RFP_Sec_J__Attachment_10_CINSAM_Q_and_A_3_Dec_2018.docx

CINSAM

N00014-18-R-0006 Attachment 10 Questions and Answers Submitted as of 3 Dec 2018

QUESTION: The DPAS Rating in Block 1 of the Standard Form 33 is listed as C9E. Should the rating be DX or DO, and what is the significance of the E?

RESPONSE: The E is included in the online Weighted Guideline system for DPAS ratings as an extension of the miscellaneous rating. The Contracting Officer has done additional research and notes that DCMA does not use the “E” in their ratings for the DPAS program. The “E” will be removed via amendment.

Included via amendment: Yes

QUESTION: The text in the Item Description column of the table on page 4 of the solicitation appears cutoff prematurely. Is there additional text beyond "perform research on approved"?

RESPONSE: The text in this table is the same text from Section B, CLIN 0001 on page 2 of the RFP. Due to character limitations in the table in Section F, it was cut off. Please refer to Section B, CLIN 0001 on page 2 for the full description.

Included via amendment: Yes

QUESTION: On page 17 of the solicitation, the table in Section I containing the clauses incorporated by reference does not currently include the May 2018 deviation for 52.215-12. Will the resulting IDIQ include the then-current version of the clause?

RESPONSE: It will be included via amendment.

Included via amendment: Yes

QUESTION: Within FAR 52.211-14 on page 95 of the solicitation, should the clause indicate either a DX rated order or a DO rated order?

RESPONSE: It is a DO rated order and will be updated via amendment to show as such.

Included via amendment: Yes

QUESTION: At the top of page 107 of the solicitation, in the second sentence of paragraph #3, there is a reference to "prioritizing Naval Metal Working manufacturing technologies". Should that language instead read "prioritizing shipbuilding and advanced manufacturing technologies"?

RESPONSE: This is a typo on the part of the Contracting Officer and will be changed via amendment to read as noted in the question.

Included via amendment: Yes

QUESTION: On page 108 of the solicitation, in paragraph #5, there is a reference to "operate and manage the Navy Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Navy Metalworking Center". Should that language instead read "operate and manage the Navy Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Center for Innovative Naval Shipbuilding and Advanced Manufacturing (CINSAM)"?

RESPONSE: This is a typo on the part of the Contracting Officer and will be changed via amendment to read as noted in the question.

Included via amendment: Yes

QUESTION: On the first page of Attachment 2, Key Personnel Qualifications, there are three references to composites technologies. Should that language instead read "shipbuilding and advanced manufacturing technologies"?

RESPONSE: This is a typo on the part of the Contracting Officer and will be changed via amendment to read as noted in the question.

Included via amendment: Yes

QUESTION: The RFP states “(3) The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume shall then include three recent/relevant examples.”

In contrast, the RFP states “(a) Past Performance information shall be submitted on no more than three (3) recent contracts that the Offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort.”

Can the government confirm offerors can submit up to three (3) examples and still remain compliant?

RESPONSE: Note for the record that emphasis (bold and underlined text) was added by the offeror who posed the question and was not emphasized by the Government.

There is no contrast to the two sentences. The Government has requested three recent and relevant examples. Offerors SHALL (emphasis made by the Contracting Officer) submit 3 examples. The Government will ONLY (emphasis made by the Contracting Officer) review 3 examples.

Included via amendment: Yes, See Section L3.

RESPONSE: These sections have been clarified to show the Government will review three examples but no more than three.

QUESTION: One of the COE-Level Deliverables in the bulleted list is titled, “COE Affordability Assessments” due “typically semi-annually.”

This deliverable does not have a corresponding CDRL associated with it. Should a CDRL be added for this deliverable in Exhibit A? Or should this deliverable be removed from Section 2.4 of the SOW?

RESPONSE: This was an administrative oversight on the part of the Contracting Officer. The deliverable will be added to the CDRL.

Included via amendment: Yes. See Revised CDRL.

QUESTION: In the SOW, the Final Report is not listed as a deliverable requirement; however, in Exhibit B, CDRL A001 is entitled, “Final Report.”

Should the SOW include the Final Report as a deliverable? Or should CDRL A001 be removed from Exhibit B?

RESPONSE: This was an administrative oversight on the part of the Contracting Officer. The deliverable will be added to the CDRL.

Included via amendment: Yes. See Revised CDRL.

QUESTION: For example, under “First Task Order – Center Operations and Management,” the first CDRL (A001) listed is identified for the First Task Order. However, the next two CDRLs listed (A002-Final Report and A003-All other ManTech Program deliverables as required) are identified for the Second Task Order. (Please Note that the CDRLs referenced do not match up to either Task Order.)

Can you revise Attachment 3 or Exhibits A and B to ensure consistency?

RESPONSE: Attachment 3 is revised.

Included via amendment: Yes. See Revised Attachment.

QUESTION: “Respond to any and all applicable data calls” (RFP) and “Responding to data calls as requested by the ONR ManTech Director, the ONR Program Office, or their representatives” (SOW).

What types of data calls could the Contractor be requested to provide?

RESPONSE: The following items are examples of possible data calls. This list only provides an idea of data items requested in the past and is not an inclusive list of all potential future data calls.

* List ManTech projects that advanced technology developed by a small business

* Provide the estimated cost savings for all ManTech projects that were implemented during a specific timeframe

* Provide the city and state of all performers on ManTech projects executed during a specific timeframe

* Provide the amount of funding that went to performers on ManTech projects executed during a specific timeframe in a specific location or region

* Estimate the amount of funding ManTech dedicated to projects that addressed a specific issue like distortion or corrosion

* List conferences that a COE intends to attend and/or exhibit at in a specific fiscal year

Included via amendment: No; clarification only.

QUESTION: CDRLs A001 and A004, Block 13 states, “Reports will be due every 30 days thereafter.”

For example, the first August/September 2019 Monthly Status Report would be due October 20, 2019 (20 days after the first full calendar month). The following few months would be due as follows (30 days after the previous month): November 19, 2019, December 19, 2019, January 18, 2020, and February 17, 2020. In other words, e.g., the monthly report due in January 2022 will be due February 6, 2022. Is it the intent of the Government to have the due date be “monthly thereafter (20th of each month)” versus 30 days thereafter, which changes the due date month-to-month?

RESPONSE: Intent is monthly thereafter (20th of each month).

Included via amendment: Yes, see amended due date for CDRLs.

QUESTION: Offerors are to include Attachment 9, ONR specific Representations and Certifications behind Volume IV. Should Section K also be completed and included in Volume IV?

RESPONSE: The RFP has been revised to provide the information behind Vol IV.

Included via amendment: Yes. See amended RFP.

QUESTION: Should offerors include a small business subcontracting plan in the offer? If so, in what volume should it be included?

RESPONSE: Only if the offeror meets the requirement to submit such a plan. The RFP has been revised to provide the information behind Vol IV.

Included via amendment: Yes. See amended RFP.

QUESTION: Should the required cover page for the price volume be included as the first page of the Attachment 7?

RESPONSE: Yes.

Included via amendment: No; clarification only

QUESTION: Subcontractors are required to complete Attachment 7 and 8. Is this a requirement for all subcontractors regardless of their contract type (i.e. if a subcontractor will be a T&M, does that subcontractor need to provide T&M rates only and not the breakdown of direct / indirect rates)?

RESPONSE: Please see page 90 which states as follows:

(2) An offeror and each of its proposed subcontractors shall fill out Attachment 7, Price Information (See Section J for a copy of the document). In addition, all prime and subcontractor offerors must complete a Price Proposal – Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Attachment 8 (See Section J for a copy of the document), to detail the total estimated costs plus estimated fixed fee representative of their technical solution proposed to satisfy the government’s requirement.

Note for the record the Government has emphasized the RFP verbiage in italics above.

The Government has not differentiated between contract types; therefore, it is at the discretion of the offeror to determine what they feel is a reasonable breakout of each subcontractor’s price regardless of the contract type. If the Government does not have sufficient information from an offeror’s subcontractor, that offeror places themselves at risk should the Government proceed to award without discussions.

Included via amendment: No; clarification only

QUESTION: If subcontractors consider their rate information proprietary, is it acceptable to provide Attachments 7 and 8 in a sealed package delivered with the prime’s proposal?

RESPONSE: The RFP is silent on this; therefore, this is at the discretion of the offeror. Regardless, offerors are encourage to review page 79 of the RFP which reads:

(D) Offerors shall provide one (1) original and five (5) paper copies as well as one (1) electronic copy (Technical, Past Performance, Price and Organizational/Personal Conflict of interest volumes) in PDF and Microsoft Office compatible format on CD ROM. The electronic technical, past performance, cost proposals, and OCI must be on separate CDs with search functions enabled and include unlocked Word and Excel documents. The ONR Reps and Certs may be submitted as a signed PDF only.

Note for the record the Government has emphasized the RFP verbiage in italics above.

An amendment to this RFP will note that this applies to subcontractors.

Included via amendment: Yes. See amended RFP.

QUESTION: Regarding attachments, is it acceptable to submit these files with the formatting (font, size, margins, etc.) as they are provided in an attachment or are offerors to re-format to meet the solicitation formatting requirements?

RESPONSE: Please provide the requested information as it appears in the attachments. Do not reformat the documents.

Included via amendment: No; clarification only

QUESTION: What level of detail is required for the Basis of Estimate? Is a BOE required for each Task and/or for each WBS level?

RESPONSE: The evaluation will review the following: Completeness, consistency with the offeror’s approach, and any evidence of material imbalances within the proposal for the purposes of assessing realism and reasonableness of the proposed costs.

The Government does not require BoE at the Task/WBS level; however, offerors may provide this information if they wish to. Attachment 7, Price Information, defines this in examples which include similar projects, estimating system, etc. As there are a myriad of ways to provide a BOE, the Government has provided two examples in Attachment 7. Of note, the BOE in Attachment 7 refers only to Direct Labor. BOE is needed in order to determine an offeror’s basis for their proposed labor for use on the resultant two task orders which will be awarded from the CINSAM IDIQ.

Offerors need only provide the documentation for BOE in order for the Government to assess realism and reasonableness of the proposed costs. It is up to the offeror to determine how much information they wish to provide in order for the Government’s analysis.

Included via amendment: No; clarification only

QUESTION: Are offerors permitted to include Appendices to the Attachment 7 to support the information required such as rate letters, BOEs, etc.?

RESPONSE: Yes, this is acceptable. See page 80 of the RFP which states: (3) There is no page limitation on the length of Volume III, Cost Proposal.

Included via amendment: Yes. See amended RFP..

QUESTION: What volume should offerors place the Compensation plan required by this clause? If it is in the price volume, is it acceptable to be an appendix to Attachment 7?

RESPONSE: Only if the offerors metes the requirement to submit such a plan. The RFP has been revised to provide the information behind Vol IV.

Included via amendment: Yes. See amended RFP.

QUESTION: Confirm the rate caps on subcontractors is the cap that primes are permitted to propose on the subcontractors proposal and not a fee cap for what the subcontractors can propose to their prime?

REPONSE: The maximum fee primes can earn on this requirement is noted on page 91. The maximum fee subcontractors can earn on this requirement is noted on page 91. For example, a prime submits a ManTech project with a fee of 5% and they have a subcontractor that has proposed 6%. This is acceptable. On the other hand, if a prime submits a ManTech project with a fee of 5% and a subcontractor proposed at 8%, that project will not conform to the requirements as set forth in the solicitation and will not be evaluated.

Included via amendment: No; clarification only

QUESTION: Please confirm the fee cap on subcontractor is 7% for ManTech Projects and Special Projects/Mega Rapid Response.

RESPONSE: The offeror is encouraged to read page 91 of the RFP for confirmation and to read the responase to the question directly above.

Included via amendment: No; clarification only

QUESTION: Are offerors required to return a signed SF33 with its offer? If so what Volume should it go in?

RESPOSNE: See page 1, middle of page labeled as “OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror.” The Government does not specify the location for submission of this document and will identify this via amendment.

Included via amendment: Yes. See amended RFP.

QUESTION: COE Director has the following requirements:

· A technical BS degree from an accredited university and a minimum of 10 years of experience in managing composites (or related) manufacturing technology development programs; advanced degree highly preferred.

· Experience in and a broad understanding of technology development and manufacturing; particularly composites and similar technologies

Is “managing composites (or related) manufacturing technology” in the 1st bullet and “particularly composites and similar technologies” in the 2nd bullet correct?

RESPONSE: This has already been addressed earlier in the Q&A. As noted previously this was a typo on the part of the Contracting Officer and will be revised.

Included via amendment: Yes. See amended RFP.

QUESTION: COE Technical Director has the following requirement:

· A thorough understanding of composites manufacturing and related technologies with the ability to recognize areas of manufacturing need and evaluate potential solutions.

Is “composites manufacturing and related technologies” correct?

RESPONSE: This has already been addressed earlier in the Q&A. As noted previously this was a typo on the part of the Contracting Officer and will be revised.

Included via amendment: Yes. See amended RFP.

QUESTION: Will the Government provide the historical labor mix and level of effort?

RESPONSE: No. This information is proprietary to the incumbent.

Included via amendment: No; clarification only

QUESTION: Please confirm that the table should be interpreted as the noted Fee Caps for Task Order 1 (COE Operations and Management) and Task Order 2 (Project Development and Management) are 5% Fee Cap Prime and 1% Fee Cap Subcontractor. The Offeror assumes that the noted 5% Fee Cap Prime and 7% Fee Cap Subcontractor for Man Tech Projects and Special Projects/Mega Rapid Response project types are information for Task Orders beyond Task Order 1 and Task Order 2 (i.e. - beyond the scope of this proposal) and are thus provided only for informational purposes and not for purposes effecting the pricing of Task Order 1 and Task Order 2. Is the Offeror’s assumption correct ?

RESPONSE: Yes.

Included via amendment: No; clarification only

QUESTION: The instructions state all proposals must be rounded to whole dollars. The “Base, O-I, O-II, and O-III” tabs have a rounding formula; however, all other tabs (consultants, Materials-supplies, equipment, travel, ODCs, first TO total and second TO total) do not have rounding formulas. Should offeror round ALL worksheets to the whole dollar or leave as is?

RESPONSE: Please follow the directions to round [all worksheets] to whole dollars.

Included via amendment: Yes. See amended RFP section L4 and Attachment 8.

QUESTION: There appears to be a small inconsistency in formulas between the Total Amount/Base/O-I/O-II/O-III series of Worksheets and the First TO Total / Second TO Total series of Worksheets.

The former Worksheets have two Subtotal Lines (Line 59 and Line 64). The latter Worksheets have only one Subtotal Line (Line 61).

Line 59: Subtotal Line is sum of Total Direct Labor Costs

Total Fringe Benefit Costs

Total Labor Overhead Costs

Total Subcontract Costs

Total Consultant Costs

Total Other Direct Costs

Total Material Handling Costs

Line 61 and Line 64: Subtotal Line is sum of Total Direct Labor Costs

Total Fringe Benefit Costs

Total Labor Overhead Costs

Total Subcontract Costs

Total Consultant Costs

Total Other Direct Costs

Total Material Handling Costs

Total G&A Costs

Line 59 seems that it may be unnecessary in the former series of Worksheets. May the Offeror delete Line 59 (Subtotal) so that all worksheets then would have only one Subtotal Line which would consistently include all costs including G&A costs.

RESPONSE: Please follow the directions for Section L4, (3) regarding what to do when an offeror finds unneeded rows.

Included via amendment: Yes; Paragraphs were erroneously numbered; however, the information in the paragraph has not been changed.

QUESTION: The bottom two rows in the table communicate that the Fee Caps are 5% (Fee Cap Prime) and 7% (Fee Cap Subcontractor) for Man Tech Projects, Special Projects/Mega Rapid Response projects. Accordingly, the bottom two rows of the table appear to omit Rapid Response type projects. May the Offeror assume that Rapid Response projects (outside of Task Order 1 and Task Order 2) have Fee Caps of 5% (Fee Cap Prime) and 7% (Fee Cap Subcontractor). Or are Rapid Response projects held to 5% (Fee Cap Prime) and 1% (Fee Cap Subcontractor) for Task Orders outside of Task Order 1 and Task Order 2.

RESPONSE: The SOW notes (cut and paste, and emphasized, by the Contracting Officer):

Rapid Response projects – These projects are small dollar, urgent requirements. The projects are typically a 4-6month duration and $50K-$200K range. Rapid Response projects will be managed and executed under the Second Task Order.

The Contracting Officer has removed the requirement which was previously included under paragraph “i” which mentioned Rapid Response.

Accordingly, the table has been revised to break out all ManTech projects for clarity.

Included via amendment: Yes; Section L4 has been revised.

QUESTION: If an hourly rate consultant is proposed, is that consultant or the consultant’s company required to complete 7 and 8?

RESPONSE: As noted in the RFP, this is for subcontractors (emphasis added by the Contracting Officer) only. The question asked refers to consultants (emphasis added by the Contracting Officer). Consultants are not subcontractors; therefore, Attachments 7 and 8 are not required for consultants. All offerors are reminded that the Government has the option to award without discussions; therefore, it is a best practice for all offerors to provide sufficient cost information for preparation of the Cost Realism evaluation.

Included via amendment: No; Clarification only.

QUESTION: This section includes the following sentence “The Project Development Task Order includes ALL project hours for execution of ManTech projects.” Q. Can the government clarify what is the intention of “All” project hours for execution? Is our assumption correct that you mean ALL project management hours only not ALL hours to include technical execution?

RESPONSE: This statement should be corrected to read "all project management hours."

Technical execution hours are in the project task orders.

Included via amendment: Yes; Sentence has been revised.

QUESTION: This section includes the following sentence “Offerors shall not include labor hours for Project Development/Management in the individual project plan.” Q. Can the government confirm that “in the individual project plan” means that no project management labor costs should be assumed on individual projects once awarded? I.e., All project development/management labor should be included in the Second Task Order: Project Development and Management in our proposal?

RESPONSE: Yes.

Included via amendment: No; Clarification only.

QUESTION: Page 90, Section L, 4 (B) i. bullet 2 states: Two Rapid Response project(s)..shall be shown separately from COE Operations and Management Costs. The Offeror assumes this implies that the Rapid Response projects shall be priced out in separate worksheets within Attachment 8 (Price Proposal - Cost Plus Fixed Fee) and the Rapid Response projects proposed costs roll up into the total proposed costs for Task Order 1 (COE Operations and Management Costs). Is the Offeror's assumption correct ?

RESPONSE: Yes, this is correct; however, the Contracting Officer has revised the RFP to note that Rapid Response belongs to the second Task Order for Project Development.

Based on this, the offeror shall include their RR projects in their Project Development proposal.

Included via amendment: Yes.

Note from the Contracting Officer - The following follow up questions were submitted to the Contracting Officer after posting of the Q&A to FedBizOpps. As the solicitation states that the Government may provide answers to questions submitted after the Q&A cut off date, the questions posed were deemed by the Contracting Officer to warrant further clarification.

QUESTION: One of the COE-Level Deliverables in the bulleted list is titled, "COE Affordability Assessments" due "typically semi-annually."

This deliverable does not have a corresponding CDRL associated with it.

Should a CDRL be added for this deliverable in Exhibit A? Or should this deliverable be removed from Section 2.4 of the SOW?

RESPONSE: This was an administrative oversight on the part of the Contracting Officer. The deliverable will be added to the CDRL.

Included via amendment: Yes. See Revised CDRL.

FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Although CDRL A007 (Affordability Assessments) was added to Exhibit A, CDRL A006 (Small Business Utilization Report) was also added as a CDRL via Amendment 1. Was it the Government's intent to add both?

FOLLOW UP RESPONSE: Yes.

Included via amendment: No, clarification only.

QUESTION: In the SOW, the Final Report is not listed as a deliverable requirement; however, in Exhibit B, CDRL A001 is entitled, "Final Report."

Should the SOW include the Final Report as a deliverable? Or should CDRL A001 be removed from Exhibit B?

RESPONSE: This was an administrative oversight on the part of the Contracting Officer. The deliverable will be added to the CDRL.

FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Was it the intent of the Government to add the reference of this deliverable to the SOW vs. removing the CDRL from Exhibit B? Please note, that the response via Amendment 1 states the deliverable will be added to the CDRLs; however, the deliverable originally appeared in the CDRLs. Via Amendment 1, the CDRL was struck out of Exhibit B and the remaining CDRLs were renumbered to remove the Final Report. Please verify if there is a requirement to submit a Final Report for TO 0002 and if a revision of Exhibit B should be provided via another Amendment.

(NOTE: The original RFP Exhibit B CDRLs were numbered A001 - A004. Amendment 1 Exhibit B CDRLs were renumbered B001-B003.)

FOLLOW UP RESPONSE: There is no final report for the second Task Order. The Contracting Officer’s choice of words for the response should be clarified to note the Final Report CDRL (Exhibit B) was removed via A0001. There is also no requirement for a Final Report in Attachment 1, SOW.

Note from the Contracting Officer – As of 4 Dec 2018, no additional Q&A, nor follow up questions, will be considered.

END OF Q&A

N00014-18-R-0006 Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Attachment 10