The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
N00024-16-R-6327
SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM
The required response date/time has changed from 07-Nov-2016 12:00 PM to 21-Nov-2016 04:00 PM.
SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES
The following have been added by full text:
AMENDMENT 0004
Bidders’ Question 72 is answered as follows:
| # |
| Date Submitted: |
| Page number and paragraph header from source: |
| Question: |
| Answer: |
| 72 |
| 10/19/2016 |
| RFP |
| In lieu of obtaining the information from protected suppliers and obtaining the technical information from the bidders library a week ago, we would like to formally request a 30 day extension to the Nov. 7, 2016 due date. Please advise if this would be possible. |
| The Government has extended the proposal submission deadline to 21 November 2016 at 04:00PM EST |
Upon further deliberation the answer to question 71 provided in Amendment 0003 has been modified as follows:
From:
| 71 |
| 10/03/2016 |
| Section I |
| Section I of the solicitation incorporates DFARS Clause 252.246-7001, ALT II, Warranty of Data (Mar 2014) by reference. This ALT II clause imposes additional potential liabilities upon the Contractor that will need to be accounted for in the original bid price and in every future engineering change proposal. For this reason, the Contractor requests that the Government consider removing ALT II from the solicitation and simply leave in DFARS clause 252.246-7001, Warranty of Data (Mar 2014). |
| DFARS Clause 252.246-7001 and DFARS Clause 252.246-7001 Alt II have been removed in RFP Amendment 0003. |
To:
| 71 |
| 10/03/2016 |
| Section I |
| Section I of the solicitation incorporates DFARS Clause 252.246-7001, ALT II, Warranty of Data (Mar 2014) by reference. This ALT II clause imposes additional potential liabilities upon the Contractor that will need to be accounted for in the original bid price and in every future engineering change proposal. For this reason, the Contractor requests that the Government consider removing ALT II from the solicitation and simply leave in DFARS clause 252.246-7001, Warranty of Data (Mar 2014). |
| DFARS Clause 252.246-7001 and DFARS Clause 252.246-7001 Alt II remain necessary terms of conditions of this solicitation. |
The following have been modified:
AMENDMENT 0003
| # |
| Date Submitted: |
| Page number and paragraph header from source: |
| Question: |
| Answer: |
| 52 |
| 9/19/2016 |
| SF33 |
| We would like to request an extension of the solicitation due date so that we are able to obtain and review the changes in the SOW and have time to review the Solicitation GFI against Attachment 5 and the soliciation requirements. |
| The Government has extended the proposal submission deadline to 07 November 2016 |
| 53 |
| 9/20/2016 |
| Page 1, Paragraph 9 |
| The due date for this proposal is 17 October 2016. Questions are to be submitted NLT 30 September 2016 (30 days after RFP posting). Answers to the questions are necessary for the contractor to develop a compliant proposal in response to the RFP. Would Government extend proposal submission deadline by 90 days? |
| The Government has extended the proposal submission deadline to 07 November 2016 |
| 54 |
| 9/21/2016 |
| p. 176, Section L, Paragraph 2.2 |
| Volume II is limited to 130 pages. Within this paragraph there are two places that list several items that do not count against the page count. Section L, paragraph 2.5.1.1.1.g requires a Quality Assurance Plan be submitted with the proposal that includes objective evidence to all of the ISO 9000 standards. Section M, paragraph 1.1.1.1.1.g also validates the Government will be evaluating the contractor’s submitted Quality Assurance Plan. Since a full Quality Assurance Plan can easily exceed 100 pages (especially in order to meet all ISO and program-unique requirements), can the Quality Assurance Plan be included as one of the documents excluded from the page count requirements? |
| Concur, QA Plan(s) and supporting QA documentation submitted as compliance with RFP requirements will not count towards the page number total of the proposal. RFP Amendment 0003 will reflect this change. |
| 55 |
| 9/22/2016 |
| SF 33, Box 9, Due Date for Proposals |
| Will the USG extend the due date for receipt of bidder's proposal until November 17, 2016? |
| The Government has extended the proposal submission deadline to 07 November 2016 |
| 56 |
| 9/22/2016 |
| Page 80, Section C, Paragraph 3.4.1.3 |
| The second paragraph of 3.4.1.3 (Category C Depot Repair Items) of the SOW states: “… the system/assembly shall be shipped back to the Government CONUS/OCONUS point of debarkation and placed back into the spares pool.” In addition, Section I of the solicitation includes DFARS clause 252.225-7048 (Export-Controlled Items). Please confirm whether or not the scope of work to be awarded under this contract will require delivery of production systems to an OCONUS location, return of repaired items to an OCONUS location, or actual performance of services at an OCONUS location. If so, please confirm whether Section 3.9 (International Traffic In Arms Regulations) applies to these scenarios and the Contractor will be solely responsible for obtaining any State Department approvals, licenses, Technical Assistance Agreements required by the ITAR. Lastly, please provide a list of the potential OCONUS locations in conjunction with the type of services and/or deliveries to be performed there. This information is required for cost estimation purposes as well as export requirements review. |
| There is no requirement for OCONUS Delivery. |
| 57 |
| 9/22/2016 |
| Page 167, Section L, Paragraph 1.0 |
| In Section L, 1.0 General Support, the RFP references three support contractors, Alcyone Consulting Inc., AECOM, and Science Applications International Corp. Can you provide the POC information for each so we can contact them and put non-disclosure agreements in place? |
| Potential Offerors that require Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) with support contractors listed in the RFP should email the blank company-specific form to brendan.kittredge@navy.mil and copy krysten.ellis@navy.mil. The Government will then facilitate the NDA process through to applicable POCs at each support contractor. |
| 58 |
| 9/22/2016 |
| Attachment 9, Identified WBS |
| With respect to the WBS provided in Attachment 9, can the government clarify if the funding for the JCREW Increment 1 Block 1 Full Rate Production contract will allocate all of the CLINs under the government’s “Procurement Contracts” cost element, level 3? Are there any activities that would be funded under any other level 3 line item? |
| RFP Amendment 0002 will include a revised Attachment 9. |
| 59 |
| 9/22/2016 |
| Page 170, Section L, Paragraph 2.1 |
| Please confirm that under RFP, Section L, Page 170, paragraph 2.1, entitled “Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data”; the reference to FAR 52.215-12 should be FAR 52.215-1. |
| The Government has corrected the reference under paragraph 2.1, entitled “Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data” to FAR 52.215-1 in RFP Amendment 0003. |
| 60 |
| 9/27/2016 |
| Page 53, Section B, Note F |
| Section B, Note F specifies that the “Fixed Fee shall be proposed by the Offeror at 6% of Estimated Cost.” Additionally, Paragraph 3.6 (Engineering Support Services) of the SOW includes potential tasking, such as insertion of new technologies (TIE), configuration changes, verification of system to operational specifications, and sustainment engineering that would require more senior-level engineering expertise that qualifies for a higher fixed fee percentage under the USG’s weighted guidelines. For this reason, we respectfully request that the directed fixed fee be revised to reflect a higher percentage that is more commensurate with the types of tasking to be performed under this CLIN. |
| RFP Amendment 0003 has been updated to include a MAXIMUM fee of 8%. Offerors may propose less than 8% fee and are reminded that fixed fee will be evaluted in the Total Evaluated Cost/Price. |
| 61 |
| 9/27/2016 |
| Section I, Page 136 |
| DFARS 209.571-8 (b) states: “Use the clause at 252.209-7009, Organizational Conflict of Interest—Major Defense Acquisition Program, in solicitations and contracts for systems engineering and technical assistance for major defense acquisition programs or pre-major defense acquisition programs.” Normally this clause is incorporated into SETA contracts where the SETA Contractor is providing Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance only, and is not also providing the “build to print” production system deliverables. Given that this contract’s scope of work does not include “systems engineering and technical assistance” from a SETA perspective, we request that DFARS clause 252.209-7009 (Organizational Conflict of Interest—Major Defense Acquisition Program) be removed from Section I of this solicitation. |
| Clause 252.209-7009 has been removed in RFP Amendment 0003. |
| 62 |
| 9/27/2016 |
| Section C, Page 136 |
| FAR 46.805 (Contract clauses) paragraph (3) states: “In contracts requiring delivery of both high-value items and other end items, insert both clauses prescribed in (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, Alternate I of the clause at 52.246-24, and identify clearly in the contract schedule the line items designated as high-value items.” For this reason, we request that FAR clause 52.246-23 (Limitation of Liability) be added to the solicitation. |
| FAR 52.246.23 has been added to the Solicitation in RFP amendment 0003. |
| 63 |
| 9/27/2016 |
| Section I, Page 141 |
| Section I, FAR 52.209-3 First Article Approval—Contractor Testing (SEP 1989) – ALTERNATE I (JAN 1997): Given that it is essential for the Contractor to purchase production material to some extent before first article approval in order to meet the contract delivery schedule, FAR 9.308-1(b)(3) advises that the contracting officer shall use a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.209-3, First Article Approval—Contractor Testing, with its Alternate II. For this reason, the Contractor requests the solicitation be revised to include FAR 52.209-3 First Article Approval—Contractor Testing (SEP 1989) – ALTERNATE II (SEP 1989). |
| RFP Amednment 0003 includes FAR 52.209-3 First Article Approval—Contractor Testing (SEP 1989) – ALTERNATE II (SEP 1989). |
| 64 |
| 9/27/2016 |
| Section B, Note A, Page 52 |
| In regards to Stepladder Pricing, Section B, Note A, of the RFP states: “First exercise of option CLIN 9999: quantity of 150 at a unit price of $150 each for an extended price of $22,500 (=150*$150) funded on CLIN 9999. Second exercise of option CLIN 9999: quantity of 200. The second exercised quantity of 200 plus the first exercised quantity of 150 equates to 350 in total for CLIN 9999. The unit price for 350 units is $100, thereby making the extended total price $35,000 (=350*$100). Therefore, the unit price for CLIN 9999 would be unilaterally adjusted in accordance with Note A and Note G to reflect a quantity of 350 at a unit price of $100 with an extended price of $35,000.” Please confirm that the each time a CLIN is exercised, the quantity of systems ordered for each task order will only be used once to determine unit pricing during a 60 day ordering period. For instance, using the scenario provided above, if the first exercise of option CLIN 9999 is awarded July 1st, and the 2nd exercise is awarded August 30th, which is within 60 days of the first exercise, resulting in a unit price adjustment based on Stepladder pricing, if a 3rd exercise of CLIN 9999 is awarded September 15th (past 60 days from the first exercise but within 60 days of the 2nd), that the quantity of systems ordered in the 3rd exercise will be considered the first order/exercise for the next 60 day period, and that it will not be added to the quantities of exercise 1 and 2 to adjust unit pricing a second time. |
| The 60 day window applies from the date of the first option exercise. This has been clarified in RFP Amendment 0003. |
| 65 |
| 9/06/2016 |
| Overall |
| Please advise if you would permit an offshore division to perform portions of this requirement to help save overall labor costs. |
| A Potential Offeror is expected to comply with all RFP terms and conditions including security requirements listed in the DD254, the Buy American Act, and procedures for handling ITAR controlled material. |
| 66 |
| 9/16/2016 |
| Paragraph 3.6, Engineering Support Services |
| The SOW defines all Engineering Support Services (ESS) as government directed TI efforts. This does include sustaining engineering *Removed for Sanitization*. If the Offeror is not clear on what the government defines as sustaining engineering or we expect confusion between LRIPs and FRP then we may wish to clarify. As written all cost associated with unit build/test and delivery are in the FFP of the other CLINs even if engineering is called in to resolve or help. Defined items such as FRACAS,R&M, or DMS reporting, RFV etc would not be costs attributed to sustaining engineering. |
| Efforts funded under Engineering Services Support CLINs will be clearly defined in the respective Technical Instructions. ESS related to LRIP units are not intended under this contract. |
| 67 |
| 10/01/2016 |
| Section B, Note A, Page 62 |
| Section B Note A of the RFP states that the Government may unilaterally exercise a given CLIN more than once, prior to the latest option exercise date identified in clause 52.217-7, and up to the total quantity. However, CLINs 0001-0009 are not identified as Option CLINs in Section B or listed under FAR 52.217-7, Option for Increased Quantity – Separately Priced Items. Does this mean the USG intends to exercise the Base Year CLINs only once during the period of performance of the Base Year, and will all Base Year CLINs be exercised simultaneously? |
| CLINs 0001-0009 are not option CLINs and will be exercised accordingly at contract award. Note A does not apply to CLINs 0001-0009. |
| 68 |
| 10/01/2016 |
| Section F, Page 107, Delivery Note 1 |
| Section F, Page 107, Delivery Note 1 states that the delivery information will be “filled in” upon each option exercise, including period of performance, quantities, and ship to information. Please confirm that this Note 1 applies to the Delivery Information beginning at the bottom of Page 107, and is applicable to all CLINs (Base & Options). |
| Delivery Note 1 applies to options CLINs only. Delivery Information for Base Year CLINs 0001-0004 and 0009 has been filled in in RFP Amendment 0003. |
| 69 |
| 10/01/2016 |
| Section I, Page 142 |
| Section I, Page 142, 52.217-7 OPTION FOR INCREASED QUANTITY--SEPARATELY PRICED LINE ITEM (MAR 1989), the RFP provides the latest exercise option date applicable to the Option CLINs. However, the contract does not identify the earliest exercise Option Date. Is it the intention of the USG to exercise Option Year CLINs in conjunction with the GFY? Is there potential that exercise of the Option Years could overlap? |
| While it is the intent of the Government to award each Option to coincide with the Government Fiscal Year, Options may be exercised as solicited. |
| 70 |
| 10/01/2016 |
| Section I, Page 142 |
| Section I, Page 142. 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT; This clause states in paragraph (c) that the total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any option(s) under this clause, shall not exceed five (5) years, with the exception of the LOE ESS CLINs when the total delineated hours have not been expended. However, this clause seems to be in conflict with the Option for Increased Quantity, 52,217-7, which identifies the latest option exercise date for the Option Year 4 CLINs to be 60 months (five years). If an Option Year 4 CLIN is exercised on the latest exercise option date with delivery required within 22 months of exercise, the total performance of the contract would be (7) years. Does “duration” in the context of this clause cover the ordering period only or actual performance? |
| CLINs 5011-5036, which are for O-level Parts, Depot Level Parts, and Support Equipment, are intended to have a Latest Option Exercise Date of 60 months ADC. |
| 71 |
| 10/03/2016 |
| Section I |
| Section I of the solicitation incorporates DFARS Clause 252.246-7001, ALT II, Warranty of Data (Mar 2014) by reference. This ALT II clause imposes additional potential liabilities upon the Contractor that will need to be accounted for in the original bid price and in every future engineering change proposal. For this reason, the Contractor requests that the Government consider removing ALT II from the solicitation and simply leave in DFARS clause 252.246-7001, Warranty of Data (Mar 2014). |
| DFARS Clause 252.246-7001 and DFARS Clause 252.246-7001 Alt II remain necessary terms of conditions of this solicitation. |
SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES
The following have been added by reference:
| 252.246-7001 |
| Warranty Of Data |
| MAR 2014 |
| 252.246-7001 Alt II |
| Warranty Of Data (Mar 2014) - Alternate II |
| MAR 2014 |
(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf
