N00024-18-R-5200_Bidder's_Question_Responses_5.17.18.pdf

BIDDER’S QUESTIONS RESPONSES – MAY 17, 2018

N00024-18-R-5200 – Cooperative Engagement Capability Design Agent & Engineering Services

Question No.: 0006

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP 183

Section L, Paragraph 3.8.3.1

The Offeror shall comply with the following parameters in proposing an incentive fee arrangement for CLINs 0300, 1300, 2300, 3300, and 4300:

Target Fee: Max Value: 8%

Max Fee: Required Value: 8%

Proprietary Non-Proprietary

Question/Comment & Requested Action

The Maximum Value for Target Fee and the Required Value for Maximum Incentive Fee for CPIF CLINs 0300, 1300, 2300, 3300, and 4300 are the same. Was this intended?

Please clarify.

Government Response

Yes, the values for maximum target fee and required maximum fee are correct.

Question No.: 0007

RFP

2, 5, 6, 8, 10, Section B and I

CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002 - Management of Design Agent Facility

CLIN 0700 - Provisioned Item Order

The RFP includes FFP CLINs, but does not include FAR clause 52.232-16, Progress Payments.

Recommend that FAR clause 52.232.16 Progress Payments be added to the RFP.

Solicitation amendment 0003 adds FAR 52.232-16 to Section I.

Question No.: 0008

RFP 120 - 121 Section F

Section F does not identify a start date for CLINs 0001 and 0002.

Please clarify the planned contract award date and all assumed CLIN start dates.

Please see Section L of solicitation amendment 0003 for an estimated contract award date.

Question No.: 0009

Attachment 2 - Government Furnished Information

The CEC Computer Software Product was not found in the Government Furnished Information attachment. Will this be added to the GFI list and provided to the successful Offeror at contract award?

Please clarify.

Due to a technical issue, the version of Attachment 2 posted with the original solicitation was incomplete. Solicitation amendment 0003 incorporates a corrected version of the attachment.

Question No.: 0010

RFP

181, 182 and

Section L, para. 3.8.1 and 3.8.5

Section L, 3.8.1, instructions include "Each section shall be titled and labeled for ease of identification." The bullet list that follows identifies "Section 3 - Other Supporting Data."

However, Section L, 3.8.5 is titled "Section 3 - Cost/Price Proposal Rate Support".

A minor clerical point, but which title should offerors use for Section 3 in the cost/price volume?

Recommend using "Cost/Price Proposal Rate Support" as it is more descriptive of the content. If Government concurs, recommend revising the bullet under 3.8.1 accordingly in the next RFP amendment should there be one.

Please see solicitation amendment 0003 for updated instructions relating to this topic.

Question No.: 0011

RFP 79

Section C, Paragraph 3.1.12

The Contractor’s design approach shall result in a layered system design, maximizing software/firmware independence from the hardware, thereby facilitating TI/TR. The design shall be optimized at the lowest component level to minimize inter-component dependencies.

Please provide an example of a layered system design that would satisfy the Government’s OSMP requirements. Additionally, please clarify the meaning of “lowest component level.”

The objective of a layered system design is to maintain independent system design layers (hardware, operating system, middleware, and software modules) such that a change in any particular layer does not drive a change to a different layer to the greatest extent possible.

The “lowest component level” in the referenced excerpt refers to the Computer Software Unit (CSU).

Question No.: 0012

RFP 176

Section L, Paragraph 3.2.9

While the Offeror’s proposed skill mixes may deviate from this estimate, the Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed skill mixes using supporting documentation provided by the Offeror.

What kind of supporting documentation is the Government looking for to demonstrate that a proposed Staffing Plan which deviates from the estimated skill mix will meet the Government’s requirements?

Please refer to Section L, paragraph 3.2.9 for the Staffing Plan criteria that the Government will use to evaluate proposals. Should an Offeror deviate from the Government-provided skill mixes, the Offeror will bear the burden of demonstrating how the proposed skill mix and technical approach will meet the Government’s requirements.

Question No.: 0013

RFP 2, 120

Section B, Section F – Deliveries or Performance

CLIN 0002 delivery date listed as “1 yr. AOE”

CLIN 0002 is not listed as an option in Section B, but the Section F delivery information for CLIN 0002 is “1 yr. AOE.”

Please confirm that CLIN 0002 is not an option; if it is not, please update the CLIN 0002 delivery date.

Solicitation amendment 0003 updates the CLIN 0002 delivery terms in Section F.

Question No.: 0014

RFP 174-175

Section L, 3.2.6.1 and 3.2.6.2

Minimum Requirements: Degree from an accredited college or university in an engineering, scientific, or technical discipline.

One of the minimum requirements for Technical Director (3.2.6.1) is a “Degree from an accredited college or university in an engineering, scientific, or technical discipline.” The minimum requirements for Program Manager (3.2.6.2) do not include this language.

Recommend including “Degree from an accredited college or university in an engineering, scientific, or technical discipline” as a minimum requirement for Program Manager (3.2.6.2).

The referenced Key Personnel requirements remain as stated in the solicitation.

Question No.: 0015

RFP 14

Section B Note E – Administration of Level of Effort Line Items

(b) During the course of this contract the Government may unilaterally establish new separately priced contract line items (CLINs) by realigning (i.e., transferring) hours from existing CLINs within the same year of performance.

Paragraph (b) under Section B Note E allows the Government to realign hours unilaterally to establish new CLINs within the same year of performance. However, the note is silent on realignment of hours between different years of performance (e.g., realigning unused hours from the base year into the first option year). Please clarify whether the RFP provides a mechanism to accomplish this type of realignment.

Please see paragraph (c) of Section B Note E, which provides that realignment of hours between different years of performance must be accomplished via bilateral modification.