Amendment_3_Questions_Attachment_L-1_bidderquesttemp_FINAL_20190910.pdf

N0002418R4200 ATTACHMENT L-1 - BIDDERS QUESTIONS

AMENDMENT 3

20190904

Question/

Answer #

Submission

Date

Document in Question Document

Date

Document

Page Number

Document Paragraph

Number

RFP Extract and/or Statement Requiring

Clarification/Issue

Question Answer

1 8 Aug 2019 Conformed Solicitation Amendment 2

N0002r18R4200_20190814

08/14/2019 Page 141 L.4.3.1 For the Management Plan, the last sentence states the section is limited to 20 pages. Q&A # 110 response and

Section L.2.0 (table p. 130) state the Management Plan is limited to 25 pages.

In L.4.3.1 on page 141, the RFP states the Management

Plan is limited to 20 pages. Section L.2.0 (table p. 130) states the Management Plan is limited to 25 pages.

Would the Government confirm that the Managemenet

Plan is limited to 25 pages.

Per "Attachment_L-1_biddersquestANSWER_FINAL_20190814" answer to question 110, the management plan is limited to 25 pages vice 20 pages.

Page 141 of the conformed solicitation Amendment 2 was not updated to reflect the changes made on Pg 130. Amendment 3 will update the solicitation to reflect the changes made in Amendment 2.

2 8 Aug 2019 Conformed Solicitation Amendment 2

N0002r18R4200_20190814

08/14/2019 Pages 130 & 144Table in Section 2.0 &

Section 4.4 Last

Paragraph

Page 130 table section 3.1 indicates past performance is limited to a maximum of 20 pages. The last paragraph of

Section 4.4 indicates past performance is limited to 10 pages. Answer to bidders question indicated past performance is limited to a maximum of 10 past performances of two pages each.

Request government confirm that past performance section is limited to a maximum of 10 past performances of 2 pages each for a maimum of 20 pages for the section.

Per "Attachment_L-1_biddersquestANSWER_FINAL_20190814" answer to question 111, past performance is limited to 20 pages vice 10 pages as a result of the clarification of a maximum of 10 relevant contracts at 2 pages each. Page 144 (4.4) of the conformed solicitation Amendment 2 was not updated to reflect the changes made on Pg 130. Amendment 3 will update the solicitation to reflect the changes made in Amendment 2.

3 8 Aug 2019 Conformed Solicitation Amendment 2

N0002r18R4200_20190814

5 July 2019 Page 144 Section 4.4, first paragraph

Section 4.4 first paragraph states: "Offerors shall provide in its proposal any information regarding its past performance, and that of its major subcontractors (for purposes of the past performance evaluation major subcontractor means a subcontractor that will accomplish 10% or more of the dollar value of the work required by the solicitation or are awarded a subcontract which exceeds $55 million)...A minimum of one major subcontractor's past performance should be included in the submission.

If an offerors technical approach does not include any subcontractor performing at least 10% of the dollar value of the work, or more than $55 million, how do they meet this requirement to submit a major subontractor past performance?

Amendment 3 will change the requirement such that offerors not utilizing major subcontractors are not required to submit a past performance record for subcontractors; but are still required to provide the minimum past performance information as stated in that section.

4 8 Aug 2019 Conformed Solicitation Amendment 2

N0002r18R4200_20190814

6/24/2019 Page 8 and

B-232-H005(b) and

B-216-H006

Fee paid per hour shall be based on total fee dollars divided by total hours to be provided.

Request the government confirm that during contract execution, the fixed fee to be billed will be calculated based on the proposed fee rate (as a % of cost) for the applicable CLIN?

Fixed fee will be paid in accordance with B-232-H005 Payment of Fee(s)

Level of Effort--Alternate I (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018) subject to withholding per

52.216-8 and G-216-H001.

5 8 Aug 2019 Attach L-4 08/06/19 N/A Summary Tab The Yearly hours appear to be the CLIN hours which are for the entire PoP.

Is the formula correct in the total ColumnG? The total does not match the CLIN Ceiling amounts for each individual CLIN tab.

Amendment 3 will update 'TOTAL' Column G to reflect the correct CLIN hours.

8/22/2019

Amendment_2_N0002418R4200 20190814 27 L.4.3.3 Follow-up to Q&A Question 186, Small Business

Participation

The actual task order requirements are both diverse and unknown to any offeror other than the incumbent at this point in time. Please consider modifying Section L.4.3.3

(third bullet at the bottom of page 27) to delete the requirement to quantify small business support. For example, "Provide explanations and/or documentation quantitatively supporting the extent small businesses will be utilized in terms of the total value of the acquisition."

The government makes no change to the solicitation in response to this question.

8/22/2019

Attachment L-1 20190814 1 Question 4 Original question: For CLIN 0004, which covers both

Egypt and Iraq, each country will require different considerations for labor pricing. Will the Government please provide a breakdown of the number of labor hours in each labor category that are to be performed in Egypt and in Iraq separately?

Answer: Amendment 2 provides clarification on this item;

offerors may assume a 90% Egypt/10% Iraq split for

CLIN 0004. Section L , Section 4.5.2 is updated.

How will the successful offeror price a Task order using the composite rates, if one/more labor categories are unavailable/not required under a Task Order, as it will change the weighted cost/distribution of the originally proposed rates?

The Government will use the established composite rates for pricing labor under orders. In performance, the contractor may use any mix of labor categories to meet the requirements of each order. See Section B, Note B.

20190904

Question/

Answer #

Submission

Date

Document in Question Document

Date

Document

Page Number

Document Paragraph

Number

RFP Extract and/or Statement Requiring

Clarification/Issue

Question Answer

8/22/2019

Attachment L-1 20190814 2 Question 21 Original questiion related to labor categories over the life of the contract. The Government asnwered that the contractor shall use the established composite rates for pricing labor under orders.

Would the Government establish a different contractual mechanism to establish a realistic funding for the task orders instead of using the composite rate by CLIN?

Since salaries vary substantially between the labor categories required in the RFP. If a Task order only requires a skill mix weighted towards Project Managers, Engineers, Logisticians, etc., then using the composite rate will not adequately address actual costs. There will be a shortfall and associated break in service while the

Government obtains sufficient funding to re-start the contractor.

The government makes no change to the solicitation in response to this question. In execution, the contractor shall use 52.232-20 and 52.232-22 for guidance and to mitigate any problems or any perceived impending 'breaks in service' in execution

(as applicable).

8/22/2019

Attachment L-1 20190814 2 Question 21 Government indicated "the contractor shall use the established composite rates for pricing labor under orders."

Will the Navy consider allowing contractors to price task orders by labor category (vs. composite rate) for more reasonable pricing?

Since composite rate pricing is weighted towards Support

Personnel (70% in CLIN 0001), it does not align with the

Scope of Work requirements for Program Management, Logistics Planning and Support, Engineering Support, Training, Material Procurements and Delivery, Condition

Assessments and Maintenance Planning, Configuration

Management and Accounting, etc.

The government makes no change to the solicitation in response to this question.

The government desires to use a composite rate for labor to minimize the time needed for negotiations of orders, and the government has provided its best estimate for the needs of each labor category (for each labor CLIN by year) to inform the composite rate.

8/22/2019

Attachment L-1 20190814 9 Question 134 Labor CLINS 0001 - 0005 will be billed at actual cost.

The composite rate is for purposes of pricing labor in delivery orders under the contract.

Assuming the composite rate-based proposals will not provide adequate task order funding, will the successful offeror be expected to go at risk while the Government obtains the additional funding? Will the Government rely on a supplemental proposal, based on Composite Rates, to define the required amount of funding?

The government makes no such assumption. In execution, the contractor shall use

52.232-20 and 52.232-22 for guidance and to mitigate any problems or perceived impending 'breaks in service' in execution (as applicable) - and therefore, there should be no need for the contractor to perform at risk. Management of orders is a function of contract administration and the contractor shall be expected to manage the effort appropriately in coordination/communication with the government. Any

(supplemental) proposals submitted under the contractor shall be provided using the established composite rates, as noted in Section B, Note B.

Page 4 of 43 Section B Note D 8/14/19 Page 4 of 43 Section B Note D

Issue 1: CLINS 007 and 008 are cost reimbursable.

Under cost reimbursable CLINS, the Government via

DCMA/DCAA will generally audit the indirect rates and determine final rates to be applied against ones incurred cost. If the indirect rates are lower than what was billed, the cost delta is returned to the Government.

Per the RFP, the indirect rate categories and rates will be fixed by ordering period. The indirect rate will be used for pricing and invoicing against ODC and travel costs. Per the RFP, the Government considers the agreed to rates to be reasonable, allowable, and allocable.

Our concern is whether the Government is establishing a ceiling for the indirect rates or a fixed rate that will not be subject to DCAA audit. We are asking for clarification.

subject to DCAA audit. Pease clarify if this is an indirect rate ceiling or a fixed rate that will NOT be subject to

DCAA Audit?

The government is fixing the rate, not a ceiling for indirect rates. Note D specifically states, "…the parties will not negotiate additional indirect rates categories nor indirect rates different than those identified in the table below."

20190904

Question/

Answer #

Submission

Date

Document in Question Document

Date

Document

Page Number

Document Paragraph

Number

RFP Extract and/or Statement Requiring

Clarification/Issue

Question Answer

Page 4 of 43 Amendment_2_N0002418R4200_20190814 8/14/19 Page 4 of 43 Section B Note D

Issue 1: CLINS 007 and 008 are cost reimbursable.

Under cost reimbursable CLINS, the Government via

DCMA/DCAA will generally audit the indirect rates and determine final rates to be applied against ones incurred cost. If the indirect rates are lower than what was billed, the cost delta is returned to the Government.

Per the RFP, the indirect rate categories and rates will be fixed by ordering period. The indirect rate will be used for pricing and invoicing against ODC and travel costs. Per the RFP, the Government considers the agreed to rates to be reasonable, allowable, and allocable.

subject to DCAA audit. We are asking for clarification.

For clarification purposes, once agreement is reached with the Government on the indirect rate categories and the applicable indirect rate percentages (indirect costs), are these indirect costs fixed for the duration of the program?

Once fixed, the Government will reimburse the contractor the cost of the ODC and Travel plus the agreed to indirect costs as if those indirect rates are fixed for the entire five-year period. At the end of contract performance, there will be no adjustment to the reimbursed cost if the contractor’s indirect rate percentages should increase and or decrease. Will the Government please verify that this interpretation is correct? If the Government is fixing rates, is this approach in effect a cost plus percentage of cost (CPPC) CLIN?

Yes, once the contract is awarded, those indirect rates identified in Note D are fixed for the life of the contract. Yes, the government will reimburse the contractor for the costs of the ODC/travel plus the applicable indirect rates stablished in Note D. At the end of performance of orders there will be no adjustments made, regardless of contractor increases or decreases in those rates. No, this approach does not constitute a cost-plus-percentage-of-cost arrangement. Please note that there is a difference between Note C and D, they apply to different CLINs and have different terms.

Page 4 of 43 Amendment_2_N0002418R4200_20190814 8/14/19 Page 4 of 43 Section B Note D

Issue 2: CLIN 006 is fixed price. In the RFP, the

Government is providing the estimated material cost for each contract period. Offeror is to propose its applicable indirect rate charges and fee, which is to be fixed throughout the contract period.

The material cost is fixed. The estimated material cost for year 1 is 45M. Since CLIN 0006 is fixed, is the contractor to be paid 45M plus indirect costs and fee if it spends 40M, including loaders, or pay 5M out of its pocket if the material cost plus loaders is 50M.

Material cost will be determined at the task order level and will be fixed within the task order. If the sum total of the material per all of the task order exceeds 45M, is the contractor obligated to pay for material in excess of 45M?

The estimated base costs for CLINS 0006, 0007, and

0008 are provided by the Government. Per the RFP, the

Offeror is to add its indirect rate factors to the estimated base cost. CLIN 0006 is fixed price while CLINS 0007 and 008 are Cost Reimbursable. Under Note D for CLINs

0007 and 0008 (Page 4 of 43), the indirect rates are to be identified in a table; the indirect rate categories and associated percentage rate identified in the table will be considered reasonable, allowable, and allocable.

CLIN 0006 is fixed price. The estimated material costs for each contract period is provided by the Government. Per the Note C in the RFP, Offeror and the Government will negotiate a fixed profit percentage and indirect rates to be applied against any acquired material. For clarification purposes, the material costs is not a fixed value since the estimated cost is provided by the Government for estimating purposes. What is fixed is the fixed profit percentage and indirect rates to be applied against any acquired material. Will the Government please verify that this interpretation is correct? If the Government is fixing rates, is this approach in effect a cost plus percentage of cost (CPPC) CLIN?

For clarification - Note C applies to CLIN 0006, not Note D as indicated in question as posed. The value of $45M is the estimated government value for the materials to be procured under the contract in Year 1. Material cost will be negotiated on each order (as required), and only the profit and indirect cost resultant from the profit percentage and rates included in Note C will comprise the negotiated material price in the resultant order. No, this approach does not constitute a cost-plus-percentage-of-cost arrangement.

26 Aug 2019

Attachment_L1_biddersquestANSWER_FINAL

_20190814 and

Conformed_Copy_Amendment_2_N0002418R

4200_20190814

14 Aug 2019

Page 11 in

Q&As, Page

135 in

Conformed

RFP

Q170 and L.4.2.1

Q170 asked "Would the Government clarify where these

"uncovered" C Section requirements addressed within the Technical Capability section of the proposal? Also what page count is allowed to address these additional "uncovered"

Requirements?"

L.4.2.1 was modified to read: "Offerors may provide an overview of technical capability, to address specific areas in the SOW that are explicitly captured in the Sample

Tasks. Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate the full breadth of their understanding in the Sample Task response; therefore, this introduction should not exceed two pages."

It appears the new instructions in L.4.2.1 is missing a word, and should read: "Offerors may provide an overview of technical capability, to address specific areas in the

SOW that are NOT explicitly captured in the Sample

Tasks." Will the Government please provide clarification to this requirement?

Amendment 3 makes the correction; yes, it should state "…that are not…"

20190904

Question/

Answer #

Submission

Date

Document in Question Document

Date

Document

Page Number

Document Paragraph

Number

RFP Extract and/or Statement Requiring

Clarification/Issue

Question Answer

26 Aug 2019 Conformed_Copy_Amendment_2_N0002418R

4200_20190814 14 Aug 2019 Page 135 L.4.2.1

"Offerors may provide an overview of technical capability, to address specific areas in the SOW that are explicitly captured in the Sample Tasks. Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate the full breadth of their understanding in the Sample Task response; therefore, this introduction should not exceed two pages."

L.4.2.1 added a 2-page introduction under Technical

Capability. However, the table on page 130 does not show a 2-page introduction under 1.0 Technical Capability.

Where should Offerors provide this introduction? Will the

Government please modify the table on page 130 to reflect the location of this new requirement?

This is not a new requirement, offerors have the option to provide it if they deem it to be necessary in submitting their proposal. The previous paragraph specifically states, "The Technical Capability section of the proposal shall be sufficiently detailed and complete to fully demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the scope of the acquisition, and an overall capability to provide the required work in accordance with all requirements of the solicitation." In addition, the added paragraph states 'may' versus 'shall'.

The item is already listed in the table, as II/iii entitled "Introduction", with a limitation of 2 pages.

26 Aug 2019 Attachment_L1_biddersquestANSWER_FINAL

_20190814 14 Aug 2019 Page 6 Q95

The Government's answer to Q95 appears to be confusing the issue. The questions is in reference to a sentence in the third paragraph in L.4.4: "Offerors shall provide a list and individual Reference Information Sheet

(RIS) (Attachment L-3) a minimum of 5, but no more than

10, relevant contracts (including subcontracts) performed, or currently being performed, within the last

10 years and with a value of $500,000 or greater."

Will the Government please clarify where Offerors should include the list called out in L.4.4 Volume II Section 3.0 -

Past Performance?

Per the table on page 130 of the Conformed RFP, Offerors' proposals are limited to 2 pages per RIS, for a maximum of 10 pages.

Per "Attachment_L-1_biddersquestANSWER_FINAL_20190814" answer to question 111, past performance is limited to 20 pages vice 10 pages as a result of the clarification of a maximum of 10 relevant contracts at 2 pages each. Page 144 (4.4) of the conformed solicitation Amendment 2 was not updated to reflect the changes made on Pg 130. Amendment 3 will update the solicitation to reflect the changes made in Amendment 2.

30 Aug 2019 Attachment_L-

4_Amendment2_costpropformat_20190806 06 Aug 2019

CLINS 0006-

0008 Tab

On the Instructions tab, item #3 states: "For CLIN tab

0006-0008, offerors are to identify and insert the applicable proposed indirect rates for each item identified for each year." However, there is no way to enter the rates by year on this tab.

Should Offeror duplicate the existing table in the CLIN

0006-0009 tab so there is one for each contract year?

Amendment 3 updates Attachment L-4 with cells to identify the rates by year.

30 Aug 2019

Attachment_L-

4_Amendment2_costpropformat_20190806 06 Aug 2019

CLINS 0006-

0008 Tab

The CLINS 0006 – 0008 does not include a column for

CLIN 0007 FMS ODCS – WAREHOUSING.

Should Offerors insert a column for CLIN 0007 FMS

ODCS - Warehousing in the CLIN 0006-0008 tab?

Amendment 3 updates Attachment L-4 for CLIN 0007.

30 Aug 2019 Attachment_L-

4_Amendment2_costpropformat_20190806 06 Aug 2019

SUMMARY

Tab

The formulas in Column G “TOTAL” do not appear to be calculating correctly.

Will the Government please provide an revised

Attachment L-4 that corrects the formulas such that the totals in Column G calculate correctly? If the Government will not revise the L-4 to correct this error, can Offerors change Cells I9 through J14 to display the hours for each

CLIN and then adjust the formulas in Cells G3 to G7 to calculate the total cost by CLIN?

Amendment 3 updates the 'TOTAL' Column G to reflect the correct CLIN hours.

08/22/2019

Attachment L-1 20190814 2 Question 16 Original question: Since this CLIN 0007 for ODCs is at cost, it is expected that costs will be billed with appropriate DCMA submitted indirect rates at the time of invoicing. Please remove the language fixing indirect rates as this is not a fixed price CLIN

Answer: The government does not intend to remove this language from the solicitation.

This language could be mis-interpreted to mean the

Government is unilaterally fixing the indirect rates under the contract. If this language is to remain, request clarification/correction of the following interpretation:

During the development of Task Order proposals, the successful offeror will use the indirect rates awarded under the contract for its duration. During execution of the

Task Order, the successful offeror will bill the Government at its actual indirect rates, with annual incurred cost submissions required under Cost Reimbursable contracts.

The Government is not unilaterally fixing the indirect rates. Rates are established at the time of contract award based on the proposal submitted by the successful offeror. For CLINs 0007 and 0008 the contractor shall only use the indirect rates identified in Note D. Offerors are directed to the language of Note D for how proposing and billing shall occur under the contract.

08/22/2019

Attachment L-1 20190814 2 Question 18 Original question: Since this CLIN 0008 for Travel is at cost, it is expected that costs will be billed with appropriate DCMA submitted indirect rates at the time of invoicing. Please remove the language fixing indirect rates as this is not a fixed price CLIN.

Answer: The government does not intend to remove this language from the solicitation.

This language could be mis-interpreted to mean the

Government is unilaterally fixing the indirect rates under the contract. If this language is to remain, request clarification/correction of the following interpretation:

During the development of Task Order proposals, the successful offeror will use the indirect rates awarded under the contract for its duration. During execution of the

Task Order, the successful offeror will bill the Government at its actual indirect rates, with annual incurred cost submissions required under Cost Reimbursable contracts.

The Government is not unilaterally fixing the indirect rates. Rates are established at the time of contract award based on the proposal submitted by the successful offeror. For CLINs 0007 and 0008 the contractor shall only use the indirect rates identified in Note D. Offerors are directed to the language of Note D for how proposing and billing shall occur under the contract.

20190904

Question/

Answer #

Submission

Date

Document in Question Document

Date

Document

Page Number

Document Paragraph

Number

RFP Extract and/or Statement Requiring

Clarification/Issue

Question Answer

08/22/2019

Attachment L-1 20190814 6 Question 80 Section L.4.3.1. provides a definition for each category as it relates to the management plan response.

Information contained in the management section should not be confused with the information provided for offerors to develop their cost/price (Vol III) submission. The information in Section 4.5.2 provides the necessary information for developing the cost proposal.

The Government states that CLINs are already broken out to reflect the location of the work. To remove any ambiguity, would the Government confirm the following understanding of staffing location and nationality by CLIN?

CLIN 0001 CONUS, NORFOLK VA – U.S. Nationals only

CLIN 0002 CONUS, NORFOLK VA – U.S. Nationals only

CLIN 0003 CONUS, NORFOLK VA – U.S. Nationals only

CLIN 0004 OCONUS, Egypt/Iraq - with 90% Egyptian

Nationals and 10% Iraqi Nationals only

CLIN 0005 OCONUS, Philippines - with 100% Philippines

Nationals only

For CLIN 0001, work is primarily CONUS. For CLINs 0002-0003, work is to be performed CONUS and OCONUS (short-term TDY) using a CONUS/U.S.

labor force (fly-in teams, SMEs). For CLINs 0004 and 0005,the assumption is accurate, the rate should be based on local labor rates for the respective countries.

Attachment L-4 Amendment2 costpropformat 20190806.xlsx8/14/19 Summary tab Column G

The formulas in cells G3 through G7 all overstate annual hours by 400% and also multiply each CLINs composite rates by other CLINs total hours, which grossly overstates the total labor cost.

Will the government distribute another model to correct these calculations?

Amendment 3 provides a corrected L-4 attachment.

Amendment_2_N0002418R4200_20190814 8/14/19 Page 159 of 159

CPFF Labor CLINs

0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0005

The calculation for the total evaluated price states that step 3 is:

Add Offeror’s proposed Fixed Fee dollar amount to the

Government’s Evaluated Estimated Cost.

Since the rates already include fee, per answer to question 2 in Attachment_L-

1_biddersquestANSWER_FINAL_20190814 , will the government please confirm that they will not apply fee on top of rates that already include fee?

The govnerment will not apply fee on top of fee in conducitng it's evaluation.

Offerors are required to provide data identified in Section L4.5.2 to show and substantiate the makeup of the base rate to arrive at the fully burdened labor rate to be provided in Attachment L-4. The method identified in Section M will be used in evaluating the base rate provided by the offeror in the required documentation. A new attachment L-5 has been added the solicitation, and is OPTIONAL, for offerors to use to capture the required data.