Final_Solicitation_Q&A_Public_Release_1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N0002419R2300
About this file
Government responses to questions and comments regarding the final solicitation.
View the file
Other files
Show all 46
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Release 1
| # | ||||||
| Author: Note: Question numbering may be nonconsecutive within each tab because question numbers are not assigned in the order that responses are developed. | Date | Source Document | Reference | Excerpt of Content | Question | Government Response |
| P0002 | 7/3/19 | RFP | Page 285, L.4.1.3.4 | L.4.1.3.4 Guaranty |
| For each FFG(X) ship under this solicitation, the Offeror shall propose a liability amount of no less than $5 million associated with the correction of defects discovered during the guaranty period and as determined pursuant to the “Inspection” and “Guaranty Period” requirements of this solicitation. At contract award, the proposed liability amount will be codified in paragraph (a) of the contract requirement entitled E-246-H005, “Limitation of Contractor’s Liability for Correction of Defects.” The Offeror shall not propose profit for any discrete cost and/or pricing related to the correction of defects discovered during the Guaranty Period. | Is including dollar values in response to the L.4.1.3.4 Guaranty instructions for Volume I considered to be including cost or pricing data in the Technical volume, which would appear to conflict with the L.2.4.5 "Segregation of Cost or Pricing Data" requirement? | No, simply stating the dollar value of the limit of liability, without including further cost or pricing information, would not be considered a violation of the solicitation instruction requiring offerors to omit cost or pricing data from Volumes I through IV. | |||
| P0006 | 7/3/19 | RFP | Page 265, L.1.4.7 | Offerors shall mark each package containing classified content as follows: |
L.1.4.7.1 Shipping Address
Commander Naval Sea Systems Command Attn: Shawn Fu, SEA 02232 1333 Isaac Hull Ave SE Washington Navy Yard, DC 20376 IAW the DoD 5220.22M National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), Chapter 5.406 and 5.406.a. we are not allowed to add an individual’s name unto the outer package. Please advise as to which department or office symbol would be utilized?
NISPOM Reference Text:
Chapter 5-406. Addressing Classified Material. Mail or shipments containing classified material shall be addressed to the Commander or approved classified mailing address of a Federal activity or to a cleared contractor using the name and classified mailing address of the facility. An individual's name shall not appear on the outer cover. This does not prevent the use of office code letters, numbers, or phrases in an attention line to aid in internal routing.
| a. When it is necessary to direct SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL material to the attention of a particular individual, other than as prescribed below, the identity of the intended recipient shall be indicated on an attention line placed in the letter of transmittal or on the inner container or wrapper. | Section L will be updated in a forthcoming solicitation amendment to clarify the requirements for classified shipments. Specifically, the amendment will remove the requirement to include an individual's name on the outside of a classified package. | ||||||
| P0007 | 7/3/19 | RFP | L.4.2.3, page 291 of 320, titled "Price Proposal Structure", 2nd bullet | “Consent to Use of Nongovernment Advisors in Proposal Evalution”. | The requirement to address this is still in the Price Proposal (part of the the proposal structured as directed in L.4.2.3). The guidance for this was removed (it was L.4.2.5 in the draft RFP). Section L.1.8.2 addresses this consent statement. Is it the government's intent that we follow L.1.8.2 in our Volume V response. | The reference to the consent statement in L.4.2.3 was included in error and will be removed in a forthcoming solicitation amendment. | |
| P0008 | 7/3/19 | RFP | L.4.2.4, page 291 of 320, titled "Cover Letter" | “The proposal is valid for 365 days following the due date for receipt of Volumes III and IV”. | Should these Volume references be changed to “Volumes V and VI”? | Yes, volume references will be corrected in a forthcoming solicitation amendment. | |
| P0013 | 7/3/19 | RFP | L.4.2.5.3 FPIF CLINs Page 292 2nd bullet | For CLINs where the Government has specified the required number of hours under Section B, the sum of the hours in the cost summary table must equal the required number of hours | No hours have been specified for within the FPIF CLINs. Does this statement pertain to the non FPIF CLINs? Does this statement apply now that these other non FPIF CLINS are not included in Attachment L-3? | Correct, the solicitation does not specify a required quantity of hours for FPIF line items. The referenced requirement does not apply to FPIF line items. A forthcoming solicitation amendment will clarify the requirement. | |
| P0014 | 7/3/19 | RFP | Non TEP CLINs L.4.2.2.2, L.4.2.2.3, L.4.2.2.4, L.4.2.2.5, L.4.2.2.8 Pages 289,290,291 | "Shall not Price", "Shall Propose" and NSP | What is the nonmenclature the Government wants us to use to complete Section B for items that Shall not Price, Shall Propose and NSP? | Offerors must leave blank any Section B line items that the solicitation indicates offerors "shall not price" or "shall not propose a price." Offerors shall not price NSP line items; rather the price of requirements under NSP line items must be included in other, separately priced line items. | |
| P0016 | 7/3/19 | RFP | L.2.4.5 Segegration of Cost or Pricing Data - Page 271 | Under no circumstances shall Offerors include contract cost and pricing data in Volumes I or II. In the event that cost and pricing data are included in Volumes I or II, that data will be excluded from the evaluation. | With the Final RFP update Volumes III and IV were added to the Technical Proposal Volumes. Should it say Volumes 1 thorugh IV? | Yes, volume references will be corrected in a forthcoming solicitation amendment. | |
| P0017 | 7/3/19 | RFP | L.4.1.3.3 Facilities - Page 286 , 2nd Bullet | The Offeror shall ensure that all proposed capital investment projects in this volume are also identified in the completed Contractor Capital Investment clause of the Volume IV Model Contract. | With the Final RFP update Completed Contract Volume has been updated to Volume VI. Should it say Volume VI? | Yes, volume references will be corrected in a forthcoming solicitation amendment. | |
| P0024 | 7/3/19 | RFP | L.1.8.2 | ||||
| L.4.2.3 | "Offerors shall submit a signed statement in the |
Technical Proposal providing consent …"
"Offerors shall organize the Price Proposal as shown below with section dividers and legible labels for ease of identification.
Cover Letter
| Consent to Use of Nongovernment Advisors in Proposal Evaluation" | Does the consent statement go in the Technical Proposal or the Price Proposal? | The referenced consent statement must be submitted in the Technical Proposal (Volume I). An upcoming solicitation amendment will clarify this requirement. | ||
| P0028 | 7/3/19 | RFP | L.4.2.2.3.1-3 |
M.5.5 Total Evaluated Price The Cost Plus Fixed Fee LOE CLINS have been removed from the Total Evaluated Price evaluation. The LOE CLINs are not competitively priced. These CLINs will ultimately contain significant Program costs; costs that will be incurred by the Navy. Failure to evaluate the expected costs as part of the TEP means that significant costs that could differentiate the Offerors will not be evaluated.Furthermore, these CLINs are no longer idividually priced based on expected manhours (a plug number is used). Therefore, the Government cannot evaluate the difference in costs.
Will the Navy revise Section B and L to require Offerors price these CLINs?
Will the Navy revise Section M to include priced LOE CLINs in the Total Evaluated Price? No, per Section B Note E and the instructions in Section L, the Government intends to negotiate pricing for CPFF LOE line items on a sole source basis following contract award. For the purposes of proposal evaluation, only fixed price line items will be considered as part of each offeror's Total Evaluated Price. Further, the Government disagrees that the CPFF LOE line items will not be priced based on the quantity of hours required. Section B Note E identifies the anticipated number of hours per line item that will be negotiated following contract award. The solicitation does not specify a plug value for any CPFF LOE line item. Additionally, the Government notes that the RFP reference provided in the question points to instructions for the cost-only material line items, not the CPFF LOE line items.
&A &12Government Responses to Solicitation Questions &12N00024-19-R-2300 FFG(X) Detail Design & Construction
&"Times New Roman,Regular"UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE &P OF &N
File details come from the government source that posted it.