N00024-18-R-5308_-_Bidders_Q&A_8.7.18.pdf

Page number and paragraph header from source:

Question: Response:

Page 78, Volume I Tab D: System Performance Approach and Technical Knowledge

Installation Support (SOW Paragraph 3.4) appears to be omitted from the Tab D requirement for Offeror's to address their proposed technical approach, understanding, and experience. Is this omission intentional, or should Offerors also address Installation Support?

This was omitted in error. SOW 3.4 should have been referenced. Amendment 001 incorporates this change.

Page 85, V.1 Recent and Relevant Performance Page 107, Factor 4: Past Performance (Volume V)

Section L on Page 85 states, "The Offeror shall place particular emphasis on both recent (within five years) and relevant current Navy efforts."

Section M on Page 107 states, "The Government will evaluate Offeror's past performance over the past three (3) years for relevance, which is considered to be whether the experience cited is similar to the size, scope, and technical complexity of this effort."

Would the Government please clarify whether recent experience is within the past three years or the past five years?

Both are valid.

Section L ‐ The 5‐year timeframe on page 85 relates to Navy efforts performed by the Contractor.

Section M ‐ The 3‐year timeframe is based on available past performance data, such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS).

Page 74, Page Count Exceptions Page 105, Factor 4: Past Performance (Volume V)

Section L on Page 74 states, that "Past Performance Questionnaires (Volume V)" are excluded from page count restrictions.

Section M on Page 105 states that the Government evaluation will include: "Any other information pertaining to the Offeror's past performance, including customer questionnaires."

Past performance questionnaires have not been provided with the RFP documents. Will the Government please provide the questionnaire format, including submission requirements?

Past pasformance questionnaires are not required. The Section L reference to questionnaires will be removed. Amendment 001 incorporates this change.

Page 100 HQ‐L‐2‐0016 SW DEV PLAN and HQ L‐2‐0017 SW DEV and CMMI or EQUIV EXP

Will the Government please provide further instruction as to where the required initial Software Development Plan should be included within the proposal? Should the offeror include the SDP as an annex to Volume II? Will the Government indicate where within the technical proposal to include the "Software Development and CMMI or Equivalent Experience" "not to exceed 5 pages"?

The Initial Software Development Plan (SDP) and Software Development and CMMI or Equivalent Experience should both be included in Volume III, Tab G: Engineering Management Plans and Processes. The initial SDP is not subject to the technical proposal page limitations. However, the SDP rationale is subject to the technical proposal page limitations and shall not exceed 15 pages. Amendment 001 also updates Table L‐3‐1 to increase the total Volume III page limit from 10 to 25.

Page 108 HQ M‐2‐0015 SW DEV

EVAL FACTORS

Will the Government please indicate under which Evaluation Factor (1, 2, 3, or 4) the Software Development factors will be evaluated?

Per Section M, Section 3.0: "Factor 1, Technical Approach, System Performance Approach and Technical Knowledge, will also be evaluated in accordance with NAVSEA clause HQ M‐

2‐0015 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (NAVSEA) (DEC

2006)."

Page 42, Section H Special Contract Requirements and Page 82 Level of Effort and Labor Mix Estimate

There is a discrepancy in the RFP with respect to the total hours that are specified potentially. Page 42 paragraph (d) states that the average burn rate for this contract is 1,415 hours per week. Assuming 52 weeks per year that is 73,580 hours per year. On Page 83 of the RFP the governments labor estimate equates to 23,188 hours in the base year which is 53,392 hours less than what is referenced on page 42 of the RFP. Please clarify the total estimated number of hours per year and additionally it would be helpful if that was specified with general hours per labor category as shown on page 83 of the RFP.

Table L1 is the correct distribution of hours. Paragraph (d) of NAVSEA clause LEVEL OF EFFORT ‐ ALTERNATE I (MAY 2010) on page 42 of the original solicitation will be updated from 1,415 hours to 436 hours ([113,239 total hours / 5 years] / 52 weeks). Amendment 001 incorporates this change.

from source:

Question: Response:

Pages 81‐82, Section L, TAB F Personnel

There are six labor categories listed as “Key” on pages 81 and 82 of the RFP. However when referencing the estimated hours for those “Key” positions on Page 83 there are 8,082 hours specified. This translates to approximately 4.2 Full Time Equivalents assuming a person year of 1,920 hours per year. Traditionally “Key” personnel are generally assumed to be considered full time dedicated to a program. Given that norm should we assume the Key hours should be 11,520 hours or should we assume that in this case some “Key” employees may serve multiple roles in performance on this contract. For Example potentially serve as the Program Manager and the Lead Hardware Engineer for example to deliver the prescribed lower level of 4.2 FTE’s per the hours that are provided while addressing both job requirements. Or is it the intent that the Government does view those 6 Key positions as discrete and expects part time coverage for the 6 Key positions?

Since this RFP will result in an incrementally funded, cost‐plus‐fixed‐fee, level‐of‐effort contract, there is no expectation that key personnel will operate at full time equivalents at all times if the funded level of effort does not support it. It is acceptable if some “Key” employees to serve multiple non‐key roles in performance on this contract.

Page 97, CLAUSES INCORPORATED

BY FULL TEXT, HQ L‐2‐0009 SMALL

BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

The solicitation states "Offeror shall submit as part of its proposal a written proposed subcontracting plan in accordance with the clause entitled "SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN" (FAR 52.219‐9). The plan shall include the Congressionally mandated five percent (5%) goal for small disadvantaged business concerns or a detailed explanation as to why the goal cannot be included in the plan." Can the Government please clarify if the 5% goal only applies to certified small disadvantaged businesses, or does it apply to any small business?

The 5% goal refers to certified Small Disadvantage Business not to any/all small businesses. SDB includes the 8(a) Program. Please refer to FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219 or visit https://business.defense.gov/About/Goals‐and‐Performance/ for additional information.

p.25, HQ C‐2‐0037 (e ) Historically the SPQ‐9B production and design agent contracts have been performed by the same contractor. Pleases clarify the intent of the following requirement as it pertains to the award of this follow on design agent contract: The Contractor further agrees that, during the performance of this contract and for a period of three years after completion of performance of this contract, the Contractor, any affiliate of the Contractor, any subcontractor, consultant, or employee of the Contractor, any joint venture involving the Contractor, any entity into or with which it may subsequently merge or affiliate, or any other successor or assign of the Contractor, shall not furnish to the United States Government, either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor, or as a consultant to a prime contractor or subcontractor, any system, component or services which is the subject of the work to be performed under this contract.

The OCI clause is pertinent to advisory and assistance services and has been removed from the solicitation. Amendment 001 deletes NAVSEA clause HQ C‐2‐0037 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (NAVSEA) (JUL 2000) and all references thereto.

However, Offerors are hereby notified that performance under any contract resulting from this solicitation may generate a future OCI that may require a mitigation plan if the Offeror wishes to compete for future AN/SPQ‐9B efforts.

10 p.48, Section I FAR Clause 52.216‐11 ‐ Cost Contract ‐ No Fee (APR 1984): Given that this solicitation is CPFF, can you please advise how this Clause applies to the RFP?

FAR 52.216‐11 only applies to Travel and Material CLINs which are non‐fee bearing CLINs.

Section I of the solicitation cites the CLINs to which this clause applies.

11 p.87, VI.1(a) Please confirm the proposed pricing fee applies to everything (e.g. Labor, Material etc.). Fee is only applicable to Labor CLINs. Travel and Material CLINs are non‐fee bearing.

p.88, VI.2 With respect to paragraph four, we have noted the requirement for “company‐wide” highest, lowest and average direct labor rate actuals be provided in order to substantiate labor cost. This information is not available at a company‐wide level. Is there an alternate way to support this requirement?

Yes, rates may also be supported by either a screen‐capture or a contingent hiring agreement.

p.89, VI.4(a) There are significant concerns relative to providing employee confidential information, as it pertains to direct rate data (screen captures) generated from the employer’s payroll system. Please advise what equivalent information could be provided.

The data will only be used for the the purpose of proposal evaluation and will be considered proprietary and source selection information. Government employees are prohibited by 18 USC 1905, a criminal statute, from disclosing confidential information outside the government.

p.89, VI.4(a) Is there alternate way to support the substantiating cost information? No. The data will only be used for the the purpose of proposal evaluation and will be considered proprietary and source selection information. Government employees are prohibited by 18 USC 1905, a criminal statute, from disclosing confidential information outside the government.

p.89, VI.4(c) We have noted subparagraph (c) requires that any “TBD” positions to include subcontractors, the Offeror shall provide current company‐wide highest, lowest and average direct labor rate actuals for the applicable category. This information is not available at a company‐wide level. Is there an alternate way to support this requirement?

Yes, rates may also be supported by either a screen‐capture or a contingent hiring agreement.

from source:

Question: Response:

p.89, VI.4(e) We have noted subparagraph (e) requires Offerors to provide five years of actual, incurred rates for each proposed indirect and G&A pool, indicating the beginning and end dates for each company fiscal year. This information is corporate sensitive information and is not typically provided in proposals. Is there an alternate way to satisfy this requirement?

No. The data will only be used for the the purpose of proposal evaluation and will be considered proprietary and source selection information. Government employees are prohibited by 18 USC 1905, a criminal statute, from disclosing confidential information outside the government.

17 p.80‐81, Tab F Can additional "key personnel" be added to Tab F, beyond the six (6) roles specified? There are only six Key Personnel roles.

18 p.80‐81, Tab F Or are we restricted to only providing resumes and information to these six (6) roles? Resumes are only required for the six Key Personnel identified in the solicitation.

Pg 78 Tab D: System Performance Approach and Technical Knowledge

Is the requested pulse de‐interleaving experience specifically relative to resolving ambiguous dopplar? If not, can you please elaborate on the applications of pulse de‐ interleaving in which experience is required?

The requested pulse de‐interleaving experience is relative to resolving ambiguous dopplar.

Pg 78 Tab D: System Performance Approach and Technical Knowledge

Is the requested threat library experience specifically relative to classifying targets? If not, can you please elaborate on the applications of threat libraries in which experience is required?

The requested threat library experience isn't specifically relative to classifying targets. The requested experience refers to technical knowledge of adversary threats to our radars. For example, Electronic Attack (EA) threats and anti‐ship missiles with and without seekers.

Page 99, HQ‐L‐2‐0017

Please clarify where in the proposal the Software Development Plan should be included.

The RFP is clear that a Software Development Plan is required, but Section L is silent on where in the proposal it should be inserted.

The Initial Software Development Plan (SDP) and Software Development and CMMI or Equivalent Experience should both be included in Volume III, Tab G: Engineering Management Plans and Processes.

p.89, VI.4 Under FAR 15.407‐3, offerors that have FPRAs typically propose pricing on the basis of the labor categories in the FRPA to the extent they apply and Contracting Officers are required to price contracts using FRPAs during the period covered by the agreement. RFP section L.VI.4(f) requires submittal of FPRA information. Section L.VI.4(a) appears to contemplate pricing on the basis of named individuals instead of labor categories in an FPRA. Please clarify that offerors with FPRAs are permitted to propose pricing on the basis of the labor categories in their FPRAs to extent applicable, and such pricing satisfies all substantiating cost information requirements of Section

L.VI.4.

An FRPA may be provided for non‐key personnel, to the extent specific individuals are not being proposed by name. However, for key personnel offerors shall provide rate information in accordance with Section L.VI.4(a).

p.73, Binding Section L, Binding (pg.73): In regards to the markings, there is some concern as to the Governments reference to Source Selection Information. Specifically, FAR 2.101 defines Source Selection Information to include uncertainty if “Technical evaluations or proposals.” Accordingly, it would appear that Offerors should utilize the Source Selection Information marking for purposes of technical proposal submittals. Can you please confirm the Governments intentions for purposes of including this reference? Can you please advise if Technical evaluation or proposals is source selection information?

Technical proposals will be used for source selection; therefore, appropriate markings are required. See page 73, Binding, for guidance on appropriate markings. Yes, technical evaluations and proposals are considered as source selection information.

Page 74, "Text" The RFP states "Text lines must be single‐spaced, and must not exceed 46 lines per column, per page, including headings. Line spacing before and after a heading must be double spaced. Typesetting, font compression, and other techniques to reduce character size or spacing are not permitted, and will be considered a deliberate attempt to circumvent page limitations."

In MS Word, when modifying the heading(s) line‐spacing to double spaced, MS Word only adds spacing after the heading. Can the Government confirm it is sufficient for the offeror to insert single blank lines before and after headings to meet the requirement?

Yes, it is sufficient for the offeror to insert single blank lines before and after headings to meet the requirement.