Attachment 8 - Q and A.xlsx

Attachment 11-Q&A N0001426R4005 - ONR Research Protections Division (Code 343) and DON HRPP Support Services

VOLUME III - FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE 2 Can a Joint Venture be submitted as a subcontractor and their past performance be utilized as one of the three relevant past performance references? Yes, but with limitations. Section L (Page 53) states that "Subcontractor past performance can only replace one (1) past performance example for the offeror." To be eligible to submit this reference, the subcontractor must be considered a "major subcontractor," which is defined as one performing at least $1M worth of the total proposed price (excluding ODCs and profit/fee). The prime offeror must still provide the remaining two (2) past performance examples. Furthermore, in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(vi), if the joint venture entity itself does not demonstrate past performance for award, the Government will consider the relevant past performance of the individual parties that make up the joint venture.

This includes considering the work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture, consistent with 13 CFR § 125.8(e).

General 3 What is the current level of effort is on the incumbent contract? The solicitation does not explicitly state the current historical level of effort consumed on the incumbent contract. However, Section B and Section C (Page 10) outline the required level of effort for this new solicitation, which is a total of 6 FTEs (11,520 hours annually) across five labor categories (1 Technology Specialist, 1 Senior Technology Analyst, 1 Lead Technology Specialist, 2 Technology Analysts, and 1 System Tester).

General 4 For non-key personnel that are identified prior to submission, aside from last names being provided within pricing proposals and names/qualifications being included in our staffing plan, can we submit non-key personnel resumes as an appendix or within Subfactor 1.2? The solicitation only requires and evaluates resumes for Key Personnel. Section L, Subfactor 1.2 (Page 52) explicitly states: *"The offeror shall also provide resumes for the following Key Personnel: *Lead Technology Specialist Senior Technology Analyst.". There is no requirement at this time to submit resumes for non-key personnel. However, after award and at the discrestion of the COR, the Government may require non-key resumes.

VOLUME IV - FACTOR 3 - PRICE 5 When completing the price narrative, can the prime input additional details outside of the price narrative form if necessary? Yes. Volume IV (Price Proposal) has an "Unlimited" page limitation (Page 49). While Section L (Page 55) instructs that "All primes shall fill out Pricing Narrative Sheet," offerors are also instructed to provide detailed narratives if they revise formulas to accurately reflect their proposed accounting practices. Because the volume is not page-limited, prime offerors can append additional details or supplementary narrative pages as necessary to fully explain their pricing.

VOLUME III - FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE 6 The solicitation requires CPARS evaluations or PPQs to support past performance submissions. For contract references where the Offeror served as a subcontractor, CPARS records are often unavailable to subcontractors and PPQs may not be obtainable due to large prime internal policies. Will the Government consider alternative forms of verification, such as customer references, contract documentation, performance narratives, or other evidence demonstrating the Offeror's role and performance on the effort? Additionally, will subcontractor past performance be evaluated with the same relevancy consideration as prime contractor past performance when the Offeror can substantiate its contribution to the contract requirements? *Alternative Verification: The solicitation explicitly requests either a recent final CPARS or a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Page 54). While the Government reserves the right to review "any other sources of information for evaluating past performance" (such as PPIRS or inquiries of owner representatives - Page 60), per the solicitation, it does not authorize offerors to submit customer references or performance narratives in lieu of CPARS/PPQs. *Relevancy Consideration: Subcontractor past performance will not be evaluated with the same weight as prime contractor past performance. Section M (Page 59) explicitly states: "Past performance information about the offeror as a prime contractor is considered more significant and given more weight in the past performance evaluation."

Section L 7 In Section L under Volume III - Factor 2 - Past Performance, on page 54, the solicitation states "Offerors can elect to submit their most recent final CPARS or a PPQ." Would the government please clarify if option year (interim) CPARs are acceptable? Based on the RFP text on page 54, the solicitation explicitly states, "Offerors can elect to submit their most recent final CPARS or a PPQ." Therefore, interim or option year CPARS do not meet the requirement as currently written.

Section L 8 In the table on page 49, under Volume II subfactor 1.2, the key personnel matrix is listed as attachment 7, however attachment 7 is the pricing spreadsheet. Would the government please confirm that the key personnel matrix is actually Attachment_5_Technical_Evaluation_Form_Sub_Factor_1_2_Excel_? Yes, this is a typographical error in the table on page 49. The Attachment should be 5 and not 7 for as the "Technical Evaluation Form Sub-Factor 1.2 (Excel)". Amendment 0001 will correct.

Section J 9 Is attachment 2 Non Disclosure Agreement required to be filled out and returned with the proposal submission? If it is, what volume should it go in? No, it is not required with the proposal submission. Section H, Clause 0021 on page 35 states: "Contractor personnel assigned to this award are required to execute a Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) prior to starting work."

Section L 10 On page 11 of the RFP under Lead Technology Specialist (key personnel) the requirement for "Experience developing IT systems that must operate in compliance with the requirements of SECNAVINST 3900.39E series regulations. The contractor will be responsible for implementing technical solutions based on Government-provided interpretations of this instruction" is listed under "Minimum Experience" however, on Attachment 5 this requirement is listed under "Additional Preferred Criteria" will the government please clarify? Amendment 0001 has corrected the PWS

Section L 11 Section L states that "The price proposal submitted by offerors shall consist of the following: a general worksheet, a total amount worksheet, separate worksheets for each of the five (5) years of contract performance (Base through O-IV). To evaluate the option to extend services (FAR 52.217-8) CLINs, one-half of the proposed price for the last year of the performance period shall be added to the Total Evaluated Cost. No offeror input on the Excel form is required." The Attachment 7 Pricing Spreadsheet contains 3 tabs. Would the government please confirm that the "Pricing Worksheet" tab is intended to function as the total amount worksheet, and that the offeror should add additional tabs for each of the years of the period of performance? Section L has been updated to clarify the pricing requirement. See Amendment 0001.

Offerors are required to submit pricing using Attachment 7 as provided; or The Government intends to issue a revised Attachment 7 that includes the separate worksheets described in Section L. 12 Yes. Contractors only need to respond to the attachment. Section L has been updated to clarify the pricing requirement. See Amendment 0001.

Section C Personnel Qualifications 13 identifies two Technology Analyst positions and states "1,920 × 2 = 3,640" hours. Please confirm that the intended annual level of effort for the two Technology Analyst positions is 3,840 hours total. This was a typographical error. Amendment 0001 will correct.

Attachment 3 Past Performance Information Form 15 Section E, question 3 reads:

“Offerors shall expressly correlate how the example tasks compare to the PWS tasks to be performed. On this form, Offerors shall: Enter each PWS task; State how the submitted example includes a task which is comparable; If the submitted example does not compare to the PWS tasks, the offeror shall document this by annotating No Comparable Task; and, ”

The instruction appears to be incomplete and ends with "and,". Please clarify whether additional information, analysis, or documentation is required beyond identifying comparable tasks and annotating "No Comparable Task" where applicable. This is not an incomplete statement however to make it explicitely clear we have removed the word "and". Please see revised attachment in Amendment 0001.

The Volume Contents and Document Order column states:

“1. Key Personnel Matrix (Excel -Attachment 7)* - Key Personnel Qualifications

2. Resumes for Key Personnel

The Volume Contents and Document Order column states:

“1. Response to sub-factor 1.2 - Management, Operations, and Maintenance Support” Should the referenced sub-factor be 1.3 instead of 1.2? Amendment 0001 correct the subfactor to read 1.3 vice 1.2

Section B 17 Section B identifies CLIN 5000 as “Base – Year 1 – Technology Specialist supporting Code 34 HRPP” and CLIN 5002 as “Base – Year 1 – Lead Technology Specialist supporting Code 34 HRPP.” However, Attachment 7 appears to identify CLIN 5000 as “Lead Technology Specialist” and CLIN 5002 as “Technology Specialist.” Please confirm the correct labor-category alignment for CLINs 5000 and 5002 for purposes of completing Section B, Attachment 7, and the Tripwire calculations. Amendment 0001 has corrected the Attachment 7 to reflect the correct labor categories with each CLIN.

Attachment 7 Pricing Spreadsheet 18 ODC CLIN Reference: Section B and Section L identify the ODC CLINs as 7000, 7100, 7200, 7300, and 7400. Attachment 7 appears to reference the base-year ODC line as “ODC (CLIN 3000).” Please confirm whether this is a typographical error and whether offerors should use ODC CLIN 7000 for the base-year ODC amount. This is a typographocal error. Amendment 0001 has corrected the Attachment to change the CLIN number from 3000 to 7000