement.

20. RFP Reference: Section L-1

Topic: Question and Answers

Question/Recommendation: Does the Government intend to answer the questions that were submitted prior to the Amendment, or do offerors need to submit their questions again?

Government Response: Questions do not need to be resubmitted.

21. RFP Reference: Section L, Section 9 Volume V-Past Performance and Section M, Section 2, Factor

D: Past Performance

Topic: Offeror Affiliates

Comment: Section L only addresses past performance of the Offeror. Will the Government consider relevant past performance of an Offeror’s affiliate(s) provided that the Offeror demonstrates that the resources of the affiliate will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.

Recommendation: Recommend the Government revise the Solicitation to allow for evaluation of Offeror affiliate relevant past performance provided that the Offeror demonstrates that the resources of the affiliate will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.

Government Response: The Government revised Section L Paragraph 9.1 in order to clarify the submission requirements for proposed subcontractor support.

22. RFP Reference: Section M, Section 2, Factor D: Past Performance

Topic: Second aspect of past performance

Comment: It is understood that the Government will evaluate how well the Offeror performed on previous contracts however, it is unclear how far back the Government will evaluate performance and if the Government’s evaluation will be for contracts with relevancy to MCPP.

Recommendation: Recommend the Government revise Section M, Section 2, Factor D: Past

Performance to read “The second aspect of past performance evaluation is to determine how well the

Offeror performed on the relevant previous contracts performed within the last 5 years.”

Government Response: Section L paragraph 9.1 has been revised to clarify the requirements. “The

Offeror shall provide relevant past performance information. Relevancy is defined as efforts of similar complexity, scope, period of performance, and magnitude performed during the last five years, to include relevant past performance of subcontractors proposed to perform important portion(s) of the requirement.”

23. RFP Reference: 1.B Overall MCPP Scope

Topic: SOW Attachments

Comment: There are several references to Attachments included in the SOW that are missing from the RFP attachments. Please confirm that the following Attachments are included in the Technical

Library.

Attachment C.1-3 MMC Notional Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)

Attachment C.1-4 MMC-12 Schedule

Attachment C.1-5 MMC-13 Schedule

Attachment C.1-8 Proposed MMC-14 and -15 schedule

Attachment C.1-9 Navy Watercraft Plan

Attachment C.1-6 Training

Attachment C.1-7 Employee Qualifications

Recommendation: Recommend providing all attachments.

Government Response: All SOW attachments will be provided upon request along with the technical library.

24. RFP Reference: ITO Section L-5 9

Topic: Relevant past performance contracts

Comment: Section L-5 9 requires offerors to provide “relevant past performance information for similar or related work under contracts completed during the last five years and/or relevant past performance of subcontractors proposed to perform a major portion of the requirement.” However, the paragraph does not define recency as including current contracts, and it does not identify the recency requirement for subcontractors’ past performance.

Recommendation: Please revise the wording to state, “The Offeror shall provide relevant past performance information for similar or related work under contracts which are currently ongoing or have been performed during the last five years. The offeror may also provide relevant past performance of subcontractors proposed to perform a major portion of the requirement; past performance for subcontractors shall be on contracts which are currently ongoing or have been performed during the last five years.”

Government Response: See Response to Question 22

25. RFP Reference: SOW Section C.6

Topic: NAVSEA Standard Items

Comment: SOW Section C.6 requires the MCMC to comply with NAVSEA Standard Items (NSI) in the performance of work on Navy Watercraft and Organic equipment. For example:

- C.6.A.2 requires [MCMC] provide contractor site security per NSI 009-72.

- C.6.A.6.b requires MCMC to comply with NSI 009-32 for corrosion control on Navy organic equipment.

- C.6.B.11, C.6.B.12, and C.6.B.13, require MCMC perform a comprehensive survey in accordance with NSI.

- C.6.F.17 requires oil and hydraulic fluid analysis for non-routine periodic checks required by

NSMB.

- C.6.F.27 and C.6.F.27a require Corrosion Control on Navy Watercraft.

Recommendation: (1) Request Blount Island Command clarify the specific requirements the MCMC is to comply with in NSI 009-72 for contractor facility security to include the provisions for the following paragraphs:

- 3. 2 – Contractor must provide a written physical security plan at the Contractor’s facility.

- 3.2.2 – Attend a security coordination meeting to brief the plan.

- 3.2.3 – Conduct a security conference with federal, state, and local authorities within 45 days prior to ship’s arrival.

- 3.2.4 – Coordinate the establishment “and enforcement” of the land and water areas adjacent to

U.S. Naval vessels as restricted areas or limited waterway areas in accordance with 33 CFR 165 in cooperation with the Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, and Army Corps of Engineers.

- 3.2.5 – Security Plan shall include the roles and responsibilities of deadly force in the protection of U.S. Navy assets and crew.

- 3.2.6 through 3.2.10 compliance with the Force Protection Conditions NORMAL through

DELTA.

- 3.3 – Submit one copy to the SUPERVISOR for review and approval no later than 15 days prior to availability start date.

- 3.5 – Prepare and itemized statement of cost incurred for work covered by NSI 009-32.

Government Response: C.6.F.49 has been revised to include the following after the bullets:

“Additionally, the MCMC shall provide, maintain and enforce a written security plan that addresses the bullets above, as well as the following NSI 009-72 items; 3.2.5, 3.2.5.1, 3.2.5.2, 3.2.5.5, 3.2.5.6, 3.2.8.5, 3.2.9.5, 3.3.2 and Note 5 a-c and Note 6 a-c. This plan is applicable for the WMC site location as well as any other offsite watercraft maintenance locations. Deviations from the plan require government approval.”

26. RFP Reference: SOW Section C.6

Comment: SOW Section C.6 requires the MCMC to comply with NAVSEA Standard Items (NSI) in the performance of work on Navy Watercraft and Organic equipment. For example:

- C.6.A.2 requires [MCMC] provide contractor site security per NSI 009-72.

- C.6.A.6.b requires MCMC to comply with NSI 009-32 for corrosion control on Navy organic equipment.

- C.6.B.11, C.6.B.12, and C.6.B.13, require MCMC perform a comprehensive survey in accordance with NSI.

- C.6.F.17 requires oil and hydraulic fluid analysis for non-routine periodic checks required by

NSMB.

- C.6.F.27 and C.6.F.27a require Corrosion Control on Navy Watercraft.

Recommendation: Request the Government clarify the requirements described in Sections C.6.A.6.b regarding performing corrosion control on Navy Organic GFE in accordance with NAVSEA Standard

Items. NAVSEA standards apply to U.S. Navy vessels and watercraft. Does this requirement apply only to Organic lighterage (legacy NL)?

Government Response: Yes, as revised in Section C.6.A.6.b, NSI is for organic lighterage.

27. RFP Reference: SOW Section C.6

Comment: SOW Section C.6 requires the MCMC to comply with NAVSEA Standard Items (NSI) in the performance of work on Navy Watercraft and Organic equipment. For example:

- C.6.A.2 requires [MCMC] provide contractor site security per NSI 009-72.

- C.6.A.6.b requires MCMC to comply with NSI 009-32 for corrosion control on Navy organic equipment.

- C.6.B.11, C.6.B.12, and C.6.B.13, require MCMC perform a comprehensive survey in accordance with NSI.

- C.6.F.17 requires oil and hydraulic fluid analysis for non-routine periodic checks required by

NSMB.

- C.6.F.27 and C.6.F.27a require Corrosion Control on Navy Watercraft.

Recommendation: Request clarify the requirements described in sections C.6.B.13 regarding

“government identified maintenance tasks” ISO Organic equipment/lighterage. NAVSEA standards apply to U.S. Navy vessels and watercraft, does the reference to NAVSEA Standard Items apply only to

Organic lighterage (legacy NL)?

Government Response: Yes, as revised in section C.6.B.13

28. RFP Reference: SOW Section C.6.E.7

Topic: Clarification of CESE Mods

Comment: SOW Section C.6.E.7 concerns CESE Mods; however, the item states that Corrective

Maintenance requires approval in OMMS-NG.

Question: Should this read, "Mods require approval in OMMS-NG?”

Government Response: Modifications to CESE are considered corrective maintenance.

29. RFP Reference: SOW C.2.B.1.b

Topic: Maintenance Tasks

Comment: SOW states “Ensure Maintenance tasks within GCSS-MC are entered at a 95% accurate rate.”

Question: How are tasks tracked for accuracy?

Government Response: As stated in C.2.B.1.b, the Government will conduct quality assurance of GCSS-

MC service requests, with results tracked in QMSS.

30. RFP Reference: SOW C.2.B.6.a

Topic: Equipment Availability

Comment: The requirement is to update GCSS-MC within 24 hours of maintenance. This does not take into consideration shipboard afloat time zone differences, transmittals, and connectivity lag.

Question: Does this take into consideration the afloat time zone differences, transmittals, and connectivity lag?

Government Response: Yes. GCSS-MC is intended to be a near real-time Enterprise Resource Planning

(ERP) tool.

31. RFP Reference: SOW C.2.B.7.a

Topic: Corrective Maintenance for Organic GFE

Comment: SOW does not mention DoD Fleet Anywhere (Assetworks AIS).

Question: Is it the expectation of the Government for MCMC to utilize Fleet Anywhere (FA) for

GFE/GME repairs and services?

Government Response: The Government has revised C.2.b.7.a and C.2.C.1.j to clarify that the MCMC is required to use the Fleet Management Information System (FMIS) to maintain the GFE/GME PMCS program. FMIS is the HQMC-mandated information technology system used for Garrison Mobile

Equipment (GME) and Non-Tactical Vehicles (NTV) equipment management. DoD Fleet Anywhere

(Assetworks AIS) is the current AIS contracted by HQMC and could be subject to change in the future.

32. RFP Reference: Section L-5 13.2

Topic: Volume IX. Oral Presentation Timing

Comment: The RFP states, “Offerors shall provide an electronic copy of the PowerPoint slide presentation for the Oral Presentation within 3 days prior to the scheduled briefing.” The RFP continues, “Oral Presentations will be scheduled by the Government after receipt of proposal and prior to the determination of the Competitive Range (if established); The Government will provide 7 days’ notice of scheduled Oral Presentations.”

Government evaluation periods for a contract of this magnitude and complexity can take up to a year or more to complete. A 7-day notice period is insufficient, given work demands (including travel overseas), pre-planned medical events or pre-planned vacation. Given the potential duration of the evaluation, will the Government please consider providing offerors with a more realistic schedule for oral briefings? We consider the oral briefings to be an important and crucial aspect of the Offeror’s proposal and want to be sure that our PM and key participants are available.

Recommendation: Recommend the Government provide Offeror with a firm schedule now so that key participants can plan accordingly. Recommend the Government provide 45-day advanced notice to

Offerors should there be any schedule changes.

Government Response: The Government will endeavor to give as much notice as possible, however, it is not possible to guarantee more than seven days advance notice due to the number of proposals received and the evaluation process.

33. RFP Reference: Sections L-4 4.1 Matrix Table and Section L-5 13

Topic: Oral Presentation Content and Structure

Comment: The Government requests a PowerPoint presentation of 30 slides, but does not specify particulars on the slide format, number of attendees, content, and evaluation.

Recommendations:

Given this is a PowerPoint presentation, presenters prepare an agenda rather than a table of contents. Does the Government require the Standard Proposal Information listed in the Matrix

Table in Section L for the Oral Presentation?

Recommend the Government provide specific and more detailed evaluation criteria for the oral presentation (e.g., how the Government will evaluate). For example, will proposed efficiencies to address areas of concern receive stronger or equal emphasis than the understanding of MCPP requirements?

Recommend that the Government require key personnel to present the oral presentation.

Government Response: Table of Contents is considered Standard Proposal Information, and must be provided with this Volume, but does not preclude an agenda in the actual brief.

The Government does not intend on providing additional instructions on the construct of the Offeror’s

Oral Presentation. The intent of the Oral Presentation is to give the Offeror’s an opportunity to show their understanding of the depth and breadth of the requirement and provide an opportunity to articulate their unique strengths as described in their Management, USMC & Navy Technical, and Past Performance proposals.

Oral Presentations will be considered in the assessment of the offeror’s understanding of the MCPP requirements (to include proposed efficiencies that address Government identified areas of concern) and to assess the offeror’s past performance relevant to MCPP requirements.

Paragraph 13.1 of Section L-5 has been revised to clarify the Government’s intent. The Proposed

Program Manager shall be the principle briefer, but this does not preclude additional key personnel from contributing.

34. RFP Reference: Section L, Section 13 Volume IX-Oral Presentation, para 13.3

Topic: Consent to Record

Comment: Will the Government consider providing the recording of the Oral Presentation to this

Offeror? Alternatively, will the Government allow the Offeror to also record its presentation?

Recommendation: Recommend the Government provide a copy of the recording to the Offerors.

Government Response: The Government will provide upon request, a copy of an Offeror’s own recorded

Oral Presentation session. Oral Presentations will be recorded by the Government only. The briefing protocol will require all individuals entering the briefing room to leave all phones and other recording devices outside.

35. RFP Reference: SOW Section C.11 Management Support Systems

Topic: Question/Clarification on Consumable Supplies

Comment: The SOW states “The Government will provide consumable supplies for Multi-Functional

Devices (MFD) and standalone printers (except paper).” Why is paper excluded from consumable supplies?

Recommendation: Recommend the Government include paper in consumable supplies.

Government Response: The Government has revised C.11 to clarify that “The Government has maintenance contracts in place which provide consumable supplies for Multi-Function Devices (MFD) and standalone printers (except paper).” Consumable supplies under Cost type CLINs shall be reimbursed in accordance with each Offeror’s disclosure statement.

36. RFP Reference: Section L, Section 10 Volume VI-Cost/Price Proposal, paragraph 10.5(d)

Topic: Disclosure Statement

Comment: If an Offeror has an existing Disclosure Statement on file with its cognizant DCMA/DCAA, does the Offeror still need to submit the Disclosure Statement?

Recommendation: Recommend this requirement to submit a Disclosure Statement with the proposal only apply for those offerors that are submitting a new Disclosure Statement for the first time concurrent with the submission of the proposal.

Government Response: Each Offeror shall provide a copy of their current Disclosure Statement, as well as identification of compliance with CAS, if applicable and any CAS violations and subsequent corrections.

37. RFP Reference: Section L, Section 10 Volume VI-Cost/Price Proposal, paragraph10.4.7

Topic: Fee Structure

Comment: The reference to DFARS 216.405-2 is only applicable to cost plus award fee contracts.

Recommendation: Recommend the Government consider removing this paragraph since it is inconsistent with the MCPP contract types.

Government Response: The limitations of FAR 15.404-4, FAR 16.306, and DFARS 216.306 apply to any proposed fee. The maximum total for fee is 10 percent.

38. RFP Reference: Section L, Section 10 Volume VI-Cost/Price Proposal, paragraph 10.5(e)

Topic: Process description

Comment: The Solicitation states, “The Offeror must describe their process for estimating and accruing labor, overtime, materials/subcontracts, and travel by CPFF CLIN/SLIN.” If an offeror is using the same process for estimating and accruing labor, overtime, materials/subcontracts, and travel across the entire contract, is it necessary to provide such description by each CPFF CLIN/SLIN?

Recommendation: Recommend that the Government revise the requirement to reflect, “The Offeror must describe their process for estimating and accruing labor, overtime, materials/subcontracts, and travel.”

Government Response: The Government has revised the requirement to reflect, “The Offeror must describe their process for estimating and accruing labor, overtime, materials/subcontracts, and travel.”

39. RFP Reference: Section I, DFAR 252.242-7004 and Section L, Section 10 Volume VI-Cost/Price

Proposal, paragraph 10.5(e)

Topic: Material Management Business System

Comment: It is our understanding that material management is conducted using Government systems.

Does the Government want the contractor to stand up its own or a separate Material Management and

Accounting System?

Recommendation: Recommend the Government remove the requirement to provide evidence of its

Material Management and Accounting System from Section L and remove the DFAR Clause

252.242.7004 from Section I of the Solicitation.

Government Response: All material management is conducted using Government systems. The

Government has revised Section I to remove DFARS Clause 252.242-7004, and also removing the reference to Material Management from Section L-5 paragraph 10.5(e).

40. RFP Reference: Section H-8.7, Indirect Rate Change Notification

Topic: Indirect Rate Ceilings

Comment: Is this provision only to be included in the resulting contract if the offeror proposes indirect rate ceilings?

Recommendation: Recommend this clause only apply to the MCMC in the event the offeror proposes indirect rate ceilings.

Government Response: Section H-8.7 has been revised to clarify the requirement for MCMC notification of FPRA rate changes. In addition, Section H-8.7 identifies Special Contract Requirements associated with Indirect Rate Ceilings.

41. RFP Reference: Section M-4, Evaluation Factors

Topic: Factors A, B, and C

Comment: The Solicitation does not provide a description of how or what will be evaluated by the

Government with respect to Factors A, B and C. For example, what criteria will the Government use to determine if an approach is sound or innovative? Section M.4 only provides detail on the ratings the

Government will use when evaluating Factors A, B, and C, and Section M does not correlate to the elements requested in Section L.

Recommendation: Recommend the Government provide a description of how or what will be evaluated within each of Factors A, B, and C.

Government Response: Section M as written meets the Government intent, which is to provide a fair evaluation of all offers received in response to this RFP. Offerors shall submit proposals in accordance with Section L that meet the requirements of the RFP which will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the MCPP requirements.

42. 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-5 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-5 6. Volume II-Management Proposal does require offerors to address “mission essential contractor services.”

Recommendation: Please clarify if a Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan pursuant to Section L 6 is required. If required, please advise which Volume this Plan should be included and how it will be evaluated since it is not addressed in Section M. If required, please confirm it is excluded from the page count.

Government Response: The Government has revised Section L-5 Paragraph 6 to clarify its intent. A

Continuation of Essential Contractor Services plan is required as revised in Section L-5 Paragraph 6.

Additionally, this plan will be exempt from the page count as stated in revised Section L-5 Paragraph

4.2.9.4.

43. RFP Reference: Section H-10(a)(1), Travel Procedures, page 427

Topic: Section H, Special Contract Requirements

Comment: Section H-10(a)(1) states “The MCMC shall not be reimbursed for lodging or subsistence for shipboard personnel while in Port during the MMC.”

Recommendation: Recommend that the Government authorize per diem for shipboard personnel while ship is in port. Per diem is the GSA allowance for lodging (excluding taxes), meals, and incidental expenses. Lodging and meals aboard ship (available at sea) are not available during in port MMC. Given that Shipboard MPS support is defined as all support required to meet MMC per FFP CLIN 0007, lodging and subsistence costs for Shipboard personnel while in port during MMC is inherently included as FFP.

A cost savings is incurred working onboard Blount Island Command while ship is in port vice travel costs for return to deployed ships.

Government Response: Section H-10 has been revised.

44. RFP Reference: Section A-3, Period of Performance; Section F-1, Performance Period; and Section

L-5.2, Estimated Period of Performance

Topic: Period of Performance Discrepancy

Comment: Based on the dates shown in Section A-3, the Base Period extends for a period of 4 years and

6 months (54 months), including all five of the ordering periods. This conflicts with Section F-1 and

Section L-5.2, which show the Base Ordering Period extending for a period of 5 years (60 months) from award. In addition, the Option I Ordering Period extends for a period of 3 years and 6 months (42 months) based on the dates shown in Section A-3, which again conflicts with Section L-5.2, which shows Option 1 extending for 3 years (36 months).

Recommendation: Please update references to the Period of Performance duration throughout the RFP to ensure they are consistent with the intended period durations.

Government Response: Amendment 0001 to the RFP has revised the ordering periods to align with a five year base ordering period, along with a three year optional ordering period.

45. RFP Reference: Section A-3, Period of Performance and Section L-5.2, Estimated Period of

Performance

Topic: Phase-In Start Date and Inclusion

Comment: Based on the date shown for the start of the Base Ordering Period One in Section A-3 and the start date of the Phase-In period in Section L-5, it appears the Government intends for the Phase-In period to cover the first 90 days (3 months) of the 6-month Base Ordering Period One. This seems to indicate that the new awardee would only cover full contract operations during the Base Ordering Period One for

90 days (3 months). Is this the Government’s intent?

Recommendation: Please confirm that the Phase-in Period is included in the 6 month Base Ordering

Period One shown in Section A-3 and is not a separate period that occurs prior to the April 1, 2019 start date shown for the Base Ordering Period One.

Government Response: Amendment 0001 to the RFP has revised the ordering period to begin upon award for a period of one year. The first year ordering period is the time that the Contract

Transition/Phase-in Period may be ordered.

46. Will the Government consider reducing the page count for the management/technical volumes to 25 pages?

Government Response: It is the Government’s intent for offeror’s to be succinct in their response. The

Government believes the page count is adequate to respond to the requirements of the RFP.

47. Will the Government consider changing the technical evaluation to a pass/fail basis?

Government Response: The Government considers the currently designated tradeoff approach to be the most appropriate method for conducting the fairest evaluation of all offerors competing on this requirement.

48. RFP Reference: Section C.6.A.1 and Section L-8 Volume IV, Navy Technical

Topic: Resourcing Strategy for Intermittent Support

Comment: Section C, Item 6.A.1 states “Support for Navy ground tactical gear/Civil Engineer

Support Equipment will leverage the MCMC USMC organizational element.” and Volume IV states the Offeror shall provide the specific resourcing strategy for intermittent manning requirements.

Question: Given the size of the Navy CESE equipment sets assigned to each ship, is it the government’s intent that there will not be dedicated Navy maintenance technicians for CESE?

Does this apply to shipboard CESE assets also?

Government Response: The small size and inconsistencies from one ship to the next for the NSE, NCE and EMF CESE equipment sets presents some challenges for dedicated manning, both ashore and afloat.

Per C.6.A.1, the Government has authorized the Offeror to leverage the USMC organization and processes for the accomplishment of Navy CESE. The Government expects the Offeror to analyze the

Navy CESE spreadload, determine the optimal resourcing strategy that accomplishes the SOW C.6.E requirements while simultaneously minimizing costs. Although Navy CESE can leverage USMC organization and processes to accomplish maintenance, Offeror’s need to identify the Navy CESE associated cost to CLIN X005. The Government has revised paragraph C.6.A.1 to clarify its intent.

49. RFP Reference: Section L-V, Line 3, C.6.F.27 and Section L-8 Volume IV, Navy Technical

Topic: CRF Optimization

Comment: As stated in Section L-5.3 Proposal Focus Areas, “Corrosion Repair Facility (CRF) optimization (C.3 & C.6) – Current CRF operations are performed with a single shift. Historically, the amount of prepositioned materiel (USMC and Navy ground tactical equipment and Navy lighterage) requiring CRF services exceed the allocated resources (labor/time).” Navy Section 6.F.27 states “Non-powered watercraft shall be repaired utilizing the BICmd Corrosion Repair Facility (CRF)”

Question: Is it the government’s intent that all ME has the same priority and that the CRF should work multiple shifts? Is the labor based on ME quantities?

Government Response: The Government has revised paragraph C.6.F.27 to clarify that the BICmd CRF may not have the capacity to accommodate all non-powered watercraft. The Offerors are encouraged to provide a resourcing strategy within their technical proposals that optimizes the use of the USMC’s State-of-the-Art facility to accomplish corrosion control on all USMC and USN equipment. The Government does not anticipate prioritizing ME and expects Offeror’s to perform trend analysis, analyze through-put requirements, corrosion control timelines and determine the optimal resourcing strategy that accomplishes

SOW requirements. The Government will consider proposals that utilize multiple shifts for facility optimization. The Government expects the Offeror’s proposal to address labor strategies, to include rationale.

50. RFP Reference: Section C.6.A.2, C.6.F.1 and Section L-8 Volume IV, Navy Technical

Topic: Watercraft Maintenance Center (WMC)

Comment: Section C.6.A.2 requires that “The MCMC shall provide an offsite Navy Watercraft

Maintenance Center”. Section 6.F.1 states “The MCMC shall establish and maintain a Navy

Watercraft Maintenance Center (WMC) IAW 6.A.2 with dedicated personnel for maintenance and selective repair of Navy Watercraft.” Volume IV, Navy technical states “The offeror shall describe the proposed partnering to include the off-site watercraft maintenance facility.”

Question: Is it the Government’s intent that the off-site Watercraft Maintenance Facility be at a specific, i.e. current location? Is the WMC required at each shipyard or at one location? Based on Section 6.F, it appears that the WMC primarily focuses on performing preventive maintenance. Is it the governments intent that watercraft receive organizational level maintenance at the WMC and all other intermediate and depot level work is performed at local shipyards? Is there a reason why the WMC is not at BIC? Is the government willing to assume operational risk for facilities limitations? Will the government relocate its crane or transporter to a different location? The WMC facilities capabilities appear to be very specific, is the

Government willing to accept a facility with less capability if production requirements can be met?

Government Response: The Government intends to evaluate the offerors proposal for their partnering strategy for the off-site Navy Watercraft Maintenance Center. The Government encourages submission of solutions for maintenance approaches and concepts, location(s) and teaming/partnering arrangement(s) associated with the Navy’s Watercraft Maintenance Center (WMC). The Offerors proposal should specifically address their plan to gain maintenance responsiveness, reduce operating cost and improve schedule adherence. The Government expects the Offeror’s proposal to provide a WMC location capable of meeting SOW requirements, at a fair and reasonable cost/price; optimally, MCMC personnel shall be permitted to perform maintenance and support activities (to include crane operations, high pressure washing and painting) at the WMC location. In accordance with C.6.A.2, there is only one (“an”) WMC at one specific location. Repair work that is outsourced to local shipyards or vendors is addressed by

SOW Section 6.A.1.g. The Government requires WMC to perform preventative maintenance as outlined in the SOW and the associated attachment C.6-24. The WMC labor categories are addressed in SOW

Section 6.A.1.c which references the Maintenance Requirements Package. The MRP is an attachment

(C.6-24) that provides the Standard Work Items for organizational level maintenance requirements. The

WMC cannot reside at Blount Island due to the fact that current BICmd facilities do not provide the capabilities and infrastructure required to perform Navy watercraft maintenance. The Government may approve WMC facility requirement deviations (limitations) which provide infrastructure to meet maintenance requirements. The Government has historically provided a 300 Ton Crawler Crane for use at the WMC, however the Government intends to relocate this crane to Blount Island for organic use in lighterage launch and recovery. The facility requirements detailed in SOW 6.F.1 provides the facilities requirements associated watercraft maintenance production. Deviation from those requirements will require government approval, which will be based on the Offeror’s proposal detailing their maintenance approach, strategy and any mitigation needed to meet watercraft maintenance requirements detailed in the

SOW. The Government has revised L-5.3, C.6.A.2, and M-4.1.

51. Considering C.1.H.2. MCMC Personnel, Disciplines, and Specialties.