ATCH S-5 MCPP II RFP Q_A - Updtd Amd 0003.pdf

ATCH S-5: MCPP II RFP Q&A – M6700426R0007 0003

1. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: Section L and Attachment S-4

• Industry Question/Clarification: Per the MCPP II RFP—Section L states: “Offerors are responsible for forwarding Non-Disclosure Agreements for joint venture entities and/or subcontractors prior to disseminating the Program Data and Technical Library." Attachment S-4 Non-Disclosure Agreement states: “The Company affirms that only the individuals below are authorized to access the information and that no further disclosure will occur without written Government approval." Do we need Government approval prior to disseminating the information to our partners? How should we expect Government approval?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, the Government approves adding the additional individuals to access the Program Data and Technical Library, based on the NDAs submitted for the applicable joint venture and/or subcontractor personnel in accordance with Section L and Attachment S-4. Final acceptance and approval will be provided via email upon the Government’s receipt and review of all required NDAs.

2. RFP Section: RFP

• Topic or Section Reference: RFP

• Industry Question/Clarification: How can I access the list of vendors that attended Industry Day and the Contract Reference Library as a potential Partner or Subcontractor?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: For visibility into the companies currently associated with this requirement, you may view the list of interested vendors on our SAM.gov posting at the following link: https://sam.gov/opp/384cae241c0d4579bee997f6d27e8e64/view Please note that only prime contractors may request Government Furnished Information (GFI) and submit proposals under this solicitation. See Section L Instructions to Offerors and Attachment S-4 NDA regarding requests for GFI.

3. RFP Section: Section L and S-1 Program Data and Tech Library https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fsam.gov%2Fopp%2F384cae241c0d4579bee997f6d27e8e64%2Fview

• Topic or Section Reference: Section L and S-1 Program Data and Tech Library

• Industry Question/Clarification: Are we required to return the hard drives? Are there any other special instructions?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The hard drives must be returned once the best and final proposals have been submitted. All vendors must adhere to the following requirements:

1. Do NOT use Government-provided equipment if your agency’s security policies automatically apply passwords, encryption, or other security controls to external drives. These automated protections can overwrite, encrypt, or wipe the contents of the hard drive.

2. The hard drive shall not be connected to or accessed from any Government network that blocks USB storage devices or enforces password/encryption requirements for external media. This restriction is mandatory under Federal IT security policies and applies to all personnel and subcontractors.

3. Hard drives must be accessed only on vendor-owned, non-Government systems that are completely separate from Government networks.

4. All information contained on the hard drives is considered Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Vendors are required to safeguard, store, and handle this information in accordance with the NDA submitted with your proposal and all applicable CUI protection requirements.

5. Information on the drives may not be shared outside of your authorized proposal team. Subcontractors may only access the data if they are covered under your NDA and included in your proposal team.

6. If you encounter any issues accessing the drive or notice anything unexpected, notify the Contracting Officer immediately. Do not attempt to modify, repair, or alter the drive or its contents.

4. RFP Section: Section L-4; 9.1

• Topic or Section Reference: M-4 Factor 4 Past Performance (Volume V)

• Industry Question/Clarification: Currently, Section M of the RFP states: "Master contract vehicles (e.g., Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs), IDIQ contracts) do not satisfy the Past Performance requirement unless submitted together with a TO similar in size, and relevancy to this requirement and awarded and performed under the vehicle." Under Magnitude: "-Magnitude: Number of employees and annual value of referenced effort (to be considered relevant, reference should have more than 200 employees assigned to this effort and an annual value exceeding $50M)." By focusing on only one task order, Offerors are currently restricted from presenting their full portfolio of diverse scope relevant experience under an IDIQ contract. Additionally, by attaching the value/magnitude relevance to one task order greatly limits the selection of task order citations. QUESTION: Are single award delivery order contacts allowed to be used as a single past performance reference?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, the Government will allow single-award delivery order contracts, or a combination of Task Orders under a single master contract vehicle, to be submitted as a single past performance reference.

Section M will be amended to read: "Master contract vehicles (e.g., Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs), IDIQ contracts) do not satisfy the Past Performance requirement unless submitted together with a specific Task Order (TO), or a combination of TOs awarded under that single vehicle. If a combination of TOs is submitted as a single reference, the Government will evaluate the aggregate of those combined TOs to determine if they meet the magnitude requirements (more than 200 employees and an aggregate annual value exceeding $50M). The combined TOs must also collectively demonstrate relevancy to this requirement."

5. RFP Section: L-4; 9.2

• Topic or Section Reference: 9.2

• Industry Question/Clarification: Please clarify whether the Government requires contractors submit all CPARS for all relevant years (5 years) or only the most recent CPARS for each citation.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Offerors are only required to submit the most recent CPARS for each citation. Section L has been amended to reflect this instruction.

Please note that in accordance with Section M, the Government reserves the right to consider any CPARS or past performance information in the Government's possession, including records for previous years, when determining relevance and quality of performance.

Section L, Paragraph 9.2 (Past Performance Questionnaire) is amended to add the following instruction:

"The Offeror shall submit only the most recent CPARS evaluation for each past performance reference. Offerors shall not submit the full five-year history of CPARS evaluations for a single past performance reference."

6. RFP Section: L-4.1

• Topic or Section Reference: N/A

• Industry Question/Clarification: Volume I in the Matrix Table Lists the Overview, then Master Table of Contents, then Standard Proposal Information. Question: Is it the government's intent that the volume be organized such that the Overview falls before the Master Table of contents (TOC) and the remaining Standard Proposal Information? Traditionally, any TOCs, Lists, and Glossaries would appear before content to be reviewed to offer the reviewers ease of use to navigate through sections.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, it is the Government's intent that the volume be organized such that the Overview falls before the Master Table of Contents (TOC) and the remaining Standard Proposal Information.

7. RFP Section: L-4.1

• Industry Question/Clarification: 4.1 Matrix Table identifies a "List of Tables and Figures" as part of Standard Proposal Information for each volume. Question: Is it the government's intent that offerors identify Tables and Figures separately? Or can they all be labeled as Exhibits?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, it is the Government's intent that offerors identify Tables and Figures separately. No, Tables and Figures cannot be labeled as Exhibits.

8. RFP Section: L-4.1

• Industry Question/Clarification: 4.1 Matrix Table Section 10: Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal lists "Section 10.1: Standard Proposal Information" however none of the other volumes note that the Standard Proposal Information is included in the Volume's numbered outline. Recommendation: Please remove 10.1 from Standard

Proposal Information and renumber the volume as follows: Section 10.1: Costs;

Section 10.2: Summary Descriptions and Narrative; Section 10.3: Cost Breakout & Supporting Data by COST TYPE CLIN and Utilizing the Cost Model Workbook (RFP Attachment J-7); Section 10.4: Other Information.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. The Government intends to keep it As-Is.

9. RFP Section: L-4; 2.7

• Industry Question/Clarification: Section L 4.2.7 Electronic Copies "Complete electronic copies of all volumes shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document File (.pdf) searchable text format." Question: Please confirm that graphics/illustrations are excluded from the searchable text requirement.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, the Government confirms that graphics/illustrations are excluded from the searchable text requirement.

10. RFP Section: L-4.1

• Industry Question/Clarification: Volume I in the Matrix Table Lists a Master Table of Contents, then Standard Proposal Information with a Table of Contents for this volume. Question: By rule the Master Table of Contents would depict the contents of Volume I. Request the requirement for a Table of Content, separate from the Master Table of Contents for Volume I specifically be removed.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. The Government intends to keep it As-Is.

11. RFP Section: L-4.1

• Industry Question/Clarification: Volume I in the Matrix Table notes that "one copy of the Executive Summary Overview shall be included in all volumes." Question: Is the Government asking for Volume I in its entirety be included within each of the other volumes?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Amendment 0002 reflects that the Executive Summary Overview should only be included in Volume I.

12. RFP Section: N/A

• Industry Question/Clarification: Volume I in the Matrix Table notes that "one copy of the Executive Summary Overview shall be included in all volumes." Question: Will the government please provide the order in which the Executive Summary should appear in each volume?

13. RFP Section: Organizational Chart/Manning Document

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4.2.3 (d)

• Industry Question/Clarification: Section L 4.2.3 (d) states "The proposed Organizational Chart / Manning Document required in the Executive Summary (Volume I) will not count towards individual volume page limitations." Question:

Since the Government is requiring the org chart in an excel file Volume I - Executive Summary will contain two files, the written narrative and the Organizational Chart/Manning Document in Excel. Request the Government confirm that the Excel Organizational Chart is to be included with the Executive Summary Narrative in all volumes?

14. RFP Section: Executive Summary Volume

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4.1

• Industry Question/Clarification: Recommendation: Request the Government remove the requirement to embed Volume I within other volumes. Replicating Volume I content across multiple files materially increases overall file size and elevates the risk of file corruption, instability, or submission failure - particularly in electronic systems with size and handling limitations.

15. RFP Section: L-4.7

• Topic or Section Reference: C.5

• Industry Question/Clarification: Section L-4.7 Volume II - Technical Proposal - USMC requires Offerors shall provide a USMC Technical Proposal describing how the Offeror will achieve MCPP requirements for USMC Supply and Distribution (SOW C.4), USMC Maintenance Management (SOW C.2.4) and USMC Maintenance for activities conducted at MCSF-BI in Jacksonville, FL (SOW C.3); while deployed aboard Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS) (SOW C.7), and at land-based prepositioning sites (SOW C.3, C.4). The Offeror will also provide a section within the USMC Technical Proposal addressing how the Offeror will accomplish MCPP requirements for Medical Materiel and equipment (SOW C.5); however there isn't a designated section for the SOW C.5 requirement similar to the other SOW specifications mentioned. Requirement jumps from SOWs C.3, C.4 to Manning for USMC and Material Management. Question: Request USG reorganize and incorporate SOW C.5 as item 7.4 and provide any associated requirements and change USMC and Medical Materiel Manning as item 7.5 and provide additional page count.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. The question has been considered and the Government's decision is to keep Section L as written.

16. RFP Section: N/A

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4.2.8.1 (d)

• Industry Question/Clarification: Section L-4.2.8.1 (d) states: "No narrow or condensed fonts allowed. Times New Roman or Arial is required. The font size shall be no less than 12 point except for the following... (2) The font shall be no smaller than 10 point for text in tables, charts, graphs, and figures..." Question: Will the government please confirm that font size in the margin area, specifically the page header, footer and paragraph numbering may be smaller than 12 point.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Offeror may use their discretion for the font size in the margin area, specifically the page header, footer, and paragraph numbering.

17. RFP Section: 2.2 Quality Management

• Topic or Section Reference: 2.2

• Industry Question/Clarification: The MCMC shall include these personnel in the PPSP identified in paragraph 2.A.1 of this document. Question: The SOW references paragraph 2.A.1, however there is no paragraph numbered 2.A.1 in the SOW. Please provide the appropriate reference and paragraph number.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Amendment 0002 reflects corrected SOW para. 2.2.

Changed from 2.A.1 to 2.1.1.3.

18. RFP Section: N/A

• Topic or Section Reference: Section C (SOW) 2.1.2.3; and Section J (CDRL List) Exhibit A CDRL #2034

• Industry Question/Clarification: There is a new monthly reporting requirement for an Estimate at Completion Report (EAC). There is not a sample EAC report in Section J-9 (SOW Attachments). Please provide associated file.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Contractor may utilize its internal corporate format for the required report. The proposed format is subject to written approval by the Government.

19. RFP Section: N/A

• Topic or Section Reference: Section C (SOW) 2.1.2.4; and Section J (CDRL List) Exhibit A CDRL #2035

• Industry Question/Clarification: There is a new monthly reporting requirement for a Program Cost Summary Report. There is not a sample Program Cost Summary report in Section J-9 (SOW Attachments). Please provide associated file.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Contractor may utilize its internal corporate format for the required report, provided all mandatory data fields specified in Section

2.1.2.4 are included. The proposed format is subject to written approval by the

20. RFP Section: H-8.2; Ordering Process

• Industry Question/Clarification: The MCPP II Solicitation includes an indirect rate ceiling clause applicable across the entire 10-year period of performance. Given the unprecedented economic volatility, inflationary pressures, evolving federal workforce policies, and regulatory changes anticipated over the next decade, this requires offerors to a) assume excessive risk that undermines contract performance and/or b) inflate proposed ceiling rates to account for unforeseeable economic conditions, thereby increasing the overall cost to the Government.

Recommendation: Since the Government has built in protections for indirect cost growth based on the nature of the CPFF Term contract type, the indirect rate ceiling clause is not necessary and should be removed from the final MCPP II solicitation.

Alternatively, we recommend the Government consider revising the clause to include a mechanism that allows periodic negotiation or adjustment of indirect rate ceilings at defined intervals (every 2-3 years for example) which would be based on actual rate experience and prevailing economic conditions.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Concur in part. The Government recognizes the risk associated with forecasting indirect rates over a 10-year period of performance.

While the Government requires the stability of indirect rate ceilings for the Base Ordering Period (Years 1-5), the solicitation has been amended to include a redetermination mechanism prior to the exercise of the Optional Ordering Period (Years 6-10). Please see the updated clause G-8 Indirect Cost Rate Ceilings and Option Period Redetermination in Amendment 0002, which outlines the process for negotiating revised ceilings for the Option Period based on actual rate experience and economic conditions.

21. RFP Section: B, (b); Level of Effort - Fee Adjustment Formula

• Industry Question/Clarification: Paragraph (b) of the Level of Effort - Fee Adjustment Formula states that the Offeror should identify uncompensated overtime hours. Please confirm that if the Offeror didn't bid hours for uncompensated overtime in their rates established in Attachment #J-7, then this paragraph (including its definitions) would not apply.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Non-concur. The requirements of FAR 52.237-10, Identification of Uncompensated Overtime, and the associated Fee Adjustment Formula apply to all proposals. While an Offeror may not intentionally 'bid' uncompensated overtime hours in their Cost Model (Attachment J-7), the Offeror must still disclose if its proposed labor rates are based on a total-work-week accounting system that includes uncompensated overtime.

The Government will evaluate all proposals for cost realism. If an Offeror's proposed rates are found to be unrealistically low due to the use of uncompensated overtime that was not identified, the Government may adjust the Offeror's probable cost of performance accordingly. Offerors must ensure that the accounting practices used to estimate uncompensated overtime for proposal purposes are consistent with their practices for accumulating and reporting these hours in their accounting records.

22. RFP Section: H-16 (4) Avoidance of Organizational Conflicts of Interest

• Industry Question/Clarification: Paragraph (4) uses the term "main supplier".

Question: Can the government please define "main supplier"?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See Amendment 0002 for changes to Para. H-16.

Changed from "main supplier" to "major subcontractor."

23. RFP Section: H-16 (5) c.; Avoidance of Organizational Conflicts of Interest

• Industry Question/Clarification: Is the reference to the MCMC referring to the Prime Offeror?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes. As defined in Section H-1, the Marine Corps Maintenance Contractor (MCMC) refers to the Prime Contractor/Awardee responsible for the performance of this contract. Section H-16 has been updated in Amendment 0002 to ensure consistent use of terminology.

24. RFP Section: Section I - Contract Clauses

• Topic or Section Reference: N/A

• Industry Question/Clarification: Many of the citations listed have an Effective Date of February 2026, which appears to be inconsistent with the Effective Date that is stated in Acquisition.gov. (ex: 52.215-19). Question: Can the government confirm these dates are correct and provide the reference for the location of these clauses in full text?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government acknowledges that the Contract Writing System generated an administrative error, applying a "February 2026" date to several provisions and clauses. The Government will not be manually amending the dates for each individual citation.

In accordance with FAR 52.252-1, Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference, and FAR 52.252-2, Clauses Incorporated by Reference, all provisions and clauses are incorporated with the same force and effect as if given in full text. The authoritative and correct effective date for any incorporated provision or clause is the version published and in effect on the issuance date of this solicitation. Offerors are responsible for accessing the full and accurate text via https://www.acquisition.gov. See additions to Section I of the RFP.

25. RFP Section: L-1

• Industry Question/Clarification: In order to allow Offerors to provide complete and accurate proposals and ensure they have time to adequately review all documents as part of the Program Data and Technical Library, will the government extend the due date for questions to June 5th?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Extended to June 2, 2026, at 10:00 AM Local Time

(EDT).

26. RFP Section: N/A

• Topic or Section Reference: (C 3) 3.4.2

• Industry Question/Clarification: SOW states oil testing as a requirement each MMC and states CmdO 4790.1 is the reference. The current CmdO 4790.1 does not https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.acquisition.gov reference oil testing. Question: Request the Government provide oil testing requirement details and update the CmdO 4790.1.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SOW 3.4.2 has been omitted from the SOW. This change is reflected in Amendment 0002 of the RFP. The requirement for fluid testing to support condition-based maintenance determinations regarding fluid and filter replacement was predicated on the anticipated fielding of the Expeditionary Fluid Analysis System (EFAS). However, due to delays in fielding of the system, the requirement has been removed from the SOW. In lieu of fluid analysis testing, PMCS performed during MMC, to include fluid and filter replacement, shall be executed in accordance with the PMCS levels identified for each TAMCN within enclosure H-1 of Appendix H of the MMSOP, as well as the applicable equipment Technical Manuals

(TM).

27. RFP Section: N/A

• Topic or Section Reference: C.6 Navy

• Industry Question/Clarification: Attachment C.1.2.1.b Navy Watercraft Plan only covers eight years vice the 10 years for the contract. What is the plan for the remaining two years?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: An updated Attachment C.1.2.1.b, which includes the full 10-year Navy Watercraft Plan, will be provided via email to all Offerors who have submitted the required Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and requested Government Furnished Information (GFI).

28. RFP Section: N/A

• Industry Question/Clarification: As the current Collective Bargaining Agreement is set to expire prior to proposal submittal, will the Government issue the new CBA for incorporation into proposal pricing by ALL Offerors once ratified?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See Section L.4.1.1. The Government will only incorporate a new or revised CBA into the solicitation via amendment if the agreement is fully ratified, signed by both parties, and received by the Contracting Officer in a timely manner as prescribed by FAR 22.1012-2.

If a new CBA is not finalized and received by the Government prior to the 'time of receipt' limitations (typically 10 days before proposal submission for negotiated procurements), Offerors shall base their proposal pricing on the current CBA provided in the solicitation. The successful Offeror will be required to comply with the successor contractor requirements of 41 U.S.C. § 6707(c). Post-award adjustments resulting from a new CBA will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards-Price Adjustment.

29. RFP Section: N/A

• Industry Question/Clarification: Please confirm Offerors are required to bid current CBA rates and benefits in their proposals in order to mitigate possible union disruptions and protests.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See Section L.4.1.1. Offerors are required to propose wages and fringe benefits that are consistent with the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provided in RFP Attachment J-3. In accordance with 41 U.S.C. § 6707(c) and FAR 22.1008-2, a successor contractor must pay at least the wages and fringe benefits established in the predecessor's CBA.

Proposals utilizing labor rates or fringe benefits lower than those mandated by the current CBA will be evaluated as unrealistically low and may be subject to an upward cost realism adjustment in accordance with Section M-5. The Government will not evaluate speculative pricing based on anticipated future negotiations;

however, the successful Offeror remains legally obligated to comply with all applicable labor laws and successor contractor requirements.

30. RFP Section: N/A

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4

• Industry Question/Clarification: Are Offerors permitted to add a supplemental tab to Attachment #7, for explanatory and traceability purposes only, that feeds into the required tabs to demonstrate the application of indirect rates and supporting cost elements?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Concur. Offerors are permitted to add supplemental tabs to Attachment J-7 (Cost Model Workbook) for the purpose of demonstrating traceability, indirect rate application, or internal calculations.

However, the following conditions apply:

1. Integrity of Required Tabs: Offerors must not alter, rename, or delete the Government-provided tabs. All final proposed costs must be clearly populated in the required tabs.

2. Traceability: Supplemental tabs must be clearly labeled, and all formulas linking to the required tabs must be "unlocked" and visible to allow for Government verification.

Conflict: In the event of a conflict between a supplemental tab and the required tabs, the data in the Government-mandated tabs shall take precedence.

31. RFP Section: 6.13.6

• Topic or Section Reference: C.6 Navy 6.13.6

• Industry Question/Clarification: Navy 6.13.6 states, “The MCMC shall validate, and update Integrated Computerized Deployment System (ICODES) deck diagram after backload in conjunction with the Government. The MCMC shall validate the ship’s drawings against the actual as loaded vessel; validations and updates shall be completed prior to the ship’s departure and approved by Port Operations.”

Question: Is the intent to give MCMC access to ICODES for updating and validating embarkation data?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. The MCMC will not have direct access to the ICODES system. The MCMC will validate the load plan by annotating ('redlining') physical deck diagrams during a joint physical vessel walkthrough. The Government/Port Operations will then input those validated updates into the ICODES system.

32. RFP Section: 6.1.1

• Topic or Section Reference: 6.6 Navy

• Industry Question/Clarification: Dedicated Support Exceptions for the Navy do not include Organic Ground Support Equipment (GSE) maintenance or facilities.

Does the government intend to have the MCMC provide dedicated facility and GSE maintenance resources for Navy GSE?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The requirement is split. The Government will provide the physical facilities and the organic Ground Support Equipment (GSE) assets. The MCMC is required to provide the dedicated technicians to perform maintenance on those NAV-P organic assets within the Government-provided facilities.

33. RFP Section: Attachment C.6.1.24 MRP

• Industry Question/Clarification: Annual Task Order MRP Category IV Work Item table or INLS: SWI # for work classification does not match SWI # for master item for SWI IN903 and above.

Question: Is this in error?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, there is no error. Please note that the MRP does not contain 'work classifications' or 'master items'; it utilizes 'Labor Classifications' and serves as an index of the SWIs. The MRP may use abbreviated terms (e.g., for IN903, the MRP states 'Inspect Synthetic Line'), whereas the actual SWI contains the specific equipment (e.g., SWI IN903 states 'Inspect the tow rig', which utilizes synthetic line). The documents align correctly.

34. RFP Section: N/A

• Industry Question/Clarification: Corrective maintenance data for USMC and Navy are absent from the Program Data and Technical Library. Is corrective maintenance data going to be provided for purposes of validating notional resources?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Corrective maintenance (CM) data is currently available within the Program Data and Technical Library. The file titled “GCSS-MC Service Request FY23-FY25” includes historical maintenance data for both Navy and Marine Corps ground equipment. The “Summary” tab depicts the volume of GCSS-MC Service Requests (SRs) by FY and SR type (to include CM), with separate breakouts for Shipboard Operations and MMC production. The “FY23-FY25 SR Data” tab provides detailed information for individual SRs. To obtain SR data specific to CM actions, Column “N” can be filtered by “Maintenance - CM.” To obtain SR data associated with Navy CESE maintenance actions, Column “G” can be filtered by “MMV104.” Due to Navy assets not being accounted for within GCSS-MC in the same manner as Marine Corps equipment, various data fields in Columns E, F, H, J, K, L, and M are not populated for Navy CESE records; however, Equipment Codes (EC) (comparable to TAMCNs) and Serial Numbers are included within the SR Summary field in Column “V.”

35. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4.2.8.1 (d) Page Format

• Industry Question/Clarification: Page 95 RFP requires the font size to be no less than 12 point. May Offerors use a smaller, still readable font for headers and footers?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See Government Response to Question #16. Yes, the Offeror may use their discretion for the font size in the margin area, specifically the page header, footer, and paragraph/line numbering.

36. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4.2.8.3 Page Limitations

• Industry Question/Clarification: Page 95 “Each page shall include an appropriate header and footer identifying the Solicitation number, contractor name as listed in the SAM, the Offeror's UEI number, date, volume number and page number.” Please confirm the following: 1. Headers and footers are not required on the cover page, and this information is to be included in the body of the cover page. 2. Reproduced sections of the solicitation documents and any preexisting documents are exempt from this requirement.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

1. Concur. Standard headers and footers are not required on the Cover Page, provided the mandated identifying information is clearly stated within the body of the Cover Page.

2. Concur. Preexisting documents (e.g., DCAA rate letters, Disclosure Statements, Commercial Agreements) and reproduced sections of the solicitation (e.g., signed SF-33, SF-30s) are exempt from the custom header/footer formatting requirement.

37. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4.2.8.4 (7) Pages Counted

• Industry Question/Clarification: Page 95 Per Att J-5, 2.1.1.2.1, Key Personnel resumes must be provided prior to the end of transition. Sec L 4.2.8.4 (7) indicates that Key Personnel resumes and letters of commitment are exempt from the proposal page count. Please confirm that Key Personnel resumes and letters of commitment are not required with the proposal.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Concur. Key Personnel resumes and Letters of Commitment are not required to be submitted with the proposal. The language in Section L-4.2.8.4 (7) is being deleted and marked as Reserved. As stated in Attachment J-5, actual resumes for Key Personnel will be required prior to the end of the transition period.

38. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4 8.4 Watercraft Maintenance

• Industry Question/Clarification: Page 98 The last bullet of 8.4 "-Quality Control (QC) for internal and external Capability Set production/maintenance" is identical to the last bullet in new section 8.2. Did the Government mean to have this bullet call for the QC methodology for watercraft maintenance, since it is in that section 8.4?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes. The Government acknowledges this administrative error. Section L, Paragraph L-4 8.4 has been amended to read: "- Quality Control (QC) for internal and external watercraft maintenance and production."

39. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: L.4 7.4 USMC and Medical Materiel Manning and L.4

8.6 Navy Manning

• Industry Question/Clarification: Page 97-98 Considering the L requirements to show understanding and present detailed methodologies in the Technical Proposal, would the Government allow the work breakdown structures to be exempt from the Technical Proposal page limitations?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Non-concur. Work Breakdown Structures (WBS) are considered substantive technical content demonstrating the Offeror's methodology and understanding of the requirement. Therefore, any WBS provided must remain subject to the established page limitations for the Technical Proposal (Volume II).

40. RFP Section: Attachment J-5

• Topic or Section Reference: C.6

• Industry Question/Clarification: Page 89 Attachment J-5 (6.1.1.8) indicates a Quality Control Manager role at the NAV-P level, while the Notional Organizational Structure depicts a Quality Inspector position supporting Navy operations. Please clarify the number of Quality Managers required.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Offeror is responsible for proposing the appropriate mix, quantity, and labor categorization of personnel (Managers vs.

Inspectors) required to meet the performance requirements and quality standards outlined in the SOW. The Notional Organizational Structure is provided strictly as a reference; the Offeror must propose a staffing solution that satisfies the SOW requirements in accordance with their own proposed Quality Management methodology.

41. RFP Section: Attachment J-5

• Topic or Section Reference: All

• Industry Question/Clarification: Would the Government please provide page numbers in the SOW to improve communications?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Concur. An updated Attachment J-5 (Statement of Work), which includes standard page numbering, will be provided via Amendment 0003.

42. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4.2.8.1 Page Format

• Industry Question/Clarification: Page 95 The solicitation requires that "each paragraph (in addition to heading levels) be uniquely numbered within each Volume." This approach may introduce ambiguity between hierarchical heading numbering and paragraph-level numbering, particularly in documents with multiple levels of headings. It may also complicate document navigation and automated table of contents generation. To support clarity, consistency, and ease of evaluation, would the Government allow line numbering (restarting each page) in lieu of paragraph-level numbering?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Concur. Offerors may utilize continuous line numbering (restarting on each page) in lieu of unique paragraph numbering to satisfy the requirement for evaluator reference points. Section L, Paragraph L-

4.2.8.1 has been amended to reflect this allowable alternative.

43. RFP Section: Attachment J-5 & Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: J-5 2.1.1.4 and L-4 10.4.1

• Industry Question/Clarification: Page 28 The solicitation states both that training charges are to be direct (Attachment J-5) and that they are to be budgeted for in accordance with the Offeror’s Disclosure Statement (RFP Section L-4 10.4.1).

Would the Government please confirm that Offerors should budget for training in accordance with their Disclosure Statement?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Concur. Offerors shall estimate and propose training costs in strict accordance with their approved DCAA Disclosure Statement and established Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). If an Offeror's accounting practices dictate that specific training is an indirect cost, it shall be proposed as such, notwithstanding the general language in Attachment J-5. The Offeror's Disclosure Statement and CAS compliance take precedence for cost accounting and proposal estimating purposes.

44. RFP Section: Section I

• Topic or Section Reference: FAR 52.215-21 (Page 41)

• Industry Question/Clarification: Would the government please confirm whether separate email submission of the proposal to the Contracting Officer and Contract

Specialist is required in addition to the required submission through PIEE? If so, would the Government please confirm the names and email addresses of those individuals and what portion of the submission must be sent to them?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Proposal submission shall be made solely through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module.

Separate duplicate email submissions to the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist are neither required nor authorized.

45. RFP Section: Section I

• Topic or Section Reference: FAR 52.246-20 Warranty of Services

• Industry Question/Clarification: As this clause is applicable for FFP contracts, please confirm that this clause applies only to the Program Management and Transition (FFP) CLINs.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Confirmed. FAR 52.246-20, Warranty of Services, applies only to the Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLINs (Program Management and Transition).

46. RFP Section: Section H

• Topic or Section Reference: H-10(a)(4) (Page 33)

• Industry Question/Clarification: H-10(a)(4) states “travel requests must be submitted and approved by the Government prior to the assignment of irrevocable/nonrefundable reservations or other expenditure of funds." Typically, the Government anticipates that travel reservations are fully refundable so that needs can flex and change without causing undue cost to the program should travel needs change. Would the Government please confirm that the Offeror is expected to utilize only nonrefundable reservations for this program?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government does not expect or require the Offeror to utilize only nonrefundable reservations. The intent of H-10(a)(4) is to ensure that if any nonrefundable or irrevocable bookings are made, they receive prior Government approval to protect the Government from liability for cancellation fees.

The utilization of refundable travel arrangements is encouraged to maintain program flexibility.

47. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4.10.4.2 (Page 100)

• Industry Question/Clarification: The solicitation requires compliance with CAS and an Offeror’s disclosed practices. The restriction against an application of indirect rates against travel costs could potentially violate an Offeror’s disclosed practices. While we understand the Government’s practice to not allow fee against travel costs, we request that the Government remove the solicitation restriction against the application of indirect rates to travel costs.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government is cognizant of Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) consistency requirements. The Government will amend the solicitation to allow the application of applicable indirect rates to travel costs in accordance with the Offeror’s established and disclosed accounting practices.

However, no fee (profit) may be applied to Travel CLINs. Section L will be updated via Amendment 0003.

48. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4, Clause 10.4.2

• Industry Question/Clarification: This paragraph states that "No indirect rates or fee shall be applied to the travel CLINs." In accordance with most company disclosure statements, the allowable cost and payment provision of the RFP, and Clause H-8.9, indirect costs are allowable on cost contracts. Please remove this requirement.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See answer #47. The restriction on the application of indirect rates to Travel CLINs will be removed. The restriction on applying fee (profit) remains.

49. RFP Section: Section E

• Topic or Section Reference: Quality Control Plan

• Industry Question/Clarification: Per Section E of the RFP: The MCMC's Quality Control Plan must align with the BICmd Risk and Performance Manual (CmdO

P5000.11) to comply with ISO Joint Certification requirements. Please provide a copy of CmdO P5000.11 as it was not included in the Bidders Library.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government will provide CmdO P5000.11 (BICmd Risk and Performance Manual) via email to all Offerors who have submitted the required Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and requested Government Furnished Information (GFI).

50. RFP Section: L-4.7

• Topic or Section Reference: C.5 Section L-4.7 Volume II

• Industry Question/Clarification: To confirm, by the USG's response, as the USG doesn't have a dedicated section for SOW C.5 Medical Materiel, contractors do not have to provide any narrative of SOW C.5 Medical Materiel, only workload and manning?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. In accordance with Section L – 7.4, Volume III, Offerors must still address how they will accomplish SOW C.5 requirements within the Volume III narrative. While a dedicated standalone section number is not explicitly reserved in the outline, the technical approach to this requirement must be clearly evident and integrated into the proposal.

51. RFP Section: L-4

• Topic or Section Reference: 10.4.2

• Industry Question/Clarification: Given that CLIN X006 appears to be structured as an ODC CLIN where labor and fee is not permitted, can the Government confirm whether CLIN X006 is the appropriate CLIN for proposing Over and Above support, inclusive of labor and applicable fee, and if not, identify the correct CLIN for such support?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: In accordance with Section L- 10.4.3, CLIN X006 is not for Over and Above (O&A), it is only for ODCs. Neither Labor nor Fee are permitted on this CLIN. Indirects are permitted. This contract does not differentiate between Preventive and Corrective Maintenance (O&A). All labor will be captured in CLIN X001 Program Management, CLIN X002 CONUS Labor, CLIN X003 OCONUS Labor, and CLIN X004 OLS for future unknown requirements.

52. RFP Section: L-4

• Topic or Section Reference: 10.4.2

• Industry Question/Clarification: Section 10.2 references FAR 15.404-8 which is not found under Subpart 15.4. Can the Government clarify the correct FAR clause it intended to reference?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: In accordance with Section L – 10.2, the reference to FAR 15.404-8 is a typographical error. The correct reference is FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. The RFP will be updated accordingly.

53. RFP Section: Section J

• Industry Question/Clarification: Will the Government provide an Attachment J-1 template for all offerors, or should Attachment J-1 be submitted in an offeror-developed format for proposal purposes?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: An offeror-developed format is acceptable. The Government will not provide an Attachment J-1 template.

54. RFP Section: L-4.4.2.8.4

• Industry Question/Clarification: L-4.4.2.8.4 lists Labor Category Descriptions/Position Descriptions under uncounted pages. Please confirm that this is related to the manning requirements within Volume III - Technical Proposal - USMC and Volume IV - Technical Proposal - Navy? If not, provide guidance as to which requirement this exemption applies.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Confirmed. The exemption applies to the manning requirements and associated position descriptions supporting Volume III and Volume IV.

55. RFP Section: L-4.4.2.8.4

• Industry Question/Clarification: L-4.4.2.8.4 lists Resumes and Letters of Commitment under uncounted pages. As there is no requirement to provide resumes and letters of commitment, request the removal of item (7).

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See Answer #37.

56. RFP Section: L.9.2; Section M

• Topic or Section Reference: Factor 4 (D.3-D.5)

• Industry Question/Clarification: Please clarify whether the Government’s evaluation of adverse past performance will be limited to the most recent CPARS submitted for each reference, or whether the Government intends to consider adverse performance information from prior CPARS evaluations or other sources within the five-year recency window, including information not submitted with the proposal but otherwise available to the Government.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government will consider all available information.

In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the Government reserves the right to evaluate past performance information obtained from prior CPARS evaluations and other sources within the recency window, not just the most recent CPARS provided by the Offeror.

57. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: Volume VIII, Proposal

• Industry Question/Clarification: For DFARS 252.215-7012, Requirements for Submission of Proposals via Electronic Media (Jan 2018), is it the Government's intent to have the Offeror fill this in?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. The Government inadvertently left this clause blank. The RFP will be amended to update DFARS 252.215-7012, instructing Offerors to submit via the PIEE Solicitation Module in accordance with Section L.

58. RFP Section: L-4

• Topic or Section Reference: Attachment #J-7

• Industry Question/Clarification: Please confirm whether the Government has any objection to Offerors incorporating additional columns in CLIN X003 of the pricing template to accommodate labor adders (e.g., DBA, Employee Allowances, and R&Rs).

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No objection. Offerors may incorporate additional columns in CLIN X003 to provide clear visibility into labor adders, provided the underlying formula logic remains intact, clearly verifiable, and does not alter the core structure of the template.

59. RFP Section: Section G

• Topic or Section Reference: DFARS 252.217-7008 Bonds

• Industry Question/Clarification: Under what CLIN(s) would a performance and payment bond be requested?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government does not anticipate requiring performance or payment bonds under any CLIN associated with this solicitation.

Should the Government's requirements change, any bonding requirements would be identified in the applicable task order solicitation utilizing CLIN X004.

60. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4, Clause 10.4.8.ii

• Industry Question/Clarification: FAR 52.222-43 applies only to Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Time and Materials (T&M) contracts. Please remove the requirement to not escalate CBA and WD positions.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Partially Concur. The Government acknowledges that FAR 52.222-43 applies only to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) and Time-and-Materials (T&M) line items. The RFP will be amended to distinguish between contract types. For Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) CLINs, Offerors shall include proposed out-year escalation for Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) and Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) covered positions to establish a realistic estimate of total cost.

For FFP CLINs, Offerors shall not include out-year escalation for SCLS and CBA covered positions, as future adjustments will be governed by FAR 52.222-43.

61. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: Page 103 Factor 6

• Industry Question/Clarification: Please confirm the applicable goal percentages by category (SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, SDVOSB, VOSB) are calculated on subcontractable dollars.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. In accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures for evaluating Small Business Participation, the goal percentages must be calculated based on the Total Estimated Contract Value (TECV), not solely on subcontracted dollars.

62. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: Page 103

• Industry Question/Clarification: The solicitation requires submission of both a Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP), evaluated in accordance with DFARS 215.104-70, and a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP), reviewed for compliance with FAR 52.219-9 (Alt II). DFARS 215.104-70 evaluates small business participation based on the extent of participation in performance of the total estimated contract value, including prime and/or joint venture performance, whereas FAR 52.219-9 requires subcontracting goals to be calculated solely as a percentage of total subcontracted dollars. As these plans are governed by separate regulatory authorities and calculated on different bases, the resulting dollar values will necessarily differ. Please confirm that offerors are not required to reconcile or equalize SBPP and SBSP dollar values, beyond ensuring consistency in the identified small business firms, scope of work, and percentage goals. Additionally, please confirm that the requirement to “state what percentage of total estimated contract value each business will perform” may be satisfied by stating the percentage of total subcontracted contract value applicable to each subcontracting firm.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government confirms that the Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) and Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) are separate requirements governed by different regulatory authorities and calculated using different methodologies. Accordingly, offerors are not required to reconcile or equalize the dollar values reflected in the SBPP and SBSP.

However, the plans should be reasonably consistent with respect to the identified small business concerns, the nature of the work to be performed, and the overall small business participation approach proposed by the offeror.

The requirement to identify the percentage of total estimated contract value to be performed by each business in the SBPP refers to the percentage of the total estimated contract value, not the percentage of total subcontracted dollars.

Therefore, offerors shall identify each firm's participation as a percentage of the total estimated contract value for purposes of the SBPP. The SBSP shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 and its applicable requirements regarding subcontracting goals.

63. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: Page 103

• Industry Question/Clarification: Given the highly specialized nature of the MCPP mission, the limited base of small businesses possessing relevant military/USMC prepositioning experience, applicable past performance, collective bargaining agreement experience, and certified vehicle and watercraft maintenance personnel, the requirement for achieving 30% small business participation on a contract of this magnitude appears impracticable, inconsistent with current market capability, and unnecessarily creating too much operational risk. This is particularly challenging considering that a substantial portion of the contract value is inherently tied to specialized incumbent labor necessary to maintain uninterrupted combat readiness support to the MPF.