Encl._1_to_Amendment_0002_Response_to_Bidders_Questions.pdf

For Official Use Only N00024-18-R-4313

QUESTION

NO.

SOLIC.

SECTION

AND PAGE

GENERAL

SUBJECT

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION OR QUESTION ANSWER

008 Section L, Subsection

L.4.1.2.3 “Sub-

Factor 3 –

“Staffing

Personnel”, pages 216 - 217

Labor Skill

Mix

The “Estimated Labor Skill Mix (in Direct Labor Hours) by Functional Area” table, identifying the “PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LABOR MIX” for each “CRAFT/TRADE”, does not align with the hours identified in Table B-1: “Target Costs”, or Section C, Subsection 3.2 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS, or Attachment S-04 “Staffing Plan”.

Could the Government please clarify these percentages?

The Government updated the hours included in Table B-1 in

Amendment 1 (See Amendment 1 Encl. 1 Question No. 001).

The percentages are an estimated labor skill mix to use as a baseline for evaluation purposes only.

009 Attachment S-

05 Past

Performance

Questionnaire

1st page

Past

Performance, CPR

"The Offeror shall also submit the last (in the case of a completed contract) or latest (in the case of an on-going contract) Cost Performance Report (CPR) for each cost-type contract questionnaire with their proposal. FAILURE TO SUBMIT A CPR FOR EACH

APPLICABLE CONTRACT MAY RESULT IN THE OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL BEING

DEEMED UNACCEPTABLE AND MAY THEREFORE NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR

AWARD."

Is the use of a non CPR format submittal as an equal substitute permitted?

No, the format shall be in accordance with DI-MGMT-

81466A, Format 1 or 3 and 5.

Section J, Attachment 1,

p. 200

Attachment 1

Contract

Security

Classification

Specification, DD Form 254

The following Security Classification Guides, which are referenced in Section 13 of

Attachment 1 are requested by Offeror for the evaluation of said Attachment:

• Security Classification Guide SCG ID# 03-134.03 Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) MK

2/Open Architecture (OA) for LPD-17, LHD-1, LHA-6, LSD-41, CVN-68 and CVN-78

Class Ships Unclassified

• Security Classification Guide SCG ID# 03-150.1 Littoral

Combat Ship (LCS) Unclassified

The Security Officer at any potential Offeror’s company should already have the guides.

Section B, Page

Award Fee The Cost category award fee evaluation criteria has terms that allow for only either 60% or

100% of that category’s weighting to be earned, before dropping to 0% for costs we are projecting up to 6 years in the future. Will the Navy consider eliminating this requirement and replace it with the cost evaluation criteria on the current contract?

No, the Government will not revise the award fee cost evaluation criteria.

Section B, Page

Award Fee The labor mix in Section L shows, 48% Design Hours, 29% Engineering Support Hours, and

23% Support Hours. This labor mix will be used to build the Offeror’s Contract labor rates.

The solicitation adds a new award fee criteria on the cost factor (20%) whereby the Planning

Yard receives a score of 0 in the event of an overrun or underrun of 5% or more. How will the Navy apply the award fee criteria, if and when Individual Technical Instructions (TI’s) require a different labor mix to perform the actual tasking successfully?

Section L 4.1.2.3 reads, “As such, Offerors should note that, while their proposal labor skill mix MAY REASONABLY

DEVIATE from the historical labor mix, the Government will consider the proposed labor mix and any supporting documentation in its evaluation. The Government will evaluate the labor mix according to the Offeror’s specific technical approach, but Offerors that deviate from this historical production labor mix BEAR THE BURDEN of demonstrating that their labor mix will meet the Government’s requirements and is consistent with their proposed technical approach.”

The percentages are an estimated skill mix, and therefore the skill mix an Offeror proposes is reflective of the Offeror’s best estimate to complete the scope of work of the contract. The

Award Fee is not tied to individual Technical Instructions, but rather the contract performance during each evaluation period as a whole.

Section I, Page

Contract

Duration

FAR 52.217-9, paragraph (c), states in part: “The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any option(s) under this clause, shall not exceed five (5) years…” The anticipated contract will be for a base year, plus five option years. Will the Navy update the aforementioned clause accordingly?

Yes. See revision in the attached amendment.

NO.

SOLIC.

SECTION

AND PAGE

GENERAL

SUBJECT

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION OR QUESTION ANSWER

Section B, Page

Award Fee Travel CLIN (0014) of the solicited RFP is a Cost only CLIN, returning 0% fee. Would the government consider changing Travel CLIN (0X14) to a Cost Plus Fixed Fee line item with a fixed fee of 9% to be consistent with the travel scope in other service contracts across the industry?

No. The Government believes this is an appropriate amount of fee for the associated scope of work.

Section B, Page

Award Fee PIO Material CLIN (0012) of the solicited RFP is CPFF, returning 5% fee. Would the government consider changing the fixed fee to 9% to be consistent with the PIO material fee in other service contracts across the industry?

No. The Government believes this is an appropriate amount of fee for the associated scope of work.

Section C, Page

Scope of

Work

CLIN 0X01 (Program Management) does not include the program management/administration effort related to the master scheduling component of the program. This scope resides in Effort 1 of CLINs 0X02 – 0X07. This portion of Effort 1 reads “The Contractor shall develop and maintain an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). The

IMS shall outline the major activities, milestones and procedures for all work to be accomplished. This IMS shall be compatible with other program management software and exportable and editable via Microsoft Office products to ensure the Government and maintenance activities can share and have insight into the schedule via the PY database.” Will the Navy consider moving this effort under CLIN 0X01 (Program

Management) so that this contract support and administration effort be returned consistent with like efforts?

No, the Government will not move this effort in the scope of work.

Section B, Page

Award Fee Will the Navy consider removing the “less than” component of the Percentage of Cost

Category Weighting Earned calculation (as defined in the RFP) so that the contractor is not penalized in Award Fee Evaluation if the contractor performs below the contract rate, as negotiated?

No, the Government will not revise the Award Fee criteria.

Section B, Page

Award Fee The Cost category award fee evaluation criteria is entirely based on rate performance. The

Program Management Performance award fee evaluation category includes criteria stating

“…ability to control costs, and to avoid unnecessary cost increases including use and estimation of overtime, and a comparison of delivered rates to proposed rates.” This inclusion of rate performance in both the Program Management Performance and Cost award fee evaluation categories enables up to 40% of the total award fee score to be predicated on rate performance. Will the Navy consider that any reference to cost control and/or rate performance be removed from the Program Management Performance award fee evaluation criteria?

No, the Government will not revise the Award Fee criteria language. All factors within the program management criteria are not tied to cost control, so it does not equate to 40% of the total award fee score.

Section C, Award Fee Can the Navy confirm that CLIN 12 Effort 2 Fabrication Support also includes true

Production Fabrication at the same 5% fee as PIO material?

It does not.

Section C, Sub-

Section 3.2.12, CLIN 0012, Effort 5, Supervisor of

Ship-building

Support

Facilities

“The Contractor shall provide and maintain facilities for the Supervisor, assistants and other

Government employees equal to those provided by the Contractor for his own use for generally similar purposes.”

What locations and for how many Government personnel are required to support SUPSHIP and other Government onsite employees?

Five Government personnel at the site of the LCS Planning

Yard awardee’s primary execution facility.

NO.

SOLIC.

SECTION

AND PAGE

GENERAL

SUBJECT

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION OR QUESTION ANSWER

Section B, Note

A, Page 43

HQ B-2-0010

(OPTION)

"NOTE A – “HQ B-2-0010 (OPTION)” Option item to which the option clause in SECTION

I-2 applies and which is to be supplied only if and to the extent said option is exercised."

Is the language following "HQ B-20010 (OPTION)" in Note A the full text incorporation of

HQ B-20010 (OPTION), or was it intended to include a full text incorporation of this provision elsewhere in the Solicitation?

The Contractor does not see SECTION I-2 as referenced in Note A in the Solicitation, and the only clause the Contractor found with the term "option" in the title is in Section I, 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000)

(NAVSEA VARIATION) (APR 2015). Was there another option clause intended to be incorporated?

Note A references Option Clause in Section I, 52.217-9. No other clause was intended to be incorporated. The reference to

“I-2” is revised in the attached amendment.

Section B, Note

B, Page 43

HQ B-2-0015

PAYMENT

OF FEE(S)

(LEVEL OF

EFFORT-

ALTERNAT

E 1)

(NAVSEA)

"NOTE B: See “HQ B-2-0015 PAYMENT OF FEE(S) (LEVEL OF EFFORT-

ALTERNATE 1) (NAVSEA)”

The clause referenced in Note B is incorporated by full text on page 55 of the Solicitation under Section B, but the title excludes "ALTERNATE 1". Is the Government's intent to invoke the Basic version of the referenced clause or the Alternate 1 version?

It is the Government’s intent to invoke Alternate I, see revised attached amendment.

Section B, Note

G, Page 44

PIO Clause

Reference in

Note B

"NOTE G: Applicable to CLIN(s) 0012, and if Options are exercised, CLINS 0112, 0212, 0312, 0412, and 0512. For ordering material, see Section C, Clause HQ C-1-0004, Provisioned Items Order Alternate I (NAVSEA) (APR 2015). The fixed fee on any material orders shall be negotiated on an order by order basis, and shall be no greater than five percent (5%) of the total estimated cost. "

Note G states, "For ordering material, see Section C, Clause HQ C-1-0004, Provisioned

Items Order Alternate I (NAVSEA) (APR 2015)." The Contractor was unable to find the referenced clause in Section C, but was able to find the ALTERNATE II version in Section

C as HQ C-1-0005 on page 124 of the Solicitation, applicable to CLIN 0012 and related

Options. Is it the Government's intent to invoke ALTERNATE I (APR 2015) or

ALTERNATE II (APR 2015) of the NAVSEA Provisioned Items Order clause?

It is the Government’s intent to invoke Alternate II, see revised attached amendment.

Section C, Subsection

3.2.12, Efforts

1, 2, and 3, Pages 123 - 124

PIO Clause

Reference in

Section C

Efforts 1, 2, and 3 reference "Provisioned Items Order - ALT I (NAVSEA) (MAR 2001)".

A full text inclusion of "Provisioned Items Order - ALT I (NAVSEA) (MAR 2001)" as referenced in Efforts 1, 2, and 3 is not found in the Solicitation. However, invoked in Section

C by full text is the clause "PROVISIONED ITEMS ORDERS – ALTERNATE II

(NAVSEA) (APR 2015)" beginning on Page 125. Is it the Government's intent to invoke

"Provisioned Items Order - ALT I (NAVSEA) (MAR 2001)" or "PROVISIONED ITEMS

ORDERS – ALTERNATE II (NAVSEA) (APR 2015)"?

See Government response to Bidder’s Question 023.

NO.

SOLIC.

SECTION

AND PAGE

GENERAL

SUBJECT

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION OR QUESTION ANSWER

Section H

Clause, 5252.216-9122

LEVEL OF

EFFORT

CLAUSE

(DEC 2000),

pages 157 –

160;

Section B

Clause, HQ B-

2-0015

PAYMENTS

OF FEE(S)

(LEVEL OF

EFFORT)

(NAVSEA)

(MAY 1993),

paras (c) and

(d), pages 55 and 56;

AND

Section I

Clause, 52.217-

9 OPTION TO

EXTEND THE

TERM OF

THE

CONTRACT

(MAR 2000)

(NAVSEA

VARIATION)

(APR 2015),

para (c), page

169.

Clauses References to different versions of 5252.216-9122.

Section H invokes 5252.216-9122 LEVEL OF EFFORT CLAUSE (DEC 2000), but not

ALTERNATE I of the clause.

Paragraphs (c) and (d) of HQ B-2-0015 PAYMENTS OF FEE(S) (LEVEL OF EFFORT)

(NAVSEA) (MAY 1993), in Section B references "LEVEL OF EFFORT", which is understood to be invoked in Section H as 5252.216-9122 LEVEL OF EFFORT CLAUSE

(DEC 2000).

Paragraph (c) of Section I Clause, 52.217-9 references "LEVEL OF EFFORT –

ALTERNATE 1", (NAVSEA 5252.216-9122), which is the ALTERNATE 1 version, hence different from the clause invoked in Section H.

Is it the Government's intent to invoke 5252.216-9122 or 5252.216-9122 ALTERNATE 1?

It is the Government’s intent to invoke Alt I, see revised attached amendment.

NO.

SOLIC.

SECTION

AND PAGE

GENERAL

SUBJECT

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION OR QUESTION ANSWER

Section B (5ii)

p. 49

Target Cost

Calculations

The contract defines the award fee criteria for Schedule, Technical, Management, and Material in general terms and is consistent with other contracts.

However, the RFP states for the Cost evaluation category that "if any CLIN has a cost overrun or underrun greater than 5% of the target cost, then the contractor earns a rating of

0% for the Cost Category." This criteria is not consistent with that found in other similar contracts, and incentivizes contractor behavior in a way that is not in the Navy’s best interest.

Cost performance for defined scope is within the contractor's control--for instance, issued scope under task orders. However, cost performance to the initial CLIN estimated cost values, can be significantly influenced by the quantity and size of tasks released by the Navy to the contractor to perform. If the Navy only releases tasked scope that is a fraction of the

CLIN's estimated cost, the Navy has predetermined that Contractor will receive 0% award fee for that criteria.

Also, several other factors outside the contractor's control (but within the Navy’s control) drive scope and schedule variability which result in cost performance differences from estimated cost values. Specific cost drivers include, but are not limited to 1) Incomplete GFI,

2) Quick turnaround ROM estimates, 3) ROM estimates based on pre-ship check data, 4) churn in fielding plans, 5) variability in Fleet schedules, and 6) late authorizations.

By invoking the Cost assessment criteria as stated, the contractor would be required to manage a cost baseline and process formal change notices to account for conditions outside our control, and negotiate that change value prior to starting the work. This requirement would increase cost (Inconsistent with Ref Section L page 218 4.1.3.1 Sub factor 1), drive schedule increases (Inconsistent with Ref Section B, page 45, para C-1), and reduces the contractor's responsiveness (Inconsistent with Ref Section B, page 46, para C-3).

Offeror believes the assessment criteria for Schedule, Technical, Management, and Material appropriately incentivizes the contractor in a manner that benefits the Navy. Offeror requests that the Navy change the cost assessment criteria to be similar in nature to that used in the

Schedule, Technical, Management, and Material criteria within this solicitation.

The Government will not revise the award fee cost assessment criteria.

Section L (HQ-

L-2-0014) p.

Notification of Use of

Navy Support

Contractors for Official

Contract

Files

The solicitation indicates that Navy Support Contractors may be involved in handling or reviewing proposals, which will include proprietary information. Offeror requests full contact information of all Navy Support Contractors that will be in some way responsible for handling or reviewing Offeror’s proposal, in order to facilitate execution of non-disclosure agreements.

At this time the Government has not identified any support contractors. If the Government identifies any, all Offerors will be notified accordingly to execute separate NDAs, as requested.

Section L (3.1)

p. 211

Electronic

Files

RFP states: “The electronic files shall be submitted on CDROMs formatted for Microsoft®

Windows 2010™.” Can DVDs be used since the data submitted will exceed the capacity of a

CD-ROM?

Yes, see revised attached amendment.

Section L (1.0)

p. 207

Offeror

Solicitation

Questions

Section L states: “All such questions shall be submitted in writing by 06 AUGUST 2018 at

1700 Eastern Standard Time (EST), to allow the Navy adequate time to prepare and issue responses to all Offerors via the FBO website prior to the date and time set for receipt of proposals.” Since the Delivery Date changed for the Solicitation, can Offeror receive an extension of the deadline for Bidder’s Questions from August 6 to August 14, 2018?

No, the Government will not extend the deadline.

NO.

SOLIC.

SECTION

AND PAGE

GENERAL

SUBJECT

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION OR QUESTION ANSWER

Section L

(4.1.4) p. 219

Offeror

Solicitation

Questions

Section L states: “Incomplete work (including travel) already tasked to the current planning yard contractor will remain tasked to the current planning yard contract for execution and will be considered an exception to the transition plan.” What specific scope, availabilities, or work is currently planned or anticipated to be tasked to the current contractor during the transition period, so that the offeror can exclude the same from the proposed transition plan?

No data is required. An Offeror shall use access to Navy Data

Environment (NDE), established PY milestones such as A-405

Task SID Development and A-330 Complete Shipcheck, S-09, and the use of OPNAV 4700 to obtain the information requested.

Section L, Page

Subcontract

Mgmt

Under Section L of the solicitation, in 4.1 Volume I – Non Cost, under 4.1.2.2(d) regarding

Small Business Subcontract Management Approach, there is language included that appears to request offerors provide a Small Business Participation Plan. However, in 4.2 Volume II

– Cost, under chapter 4.0, Section 4.1, the solicitation requires offerors to provide a Small

Business Subcontracting Plan.

Standard practice requirements for similar Requests for Proposals is to provide a Small

Business Subcontracting Plans which are regularly reviewed and audited by the Government and not a Small Business Participation Plan. Please clarify which type of plan is required under this solicitation.

Section L 4.1.2.2(d) reads, “The Offeror shall describe how they plan to achieve 10% Small Business participation.”

Offeror’s shall provide a description under Sub-Factor 2 –

Subcontract Management about how the offeror plans to achieve 10% small business participation. This is not a separate plan, but is included within the Technical Proposal Volume.

Additionally, the Offeror will provide a separate and complete small business subcontracting plan as directed in Solicitation

Section L, 3.0, CONTENTS OF THE OFFER.

Section B, Pages 2-42 as amended

CLIN Ceiling

Hour

Distribution

Will the Navy please confirm its intent to fluctuate labor hours from year to year of the contract If the variation is purposeful, can the Navy please provide a rationale? The solicitation demonstrates a volume equivalent to increasing by 417 Full Time Equivalents

(2,080 hour year) between Base and Option Year 1, decreasing by 148 FTEs from Option

Year 1 to Option Year 2, increasing by 163 FTEs from Option Year 3 to Option Year 4, increasing by 115 FTEs from Option Year 3 to Option Year 4, and decreasing by 344 FTEs from Option Year 4 to Option Year 5.

The Government intends to fluctuate labor hours year to year as demonstrated in Section B. Due to fluctuating numbers of CNO availabilities and high volume of modernization efforts during

SRAs and DSRAs this labor hour fluctuation is reasonable. See

Solicitation attachment S-09 for further rationale.

Section B, Page

Award Fee Will the Navy consider a 7% Award Fee for CLINs 1-11? No, the Government will not.

N/A RFP Will the Navy consider facilitating oral discussions prior to the due date for proposals in response to this solicitation?

No, the Government will not.

Section L, Page

Staffing Plan Section L paragraph 4.1.2.3 requires that the offerors “Provide a Staffing Plan, in accordance with Attachment S-04”. Attachment S-04 as provided with the solicitation does not fit the formatting requirements for font required by the solicitation and are a table that requires a significant number of pages in the page restricted section of the Non-Cost volume. Will the

Government amend the last sentence of that paragraph to read “The resumes and Attachment

S-04 shall not count toward the Volume I page limitation provided in Section L, paragraph

3.1 and Attachment S-04 shall be submitted without changing table font or font size”

See Solicitation Section L 4.1.2.3 language, “The Staffing Plan will not count toward the total page count limitation provided in

Section L Paragraph 3.1”

No change will be made.

Section B, Pages 2-42 as amended

Labor Hours The directed labor hours provided by the Navy in Section B of this Request for Proposal are significantly higher than the hours identified in the first LCS PY Request for Proposal

(N00024- 13-R-4304. Will the Navy confirm the accuracy of the directed labor hours and reconsider the total hours identified in the Base and Option Years?

The hours in the solicitation are accurate. The Navy will not reconsider the total hours identified in the Base and Option years.