L-5 Solicitation Question and Answer Form PART A (12.9.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N00019-19-R-0040
About this file
This document package includes a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) and related questions and answers. The RFP is for the PMA-281 Software and Hardware Development and Sustainment Multiple-Award Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity contract to support ten Naval Air Systems Command programs. The scope of work includes hardware and software development, integration, testing, deployment, modifications, and operations/sustainment. This will be a full and open competition resulting in multiple awards. Delivery orders will then be competed amongst awardees. Key details include a period of performance from contract award in April 2020 with no discussion of options or terms. Products and services are to be provided at the delivery order level.
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Question_Feedback Form PART A
| PMA-281 IDIQ MAC | |
| Solicitation No.: N00019-19-R-0040 | |
| L-5 Solicitation Question and Answer Form | |
| PMA-281 IDIQ MAC SOLICITATION N00019-19-R-0040 |
| Question/Feedback | Proprietary (Y/N) | Government Response | |
| 1 | Artifacts, especially those required for the geospatial / imagery questions are classified at a higher level than SECRET. Recommend the government consider allowing for documents up to TS/SCI level of security. | N | The Government will take this question into consideration. |
| 2 | Attachment L-4 - What type of code statements constitute SLOC? For example, does it include compiler directives, comments, etc? | N | The preference is to report either logical or physical SLOC counts that do not include comment statement or compiler flags/directives. The count should be specified as either logical SLOC or physical SLOC |
| 3 | Attachment L-4 - What is Column E (Maturity Factor) and what elements in the spreadsheet does it refer to? | N | Updates have been applied to the SLOC spreadsheet |
| 4 | Attachment L-4 - Column E (Maturity Factor), Column F (Complexity), Column G (Upgraded/New Capability), and Column H (Language) are not suffient to determine which productivity to apply to each CSCI. Other aspects include, but not limited to, what type of application is being built, Safety Level of Rigor, amount of GUI and HFE working group, IA Scans/Hardening/STIG compliance, Static Analysis & Code Coverage, Airworthiness, Operating System. How should we address these other aspects of Productivity? | N | 1. Assume: |
a. Non-flight system (ground based system)
b. LOR 2 or below
c. Minimal (additions to existing GUI is possible) GUI design or implementation
d. IA, STIGS, static analysis, etc. provided by DevOps environment. This is not to be factored in.
e. Airworthiness is N/A.
f. OS agnostic.
| 5 | Attachment L-4 - What software phases constitute Column I (Proposed Productivity)? Typically it include Design, Code, and SW Integration and Test. Is this true? Does it include other phases such as SW Requirements? | N | Post-requirements activities. Design, Code, and SW Integration and Test. |
| 6 | Attachment L-4 - Is Column I (Proposed Productivity) the traditional SW lines of code per SW hour OR SW lines of code per entire program hour (i.e. all functions working the program)? | N | Traditional SW lines of code per SW hour |
| 7 | Attachment L-4 - To provide a Fully Burdened labor rate (e.g. Software Engineer, Systems Engineer, Project Manager, Contracting Officer, etc.) as specified in DRFP paragraph 10.3.1, more information is required. What is the breath of scope to include (e.g. Hardware, Design/standup Unclasssified/Classified factory SIL, Programmatic Reviews, TIMs, Working Groups, ATT/ATO, System Requirements, IA/Cyber, FQT, Gov't Lead Acceptance Test, Installation & Test at Gov't site, Logistics, HelpDesk, etc.)? | N | Scope is the required activities to produce functional software that meets the requirements of the contract. |
| 8 | Attachment L-4 - If Level of Effort activities are included in Column J (Fully Burdened Labor Rate) and Column K (Proposed Hours), the duration of the task order should be provided? | N | Detail what the proposed length was as part of the data gathered and provided. |
| 9 | Attachment L-4 - What CDRLs should be included in the calculations of Column J (Fully Burdened Labor Rate) and Column K (Proposed Hours)? | N | None |
| 10 | Attachment L-4 - The Ground Rules in the RFP Section L paragraph 10.2 differ from the Ground Rules in the Attachment_L-4_Source_Lines_of_Code_(SLOC)_Spreadsheet file SLOC Inputs tab. | N | Updates have been applied to the SLOC spreadsheet |
| 11 | Recommend Attachment L-4 be provided in an unlocked format to reduce the potential of bidder errors | N | Attachment L-4 has been updated and posted on FBO |
| 12 | Are elemental cost details required as "supporting information" for FFP CLINs 0014-0017 per L.10.1, or are CLIN-level prices adequate for Section B fill-ins? | N | Yes please provide all cost details that support the proposed price for Section B CLINs 0014-0017 |
| 13 | What is the level of detail required for Attachment L-4 to determine cost realism? Is the Government expecting detailed BOEs, historical program actuals, and elemental cost details in support of the fully burdened labor rate and proposed hours? | N | Attachment L-4 has been removed and Sections L and M have been updated please refer to the Final RFP. |
| 14 | Firm Fixed Price (FFP)CLINs are required to be submitted as a pdf document per Table 2 of Section L.3.0. However, there are conflicting instructions to submit CLIN Pricing in excel format with working formulas under L-10.1. Please clarify the guidance for FFP CLINs and Section B format. | N | The Contractor shall submit their fully completed cost/price and build-up disclosure in a unlocked Excel spreadsheet for the FFP CLINs. Table 2 has been revised from PDF to Excel format. |
| 15 | Section A of the DRFP, Preamble, states that "Subcontractor fee is capped at the same rate as the prime." Please clarify if the Subcontractor fee is capped at the total Prime Pass-through rate (burdens, markups, and fee), at prime fee on Subcontractor costs, or at prime composite fee for the task order/delivery order? Please also clarify if subcontractor profit limitations are limited only to CPFF subcontract types. | Subcontractor maximum pass-through rate is 10%. Pass-through Rate is defined as the cumulative amount of the two elements listed below divided by the price paid to the subcontractor or the vendor: |
1. Any and all indirect costs including, but not limited to, program management, subcontract management, invoice processing, quality assurance, overhead, material handling charges, General Administrative (G&A), burdens and mark-ups; and
2. Any and all prime contract profit or fee.
The Prime Contractor shall not apply any additional fees or burdens on the elements of pass-through. Other than the elements of pass-through, no addition costs, charges, indirect rates or fees shall be proposed or applied to subcontract costs.
| 16 | Please clarify if the Attachment L-4 SLOC spreadsheet should contain an hourly rate to encompass the full Period o f Performance for the entire PMA 281 IDIQ, or just the base year? | N | The Contractor should propse the hourly rate appropiate to develop the software to it's logical conclusion regardless of the CLIN structure. | |
| 17 | Is pricing also required for FFP CLIN 0013, OPSEC Plan, or is this established as a firm $1,000 NTE value? | N | No pricing required for CLIN 0013. This is the Minimum Guarantee of $1000 that each awardee will receive once the OPSEC Plan is submitted in accordance with CDRL A01H. | |
| 18 | If it is an offeror's standard practice to not provide separate pricing for CDRL support, such as required for FFP CLINs 0014-0017, will "NSP"-marked Section B responses for these CLINs be considered complete, reasonable and balanced? | N | No | |
| 19 | Section L 10.3.1 states that Column J of Attachment L-4 should include "The proposed hours shall include all direct and indirect hours". As indirect hours / indirect labor charges are typically recovered through indirect rates (Overhead/G&A), recommend that this language be clarified to exclude indirect hours. | N | The Government request the Proposed Fully Burdened Labor Rate. Hourly labor rate which includes all direct and indirect labor costs associated with effort (e.g. direct labor wage rate, overhead costs rate, and other costs rate). Costs included are necessary to convert estimated hours to dollars | |
| 20 | 9.1.1 - Relevant Experience Projects: Minimum conditions requires a project to have a POP minimum of 3 years with a value of not less than $2.5M: These requirements will preclude most SB from being able to obtain the required 4 projects. Can we get both the value and duration reduced? Suggested Value of $1,250,000 with a duration minimum of 1.5 year for SB purposes. | N | The Government will take this question into consideration and the RFP will revise the Minimum Conditions set forth in Section 9.1.1 | |
| 21 | Section M, 2.0 Evaluation Process states "A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award." and 2.1 Screening Review states "An offeror who fails to answer "yes" to any critical question in Section 9.1.2 will be assessed a deficiency." With this in mind does the government fully expect a SB to be capable of meeting each of these critical questions with an answer of Yes? | N | Yes | |
| 22 | Considering the requirements listed within the Draft Solicitation we recommend the creation of two separate scoring sheets. One for Small Businesses and one for Large Businesses. | N | The Solicitation will have one SSWS and will be organized in both Large and Small vendor pools | |
| 23 | Vol 2, pg 123, Para 9.1.3.4: Most SB contracts are FFP how do we differentiate between Cost/Price invoices within the 4 Relevant Experience projects? Do the projects listed have to be the same as referenced within the other portions of the proposal? Recomend not making EVM a grade-able criteria for he SB portion of this opportunity. Most SB execute FFP, Cost+, or T&M contracts. The dollar amount usually does not justify the use of EVM. | N | Data Artifacts supporting SSWS are independent of Contract Type. The Earn Value question in the SSWS is to assess the corporate experience of potential offerors. | |
| 24 | 3.0 Requirement, pg 20, 3.1.2: Can you explain the requirement for an EVMS better? Does this requirement apply to all SB whom have not had a prior requirement to support? Is an EVMS system required prior to award? If not then will it be required upon IDIQ Award or TO's with a value greater than $20M? Will an EVMS be required to compete for individual TOs? | N | As per DOD policy, product contracts above $20M with 18 months period of performance require EVM. Contracts above $50M, requires DCMA certify EVM system. | |
| 25 | Ref: DD-254 Does the Government require both small and large businesses to have TS/SCI facility clearances for handling and safeguarding? | N | yes this is required. | |
| 26 | Ref: Attachment L-1: Will acceptable and unacceptable values for total points on the SSWS be provided with the final RFP? | N | No, as per Section M, paragraph 2.1 - "An Offeror who fails to answer “yes“ to any critical question in Section 9.1.2 will be assessed a deficiency". As per Section 6.0, Unacceptable is defined as: Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable. | |
| 27 | Ref: DRFP Page 3, Note 8: Note 8 states that a TS/SCI facility clearance is required, with SECRET safeguarding capability. However, the draft DD-254 states TS/SCI Facility clearance with TS/SCI safeguarding capability. Which is correct? | N | Corrections have been made to reflect: Facility clearance can be at a TOP SECRET LEVEL and Level of safeguarding is at TS/SCI LEVEL. | |
| 28 | Ref: DRFP Page 81: Re: Clause 5252.215-9505, are offerors required to submit all teaming agreements with the IDIQ proposal? Will teaming also be evaluated at the task order level? | N | Offerors are required to submit all Joint Ventures Teaming Arrangements. Section L, Table 2 - Proposal Format Table has been updated to include this submission, please refer to the Final RFP. At the Delivery Order level, the Prime needs to provide all teaming arrangements IAW 5252.215-9505. Teaming arrangments will only be allowed at the DO level, not at the MAC level. | |
| 29 | Ref: DRFP Page 118, Section 5.1: Section 5.1 describes packaging instructions using cartons, and states that a copy of the original proposal should be included. along with CD-ROMs. This seems to imply that at least 1 hard copy of the proposal is required, along with the CD-ROMs. However, section 2.1 states that "only electronic delivery of proposals will be accepted." Please clarify the required method of delivery. | N | Section L has been updated please refer to the Final RFP. | |
| 30 | Ref: DRFP Page 120, Section 9.1.1: May a single award IDIQ be considered as a project if all work is in support of a single customer organization who provides a single annual CPAR? Many Single Award IDIQs are organized as such for convenience of tracking subordinate efforts, but actually represent 1 "project". | N | No, since the IDIQ cannot validate the values of delivery orders, single award IDIQ will not be considered acceptable document. | |
| 31 | Ref: Attachment L-4: The current draft spreadsheet only lists 1 CSCI. For the final RFP, does the Government plan to expand this list to include multiple CSCIs? | N | No, at this time the Government will use 1 CSCI to satisfy the requirement for cost realism at the MAC Level. | |
| 32 | Ref: Attachment L-4: Is this assumption correct?: Even if the offeror's cost estimation system would recommend a different labor mix or different number of personnel to optimally develop the CSCI(s), offerors should assume a team of 10 journeyman personnel, and adjust the schedule accordingly. | N | Yes, the offeror should assume 10 journeymen and adjust schedule accordingly. | |
| 33 | Ref: Attachment L-4: The draft attachment L-4 tab labeled "SLOC Inputs-kmt" aligns with the instructions in the RFP. However, to the left of that tab is another tab labeled "SLOC Inputs" which contains a different set of data. Is it correct to assume that "SLOC Inputs" was a previous version and "SLOC Inputs-kmt" is the format/content planned? | N | Updates have been applied | |
| 34 | For pricing purposes, what start/effective date should offeror's propose? | N | Contract award April 2020 with no discussion | |
| 35 | 9.1.1 Relevant Experience: In order to provide PMA-281 with the complete corporate capabilites that benefit this IDIQ we recommend allowing bidders to choose any corporate program that meet or exceed the requirements in each SSWS question. Limiting the total number of Relevant Programs to four to complete the SSWS does not allow bidders to provide the full breadth and depth of the capabilites available to PMA-281. | N | The Government will take this question into consideration. | |
| 36 | We appreciate the addition of providing classified artifacts in response to this solicitation. Classified customers typically do not allow for release of detailed information / data (artifacts) to respond to RFPs. Is there a government channel that PMA-281 can use to request the artifacts discussed in a response to the SSWS from a specified classified customer if the contact is provided? Alternatively can we submit a signed form by the classified customer that the work was performed? | N | The Government will have proper methods on handling classified artifacts and the Contractor shall coordinate with the POC provided within the Section L. The Government will not accept any signed documents to support work performance. | |
| 37 | (Rephrasing the very 1st question) - Would the government clarify if an IDIQ contract with multiple task/delivery orders falls under the ' a contract' category listed in Sec. 9.1.1 - RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECTS: A Relevant Experience “project” is defined as (1) a contract... | |||
| This request is bsed on the fact that IDIQ task/delivery orders for projects involving Agile, Cyber and other capabilities listed in the questions do not typically have 2-3 year PoP - instead USG customers issue 9-15 month task/delivery orders that allow for enhanced flexibility in achieving the desired outcomes or changing project/program direction based on interim results. | N | No, since the IDIQ cannot validate the values of delivery orders, single award IDIQ will not be considered acceptable document. | ||
| 38 | Please consider reducing the project performance duration requirement to a minimum of 1 year. This is based on the Navy's push for innovation and rapid response to the fleet through DevOps programs/projects with typically shorter durations. The three year performance requirement in this RFP will prevent industry bringing forth successful past performance programs that meet rapid response calls from the Navy. There are multiple instances where industry has responded quickly to fleet needs through task orders with less than 3 years PoP. | N | The Government will take this question into consideration. | |
| 39 | Reference: Per Section L 10.2 - Ground Rules and Assumptions 2) Assume no material, travel or ODC required and; 5) The Offeror shall provide all laboratory, office, and other facilities spaces. Also, Per Section L 10.3.1 CPFF CLINS - Column K and attachment L-4, Proposed Costs: This is the total cost for the CSCI’s from the Offeror’s cost estimation tool. The total cost shall include all direct and indirect labor. |
Question: Should the “Proposed Costs” include cost for contractor laboratory, office, and other facility spaces or should the “Proposed Costs” include only fully burdened labor costs without facility cost?
| N | Yes, Hourly labor rate which includes all direct and indirect labor costs associated with effort (e.g. direct labor wage rate, overhead costs rate, and other costs rate). Costs included are necessary to convert estimated hours to dollars | ||
| 40 | How does the government define a competitive environment, e.g. number of bidders, quality of bids, and what does the government view as the threshold in which a competive is not longer being sustained, which would trigger the need to on-ramp additional contractors? | N | The term "competitive environment" refers to the number and types of companies against which a given business competes in its industry. On a periodic basis, the Government will make a determination whether it is necessary to add additional prime contractors. |
The Government will consider the following to determine whether to re-open the competition:
-Small business contractors merging or being acquired and necessitating re-representation as large businesses in accordance with FAR 52.219-28 -Small business contractors being unable to re-represent as small businesses in accordance with FAR 52.219-28 -MAC Prime contractor performance history -Emergence of capable firms subsequent to award of the PMA-281 IDIQ MAC -Any other considerations deemed to be in the Government's best interest
| 41 | How does the government define client need and what "other factors" may cause the government to on-ramp additional Contractors? | N | Please see the answer to Question #40 |
| 42 | The Statement of Work provides a framework of reviews (i.e., SETR events) and deliverables that is most suitable for a waterfall lifecycle. It would be beneficial to allow flexibility to use agile and DevOps methodologies focused on feature-based development that may not align to the strict entry/exit criteria typically required for SETR events. | N | The SOW framework provides many possible delivery orders awarded by PMA-281. Explicit deliverables reviews and other pertinent information are documented in individual delivery orders. |
| 43 | If the program SOW/PWS clearly states the requirement that is being asked as one of the SSWS questions - is the offeror required to submit any additional documentation for validation purposes or will the USG supplied contractual documentation suffice? | N | Examples of Documentation required to substantiate the SSWS are required, See Section 9.1.1. |
| 44 | If the supporting artifact is very large (# of pages); does the government want to see the whole document with the relevant section highlighted or will providing only the relevant pages along with the document cover sheet be sufficient for validation purposes? | N | The Offeror shall provide all information and data required to conduct a thorough and complete technical evaluation. Data provided can be highlighted to substantiate evidence to support the SSWS Question. |
| 45 | In Section 9.1.1., a Relevant Experience “project” is defined as (1) a contract; (2) a delivery order… However, few individual delivery orders on their own would meet the minimum criteria established in that section (i.e. more than 3 years of performance and greater than $2.5M). Is the Government's intent that multiple delivery orders combined under a single project or program would also constitute a single project or program for use and consideration in the Self-Evaluation Questionnaire? | N | The Government will take this question into consideration and the RFP will revise the Minimum Conditions set forth in Section 9.1.1 |
| 46 | In Section 9.1.1., the Government states that "Each offer will be limited to a MAXIMUM of four (4) Experience Projects for each MAC Self-Scoring Worksheet." In limiting the number of projects to four, the Bidder is not able to provide information that accurately demonstrates the full breadth and depth of relevant experience that can be applied to this MAC IDIQ. Because of the diverse nature of the questions asked in the Self-Evaluation Worksheet, it may be impossible to identify only four programs that demonstrate each capability or experience being evaluated. | N | The Government will take this question into consideration. |
| 47 | Section L, Table 2, 9.1.2, 9.1.3, and 9.1.4 state that "Each project with all supporting documents shall be submitted in a single file." However, all questions must follow a file-naming structure for individual files. Please clarify. | ||
| N | For Section L, Table 2 - The Offeror should provide one folder for each volume or annex, containing all electronic files requested within the volume or annex. Please submit each volume, book, or annex as one file if possible. The Offeror shall follow the basic structure of the file naming convention in Table 2 (Proposal Format Table) for electronic file submissions. | ||
| 48 | Attachment L-3, page 2 Opening sentence references L-3 Relevant Exp Template when it should be L-2. Also, table upper left field should be L-2 Relevant Experience Template rather than L-3 FPDS-NG data field. This appears to be a cut/paste error. | ||
| N | Attachment L-3 FPDS-NG Sample Form is correct. Please review the instructions within Attachment L-3 and Section L, Paragraph 9.1.1 | ||
| 49 | As written, the Liquidated Damanges Clause 52.211-11 provides no limitations on penalties or maximum liability. We recommend removing this clause, and addressing any liquidated damages on a delivery order basis. | N | Government will not remove Clause 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages--Supplies, Services, or Research and Development from this requirement. |
| 50 | RFP Sec. M2.1 states "An Offeror who fails to answer "Yes" to any critical question in Sec. 9.1.2 will be assessed a deficiency". Does the Government intend to penalize Offerors beyond awarding zero points? | N | No |
| 51 | RFP Sec. L, Part A General Instructions 1.0 states "A "Principal Subcontractor" is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 20% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offeror's profit/fee), for the contract. For purposes of having subcontract as a qualified task in the bid, would the Government consider changing the structure to 20% of the proposed total price/cost of the contract as a subcontractor does not have access to their Prime contractor's proprietary fee and rate structure information? | N | No, the definition will not be changed at this time. |
| 52 | When does the Government anticipate RFP release will occur? | N | 1st Quarter in FY20 |
| 53 | Per page 120 of the draft RFP, “At the MAC level, all submitted artifacts shall be that of the Offeror. The Offeror’s Relevant Experience Projects must have been performed as a Prime Contractor, Principal Subcontract or Joint Venture.“ Since the potential Offeror’s Joint Venture (JV) is an intra-company unpopulated JV and each operating unit has significant experience, Offeror respectfully request the inclusion of managed affiliate’s relevant experience for evaluation purposes. | N | The Governemnet will allow relevant experience of the Offeror's Joint Venture inclusive of managed affiliates. |
| 54 | As a Small Business that responded to the RFI and was rated acceptable/relevant, reference section 9.1.1 (bullet 2), the requirement to have a minimum of 3 years of performance on a project will eliminate all of our relevant Mission Planning past performance. Will the government consider making an exception in this instance for small businesses or remove the last sentence of the second bullet in section 9.1.1? | N | Sections L and M have been updated please refer to the Final RFP. |
| 55 | Reference Section 2.1 Screening Review, it will be very difficult for a small business to answer "yes" to all critical questions in Section 9.1.2. Also, section 9.1.1 will eliminate all relevant past performance that could be used to comply with section 9.1.2. Will the government consider making exceptions in this section for small businesses or remove the last sentence in section 2.1? | N | Sections L and M have been updated please refer to the Final RFP. |
| 56 | For Small Business, would the government consider decreasing the minimum Individual Project Value from the $2.5 Million value as most Small Business projects are not valued as high when acting as a sub? | N | The Government will take this question into consideration. |
| 57 | For Small Businesses, would the government consider removing the section 9.1.2.1 requirement for managing multiple projects valued at $2.5 Million or more? | N | Sections L and M have been updated please refer to the Final RFP. |
| 58 | Section M at the end of paragraph 5.1 states “The higher of the MPC or proposed cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. Contract awarded value, however, will be based upon the successful Offeror’s proposed costs.” Please clarify what the Government means with regard to contract awarded value being based on the SLOC Spreadsheet. | N | The language "Contract awarded value, however, will be based upon the successful Offeror’s proposed costs has been removed from the RFP". |
| 59 | It is unclear exactly how cost will be considered in the final decision on award. Section M, paragraph 2 indicates award is to the 6 highest technically rated with a ‘fair and reasonable price.’ What criteria will be used to establish ‘fair and reasonable’? | N | Please see Section M, Paragraph 5.0 COST/PRICE |
| 60 | Section 9.1.2.1 states – ” demonstrating simultaneous support of multiple projects individually valued at $2.5 million or more” – is it the government’s intention that offerors use more than the 4 programs indicated on page 120, Sec. 9.1.1 (bottom paragraph)– ‘Each offer will be limited to a MAXIMUM of four (4) Experience Projects for each MAC Self-Scoring Worksheet’ to answer this question. | N | The offeror is limited to four relevant experience projects providing the maximum number of points in the SSWS. Only one SSWS is submitted. The offeror shall submit an attachment L-2 for each relevant experience project. |
| 61 | Sec. 9.1.2 – Critical Questions – is the government expecting to see 4 artifacts – one from each of the 4 selected programs - for each question in this section in order to achieve the highest possible points or will one artifact from any of the 4 programs suffice? | N | One artifact may be provided for the Critical Questions in Section 9.1.2. Points will be given if the one artifact substantiates the Critical Question. |
| 62 | We recommend submitting one entire SOW for each project that is being used. Then for each relevant experience project critical question/corporate experience and past performance question, submit only the pages that validate the experience. | ||
| N | Please see Section 9.1.1 for instructions on the relevant experience project submitted. | ||
| 63 | On page 120, it states,"Each offeror will be limited to a maximum of four projects for each self-scoring worksheet." Are we to submit more than one worksheet? Or, did you mean for each corporate experience and past performance question...for example, on paragraph 9.1.3.2, can we use projects 1, 2, 3, 4. And on 9.1.3.3, can we use projects 5, 6, 7, 8? | N | The offeror is limited to four relevant experience projects providing the maximum number of points in the SSWS. Only one SSWS is submitted. The offeror shall submit an attachment L-2 for each relevant experience project. |
| 64 | Are option years counted toward the POP requirement for the FPDS documentation? For example, on FPDS, Date signed: 04/03/2017, Completion Date: 04/02/2018, Est. Ultimate Completion Date: 04/02/2020. Can we go by the Est. Ultimate Completion Date? | N | Yes, options will be included if project has been completed. |
| 65 | On FPDS reports, is the $2.5M requirement based on the "Base And Exercised Options Value" or the "Base and All Options Value (Total Contract Value)"? | N | the $2.5 requirement is inclusive of Base and Exercised options |
| 66 | Would the government consider a two year Period of Performance instead of 3 years? RDT&E funding is two-year money, OM&N is one-year money, so it is difficult for agencies to write a 3 year Period of Performance for a Task Order on an IDIQ unless options are considered (see line item above). | N | Sections L and M have been updated please refer to the Final RFP. |
| 67 | Does the term “Project” in L 9.1.1, include the sum of the individual Task Orders within an IDIQ Contract or is it an individual task order? A MAC is a contract. In L 9.1.1, (1) a contract, did you mean a non-MAC contract? | N | A project can be individual awarded contracts or awarded task/delivery orders. |
| 68 | Is a Monthly Status Report (MSR) an acceptable verification method (i.e., would it fall under "other technical documentation" that supports/shows the specific task)? It is a CDRL requirement for many contracts and often shows detail that the SOW doesn't. | N | No, please review Section 9.1.1 in Section L for instructions. |
| 69 | Premable, Page 2. The RFP suggests that maximum fee to be proposed under CPFF CLINs for the Offeror cannot exceed 10%. However, Ground Rules on Page 132, paragraph 10.2 states to assume 0% fee, please clarify | N | When completing the SLOC Spreadsheet Attachment L-4, the Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support its cost as well as an explanation of all ground rules and assumptions that affect the cost/price estimates. In utlizing the SLOC Spreadsheet, the Offeror should assume 0% Fee. At the Delivery Order Level the maximun fee propsed shall not exceed 10%. |
| 70 | As follow on to above, Subcontractor pass-thorough is not to exceed 10%. However, Page 132, paragraph 10.2 suggests to assume 0% fee, please clarify | N | Please see answer to Question #69. |
| 71 | Are we correct to assume that subcontractor pass through includes Prime Contractor (Offeror) fee on the subcontractor's price and indirect rate application ? | N | Please see answer to Question #15. |
| 72 | Page 81, Clause 5252.215-9505 requires Offerors to submit exlusive teaming agreements of their planned Subcontractors. However, unless we missed the reference, there does not seem to be any instructions on where to include these documents in the Section L. In addition, we assume these agreements can be provided as PDF and they do not have to adhere to the point and/or font sized as specified on Page 110, Paragrph 2.0 in Section L | N | Please see the answer to Question #28 |
| 73 | Page 112, Table 2. Volume 1 requires the SF 33 and suggests it is limited to the SF 33 only. We assume since the RFP Page 119, paragraph 8.1, requires us to complete any amendments and include them as part of Volume 1, that this includes SF 30s. Please clarify | N | If any amendments to the solicitation are issued, the Offeror must acknowledge each amendment |
number and date in Block 14 of the SF 33 or complete Blocks 8 and 15 of the SF 30 for each amendment. In the event the SF30 is issued, the offeror shall submit as part of Volume 1.
| 74 | Paragraph 3.0, Page 112 states that an Annex can be included as part of an Offeror's submission. However, we see no instructions related to an Annex in Part B. Please clarify | N | Section L has been updated, please refer to the Final RFP. |
| 75 | Page 116, 10.3.4 Accounting System Approval Documentation. The RFP states that the doucment shall be 12 point normal font type. We receive approval documentation from our DCMA CACO in PDF that may not adhere to the above requirement. Our intent was to provide this artifact to demonstrate we had an approved accounting system. Please clarify. | N | Section L has been updated, please refer to the Final RFP. |
| 76 | The current SelfScoring Worksheet and evaluation criteria indicate an equal weight will be placed on all past performance examples submitted i.e if a vendor submits 4 examples, each would be accredited a weight of 25% of the category score. However, some examples could more closely compare to the criteria (size, value, requirements) than others and should be apportioned a higher weighted score than others. | N | The Offeror will receive points based on the artifacts provided and if the artifact substantiates the SSWS questions the Offeror will receive points in the category assigned. |
| 77 | Can large business primes team with one another large business prime at the TO level? | N | Offerors who propose teaming arrangements on an exclusive basis will be evaluated to determine whether such teaming agreements inhibit competition. |
| 78 | Can large business primes team with Small Business primes at the TO level? | N | Yes |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .