N0002419R2412_Amendment_0001_Released.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

See next page

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 27

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Dec-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X N0002419R2412

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Nov-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

18-Dec-2018

CODE

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND (HQ)

1333 ISAAC HULL AVE SE

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20376-2020

N00024 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0002419R2412

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES (REVISED)

The following are the Questions and Responses to all Bidders Questions received as of 17 December 2018. Changes to Sections A through J of the solicitation follow the Questions and Responses.

Q1: Given that the Government intends to award all Offerors whose proposal is deemed Technically Acceptable, the instruction in L.3.4.7 and L.3.5.3.1 – which implies that Offerors should fill in the prices in Section B – appear unnecessary and confusing. Our interpretation is that the instruction in L.3.4.1 is controlling. Is this correct?

R1: There are numerous fill-ins required of Offeror in Sections A through J. Offerors may fill in N/A for Section B pricing. Offerors are required to complete all applicable fill-ins in Sections A through J.

Q2: Given that Section L of the RFP does not include any requirement for Key Personnel as part of the proposal submission, our interpretation is that the contract clause would only apply at the task order level; is that correct?

R2: Correct.

Q3: Requiring Offerors to manually fill in the entire Reps and Certs imposes an added burden on Offerors while offering no benefit to the Government; to the contrary, it nullifies the advantages of the SAM database, which automates the Reps and Certs process and reduces the Government’s level of effort in reading through manually filled-in documents

R3: Incorrect. Offerors must fill in the Reps and Certs in the solicitation located in Section K. Offerors shall also ensure that their SAM profile is up to date with all Reps and Certs. The Government does compare the returned copy of the solicitation and SAM to ensure completeness, accuracy, and currency.

Q4: The release of the RFP on the afternoon preceding a 4-day holiday weekend makes the requirement to submit questions within 7 days highly problematic. This requirement is likely to preclude the submission of questions that might assist the Government in clarifying ambiguities, eliminating inconsistencies, and strengthening the RFP to ensure a level playing field and promote full and fair competition. An additional extension of 1 week would provide Offerors with sufficient time to submit thoughtful, productive questions while also still allowing the Government sufficient time to respond without the need to extend the proposal submission date. In fact, extending the due date for questions might well minimize or even eliminate the need to extend the proposal date by minimizing the need for additional Amendments. We respectfully request that the Government extend the due date for questions to December 5, 2018.

R4: The Government has not precluded Offerors from submitting questions after the suggested 7 days. “All questions should be submitted within 7 days…” was a suggestion, not a requirement. “Should” or “may” is a suggestion, “shall” or “must” means something is required. Additionally, the Government does not control the work schedules of Offerors around holidays. It is up to each individual Offoers to plan workloads appropriately to meet specified deadlines, or suggested deadlines. The Government has already provided more time, 49 days inclusive of 3 holidays, than the standard 30 days response time for this RFP.

Q5: The instructions in L.3.2.1 (table) and L.3.5.2.10.5 could be interpreted as contradictory. Our interpretation is that only information relating to the PPQs that should be included in the proposal is the list of POCs to whom the PPQs were sent and referenced in L.3.5.2.10.6; is that correct.

R5: Please see the revised instructions in Section L clarifying what is required in L.3.2.1 (table).

Q6: A strict interpretation of the phrase “anyone who is not a bona fide employee of the company submitting the proposal” would include employees of teammates/subcontractors of a prime Offeror. That strict interpretation appears counter to the Government’s interest in having prime Offerors team with highly qualified small businesses (and other companies). Our interpretation is that no certification is needed if bona fide employees of teammates/subcontractors contribute to the proposal; is that correct?

R6: No. Teaming arrangements are set up to create essentially one Prime with one proposal. Therefore, if a formal teaming agreement is in place, then that would mean that there would be no reporting requirement. However, a subcontractor or contract employee that are not bona fide employees of the Prime/Teaming Arrangement would still have a reporting requirement. Further, this is just a reporting requirement, it does not preclude Offerors from working with highly qualified small businesses and other companies.

Q7: It is not clear whether the Past Performance descriptions cited in L.3.5.2.10.1 are considered part of Appendix A and therefore excluded from the overall 40-page limit for Volume I. Including the Past Performance descriptions in the 40 pages would limit the detail that Offerors would be able to provide in the portion of Volume I that addresses Fact I Technical Capabilities.; Offerors with a great number of relevant Past Performance examples would paradoxically be “penalized” relative to Offerors with fewer relevant Past Performance examples, which appears counter to the Government’s interest in a full and fair competition and the selection of the most highly qualified Offerors. Our interpretation is that the Past Performance descriptions referenced in L.3.5.2.10.1 are to be included in Appendix A and therefore excluded from the overall 40-page limit for Volume I; is that correct?

R7: See revised Section L that clarifies what is included and not included in Appendix A. The Offeror must make its own business decisions on how best to utilize the 40-page limit, which includes both Factors I and II.

Q8: Offerors cannot control whether PPQs are submitted by their references by the proposal due date, since referneces are not employees of the Offeror. It would be improper and unfair for the Government to disqualify an Offeror’s otherwise relevant Past Perfomrance examples over a matter that is outside the Offeror’s control. We therefore respectfully request that the Government strike this provision from the solicitation.

R8: The Government will not strike this provision from the solicitation. Just like the Government’s requirement that Offeror is responsible for the timely delivery of the proposal, even when Offerors choose to utilize shipping companies that are not direct employees of Offeror, here it is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure completed PPQs are submitted to the Government on time. Additionally, it would be improper for the Government to delay evaluation and award(s) for our requirements for events that we cannot control.

Q9: Language was included in the solicitation that “the Contractor shall execute non-disclosure agreements with each supplier prior to reviewing proprietary or business sensitive materials.” Our interpretation is that the Government will provide the names of each supplier at task order award to initiate executing NDAs; that that correct?

R9: Correct.

Q10: “The font shall be Times New Roman with a font size of 12. Pages shall have a one-inch margin, single line spacing set at one (1) with spacing before and after paragraphs set at zero (0) and left aligned paragraphs.” Zero line spacing between paragraphs will make the text very difficult for evaluators to read. We recommend at least 6 points of space after each paragraph for readability. Would the Government agree to this?

R10: No.

Q11: Can the Government clarify where the description of past performance experience is located in the solicitation response and is there a page limit for past performance?

R11: See revised Section L that clarifies what is included and not included in Appendix A and therefore what is included in the page count.

Q12: The instruction says that for Solicitation Sections B through J, Offerors must fill in all areas of the solicitation listed as Offeror fill-ins (Volume II only). Is it acceptable to insert N/A in Section B table for prices?

R12: Yes.

Q13: Data to be delivered by Integrated Digital Environment (IDE) or other electronic media shall be as specified in the contract. What IDE sites are acceptable for use? Is iNAVSEA a commonly used site for delivery?

R13: This will be determined on individual task orders by the specific program office. iNAVSEA is not a commonly used site for delivery.

Q14: The RFP states that the proposal Cover Pages, Title Pages, Table of Contents, Executive Summaries, Lists of Illustrations, Lists of Tables, Tab Pages, Appendices, Glossaries, and Indices will not be included in the total page count but does not refer to a cross reference table. Is it acceptable to include a cross reference table as an Index and that it will not count against page count?

R14: By definition, such a table would be an Index and would not count against the page count. Offerors are cautioned not to include additional data in the cross reference table. The Government’s evaluation will not include evaluation of this data.

Q15: Is a Management or Staffing section required? No indication is listed under the Proposal Contents Requirement.

R15: If not in the requirements of Section L, then it is not required. Future tasks solicited under this MAC will most likely require the offeror to submit a Management/Staffing plan with their proposal specific to the task being proposed.

Q16: Can the Government please confirm whether the Executive Summary is excluded from the 40-page Technical proposal page limit?

R16: Confirmed. See L.3.2.5.

Q17: The RFP requires a statement that the total subcontracted dollars be included in the subcontracting plan.

Would the Government revise this requirement since the total dollars are not known?

R17: The Government is not allowed to revise the requirement. However, since the total dollar amounts will not be known until individual task orders are awarded, the Government will allow Offerors to submit projected percentage goals along with identifying potential small business subcontractors by task area that would be utilized should the Government task those areas of the Statement of Work.

Q18: The RFP indicates that offers are due 8 Jan 2018. Will the Government confirm that this should be 8 Jan 2019.?

R18: Confirmed, as indicated in the FBO post. Page 1, Box 9 has been revised to 8 Jan 2019.

Q19: Are Offerors prohibited from submitting proposals as a Prime contractor and as part of another Prime Contractor team?

R19: Yes. M.1.2 has been revised to clarify this. Since this is a multi-award contract, there would be a possibility that Offerors would be on two awarded contracts, which would then compete against future tasks, which would be a conflict of interest.

Q20: We note in the RFP that the ordering activities can be NAVSEA or NAVAIR. Can the Government indicate who the end customer is intended to be for the Task Orders?

R20: The end customers are likely to be major program offices within the NAVSEA and NAVAIR directorates.

Q21: Given our understanding that Technically acceptable is evaluated at the factor level, how is NAVSEA evaluating the ability to address each of the areas in Attachment J-1 (SOW)? Will all vendors awarded an IDIQ be allowed to bid on all Task Orders, regardless of capability demonstrated for specific areas in J-1?

R21: Please see Section M.4 to the end. Offerors awarded IDIQs will be allowed to bid on all task orders provided they have an approved accounting system. If an Offeror awardee does not have an approved accounting system, that Offeror will not be allowed to bid on cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) task orders until such time as it provides the Government with notification of an approved accounting system.

Q22: Given our understanding that in-progress past performance examples impact relevance, how is relevance factored into evaluation.

R22: See section M.4.2.1.

Q23: What is the definition of Government activity for the purposes of L.3.5.2.10.3?

R23: A Government activity for the purposes of section L.3.5.2.10.3 is a NAVSEA PEO (PEO Subs, PEO Carriers, PEO Ships etc.) or their NAVAIR equivalent.

Q24: How does the subcontracting plan factor into the subsequent task order selections?

R24: Subcontracting plans shall be formalized on task orders with the actual dollar amounts and other information that cannot be included in the base IDIQ proposal.

Q25: Are key personnel and the caliber of team members evaluated? If so, how are they evaluated?

R25: No evaluation of key personnel will be conducted as part of making these IDIQ awards. The clause was left in the solicitation so that key personnel could be asked for when bidding orders competed under these IDIQs.

Q26: Does the Government define the “potential tasking areas” as all seven (7) stated task areas in Attachment J-1?

R26: Yes.

Q27: Can the Government provide guidance around how the seven (7) “potential task areas” from Attachment J-1 correspond to Chapters 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., Should Cost Methodologies, Total Cost of Ownership Methodologies, Leveraging Commercial Best Practices)?

R27: This is up to the Offeror to provide the appropriate narrative based on their experience.

Q28: Can the Government confirm that not every task area in Attachment J-1 is relevant to every chapter (i.e., Chapter 1 – Should Cost Methodologies, Chapter 2 – Total Cost of Ownership Methodologies, Chapter 3 – Leveraging Commercial Best Practices) and therefore all seven task areas need not be addressed in every chapter.

R28: This is up to the Offeror to determine based on their prior experience with these task areas.

Q29: Will the Government allow responders to number headings, figures, and tables instead of numbering each paragraph?

R29: No.

Q30: Will the Government consider allowing for a readable font size such as size 10 to be used in tables?

R30: No.

Q31: In L.3.2.7, does the Government intend for the label information requested provided to be affixed to the CD-

ROMs or affixed to the packaging that encloses them?

R31: This information should be affixed to the CD-ROMs so that if it is removed from its packaging and separated from that packaging, the Government will be able to determine what is on the CD without inserting it into a computer.

Q32: Will the Government clarify what they mean by “Serial/Copy Number” to be included on the first page of each proposal Volume?

R32: An example of labeling “Serial/Copy Number” is as follows: The original CD shall be labeled as “Original” and “Original” shall be on the first page of the Volume I and Volume II documents saved to the CD. For the copies of the CD, an example of labeling would be “Copy 1 of 5”, “Copy 2 of 5” etc., and on the first page of the Volume I and Volume saved to those CDs, the corresponding copy number should be present. The paper copy could be labeled something like “Paper Copy 1 of 1” on each Volume.

Q33: Will the Government please clarify what is expected of Offerors regarding Appendix A and Chapter 4?

R33: See revised Section L that clarifies what is included and not included in Appendix A and therefore what is included in the page count.

Q34. “Upon receipt of the proposed order, the Contractor shall promptly submit to the Contracting Officer a priced proposal for the work specified in the order.” Does this sentence imply that all teams are required to propose on all task orders? Note: similar language is also found on page 23, page 25, and page 26.

R34: The Government would expect bids on all orders because Offerors would have already said they are capable of doing the scope of work that encompasses all task areas of the Statement of Work. However, if the Offeror awardee does not have an approved accounting system, then that Offeror would be precluded from proposing on CPFF orders until the Government receives validation of Offeror’s approved accounting system.

Q35: Delivery information is listed as N/A in the solicitation and it is not clear when the Government anticipates the period of performance to commence on the initial task order. Please provide the anticipated timeframe for when the first task order might begin.

R35: This has not been determined and will be up to an individual program office to being the first task order requirement.

Q36: Does the Government intend to provide the J-3 CDRL list and if so, when?

R36: The Government will provide the J-3 CDRL list as required on individual task orders.

Q37: The RFP includes substitution of personnel language, yet the solicitation does not appear to require resumes for key personnel. By invoking the substitution of personnel clause, does this assume that individual task orders will require resumes for key personnel and/or all personnel? Also, does the Government intend to provide labor category requirements and if so, when?

R37: Substitution of personnel and key personnel will be determined on individual task orders, and depends on the requirements at the time of source selection on each task order. Due to the varying nature of the SOW task areas, and no pricing requirement on the base MAC IDIQ solicitation, no labor categories will be provided for before initial award(s). Labor categories may be provided on inidividual task orders, if required.

Q38: The RFP states that small business subcontracting plans must be supported in terms of total dollars, yet the solicitation does not require pricing. Is it acceptable to submit a small business subcontracting plan per the Section L.2.7 requirement in terms of general work share given that pricing is not required?

R38: See revised Section L.

Q39: L.3.1.3. says that “the Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying offeror(s) determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. Per the underlined section above, how will the Government make this determination without pricing?

R39: Please read the underlined section. Just like the wording of L.3.1.3. says, the Contracting Officer will make a determination based on his/her belief that the Offeror will not offer other than fair and reasonable pricing on future orders. When bidding on tasks pricing will be evaluated.

Q40: Given the IDIQ nature of this contract and undefined FTEs combined with uncertainty of the scope and magnitude of the effort and complexities of each task order, how does the Government intend to evaluate if a past performance covers essentially the same scope and magnitude of the effort and complexities of this solicitation or some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities of this solicitation? Is it safe to assume that cumulative past performance examples should cover the entire breath of the solicitation (should cost, TOC, and commercial best practices)?

R40: The Government has provided adequate information as to the value of the overall IDIQ as well as the task orders, as well as the types of tasking areas that make up the scope. The Government has also been clear on the complexity of the work. Yes, cumulative past performance examples should cover the breath of the solicitation.

Further, the Government is looking for Offerors who are experts in each of these tasking areas. Most of the Program Offices that will place orders under this IDIQ already have support contractors that have some knowledge/experience in these areas. The Program Office is placing the orders under the IDIQ to quickly perform very complicated tasks that can only be accomplished by experts in these tasking areas.

Q41: What is the anticipated highest level of personnel security clearance required for individual task orders?

R41: That will be determined on individual task orders.

Q42: Page 24 and page 27 of the solicitation identify the ordering activities as NAVSEA and NAVAIR. Should the general description of the SOW include aircraft, and therefore references throughout the SOW that only specify ships be expanded to ships and aircraft?

R42: The SOW has been revised to reflect “navy major weapon systems” as a more all-inclusive term vis the suggestion of “ships and aircraft” above.

Q43: What is the anticipated facility safeguarding level requirement (See 252.204-7008)?

R43: Offerors must comply with NIST SP 800-171 requirements.

Q44: Since the Past Performance Questionnaires are being delivered to the Government directly from our current and past clients, what goes onto the CD?

R44: See revised Section L. The Offeror should put a copy of each questionnaire that they have sent out in their offer’s Appendix A so that the Government knows what questionnaires we can expect to receive. The Government will only evaluate completed copies of the questionnaire received directly from current and past clients of Offeror.

Q45: May type such as section heading be larger than 12 point Times New Roman?

R45: No.

Q46: Does type within a table count as being within a “graphic portion”, and thereby allow a smaller font than 12 point Times New Roman if readable?

R46: No.

Q47: May type within the margins of the page header and footer (e.g. page number, solicitation number, vendor name) be smaller than 12 point?

R47: No.

Q48: If subcontractors with whom the prime is teamed on this proposal participate in writing, do those individuals require a certificate to this effect as well?

R48: If subcontractors are not bona fide employees of the Prime Contractor, yes those individuals would require a certificate as stated in L.3.2.9 and L.3.4.3.

Q49: Is the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be in Volume II only?

R49: The Small Business Subcontract Plan shall be included in Volume II only. However, the requirement of L.3.5.2.10.8 must be included in Volume I.

Q50: Where should the information responding to L.3.5.2.10.8 be presented within the proposal?

R50: This falls under Factor II Past Performance in Volume I.

Q51: L3.5.2.10.1 states that a past performance must be of the same magnitude as this effort. However, this BPA is going to be comprised of multiple task orders each up to $7M which represent the tasks to be executed, and there will not be any $85M tasking (or any task close to that magnitude). Could the Government confirm that the relevant magnitude of past performance citations will be for the efforts that are approximately $7M?

R51: This is a MAC IDIQ, not a BPA. Each task shall not exceed $7M in value. This does not preclude one awardee from having several tasks in process at one time, which would require the Offeror to have the capability to quickly staff and perform all awarded orders, up to $85M worth of awards, so this should be taken into account.

Q52: How is the Offeror to determine the percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars when the solicitation does not require a pricing volume? Lacking a pricing volume there is no basis to determine planned subcontracting dollars.

R52: See revised Section L.

Q53: How is the Offeror to determine the total dollars planned to be subcontracted by small business socioeconomic class when the solicitation does not require a pricing volume? Lacking a pricing volume there is no basis to determine planned subcontracting dollars.

R53: See revised Section L.

Q54: How is the Offeror to determine goals in terms of total dollar subcontracted when the solicitation does not require a pricing volume? Lacking pricing volume there is no basis to determine planned subcontracting dollars.

R54: See revised Section L.

Q55: Is the due date intended to be 2:00PM local time 08 Jan 2019.

R55: The due date is intended to be 2:00PM EST on 08 Jan 2019. Corrected in this Amendment.

Q56: L.2.5 states “of primary concern are those contractual arrangements in which the Offeror provides support to DoD Contractors listed in Attachment J-2 of this solicitation, or related laboratories (if applicable), in support of operation of the office or any of its programs.” The wording of this last phrase in the above provision is potentially unclear. Our interpretation is that the phrase”… of the office or any of its programs” refers to NAVSEA and its constituent offices (e.g., PEOs, and not to NAVSEA suppliers’/subcontractors’ offices. Is that correct?

R56: No. This relates to support to DoD Contractors, or related laboratories of DoD Contractors (if applicable) in support of operations of the office or any of its programs.

Q57: In the course of our business, we have performed work for a number of contractors doing Navy work. We have very little understanding of any design details for these programs, we may not be considered as having a direct conflict of interest; nevertheless, we may be considered having the appearance of a conflict of interest. We believe that a sufficient and appropriate mitigation would be to recuse ourselves simply from working on specific items identified for specific programs. Can the Government confirm that this mitigation is sufficient and appropriate?

R57: If you have specific concerns or potential OCI, please report those concerns or potential OCI in accordance with the OCI clauses provided in the solicitation and attachment J-2. The language of the J-2 states that if an Offeror is doing the same or similar services as the SOW (J-1) for any of the listed companies, then that would potentially create a conflict of interest. So there are two questions every Offeror must ask themselves:

1. Does Offeror have any company who is a potential Offeror to this solicitation that is doing the same or similar services for Offeror that are present in the SOW? If so that would potentially create a conflict of interest for that contractor, not Offeror.

2. Is Offeror at present or expected to in the near future doing the same or similar services listed in the SOW for any of the listed contractors? If so that would need to be reported in accordance with the clauses in J-2 for a PCO determination.

Please note that the list in J-2 is not an exhaustive list. Individual task orders may create situations that are not anticipated from the list provided.

Mitigation of OCI can be very complex. Each mitigation plan will be evaluated on an individual Offeror basis.

Mitigation plans will also be evaluated individually based on the orders being placed.

Q58: Can the Government clarify the reference to key personnel as a requirement?

R58: This clause is included on the base IDIQ to ensure that on specific task orders, if key personnel are required, that the clause is present to allow for key personnel and substitution of personnel as appropriate.

Q59: L.3.5.2.10.1 currently states that any past performance will be considered not relevant if it only addresses some of the scope of the effort. However, in execution of all individual task orders will only address a subset of the overall scope, as no task order that is approximately $7M would be large enough to address all of the scope areas. Only the incumbent to this contract would have a single contract with the same scope of work as this solicitation. Will the Government please confirm that the relevancy of past performance citations is taken holistically across the past performance contracts submitted, so that multiple contracts each covering different areas of the SOW will together be considered relevant to all the scope of the effort?

R59: As stated in R51, each task shall not exceed $7M in value. This does not preclude one awardee from having several tasks in process at one time, which would require the Offeror to have the capability to quickly staff and perform all awarded orders, up to $85M worth of awards, so this should be taken into account.

Bidder’s contention/complaint that only the incumbent would have a single contract with the same scope of work as this solicitation is not accurate. The previous BPA covering this requirement had much of the same requirements, not all, and not all areas were tasked. As a result, all Offerors must use a holistic approach to address all potential tasking areas.

Q60: The table in L.3.2.1. reflect Appendix A titled Past Performance Questionnaires. Should Appendix A include Past Performance write-up not the Past Performance Questionnaires as defined in L.3.5.2.10 CHAPTER 4 – Factor

II Past Performance (page 88 of 96) given the Questionnaires are submitted directly to the Government in accordance with L.3.5.2.10.4 (page 89 of 96)?

R60: See revised Section L.

Q61: Under Task Area 1. Program Cost Reduction, task 1a through 1j are listed. The task lead-in paragraph does not address task 1j Software Open Architecture Initiatives. Is this an omission? Please clarify.

R61: See revised J-1. Please note that this just a description where most of the tasking falls within those areas, and is not intended to be exclusionary or absolute in nature.

Q62: Can the Government confirm that they want every paragraph numbered in the response.

R62: Confirmed.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 08-Jan-2018 02:00 PM to 08-Jan-2019 02:00 PM EST.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

The following document(s), exhibit(s), and other attachment(s) form a part of this contract:

Attachment J-1: Statement of Work; 14 Pages, dated 17 Dec 2018

Attachment J-2: List of DoD Contractors; 1 Page, dated 01 Nov 2018

The following Attachments are TBD on individual delivery orders, as required:

Attachment J-3: Contract Data Requirements List, DD Form 1423; and

Attachment J-4: Contract Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

L.1 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

52.203-18 Prohibition on Contracting With Entities That Require Certain Internal

Confidentiality Agreements or Statements-Representations

JAN 2017

52.204-7 System For Award Management OCT 2018 52.204-16 Commercial And Government Entity Code Reporting JUL 2016 52.204-17 Ownership Or Control Of Offeror JUL 2016 52.024-20 Predecessor of Offeror JUL 2016 52.204-22 Alternative Line Item Proposal JAN 2017 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition JAN 2017 52.215-22 Limitation on Pass-Through Charges—Identification of Subcontract Effort OCT 2009 52.216-28 Multiple Awards For Advisory And Assistance Services OCT 1995

52.222-24 Preaward On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance Evaluation FEB 1999 52.232-38 Submission Of Electronic Funds Transfer Information With Offer JUL 2013 252.203-7005 Representation Relating to Compensation of Former DOD Officials NOV 2011 252.209-7008 Notice of Prohibition Relating To Organizational Conflict of Interest— Major

Defense Acquisition Program

DEC 2010

252-215-7008 Only One Offer OCT 2013 252.215-7013 Supplies and Services Provided by Nontraditional Defense Contractors JAN 2018 252.225-7003 Report of Intended Performance Outside the United States and Canada--

Submission with Offer

OCT 2015

L.2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED IN FULL TEXT:

L.2.1 52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984)

The Government contemplates award of a Firm Fixed Price and Cost Plus Fixed Fee type contract resulting from this solicitation.

(End of provision)

L.2.2 52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST (SEP 2006)

(a) Protests, as defined in section 33.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), shall be served on the Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from Mr. Kerry Knapp, Contracting Officer, Naval Sea Systems Command, 1333 Isaac Hull Ave, SE, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20376-2020. Email: Kerry.Knapp@navy.mil.

(b) The copy of any protest shall be received in the office designated above within one day of filing a protest with the GAO.

(End of provision)

L.2.3 52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The Offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the Offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the Offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ or

FAR: https://www.acquisition.gov/browsefar DFARS: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/ NMCARS: http://www.secnav.navy.mil/rda/Pages/NMCARS.aspx

(End of provision)

L.2.4 252.204-7008 COMPLIANCE WITH SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE INFORMATION

CONTROLS (OCT 2016)

(a) Definitions. As used in this provision--

Controlled technical information, covered contractor information system, covered defense information, cyber incident, information system, and technical information are defined in clause 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting.

(b) The security requirements required by contract clause 252.204-7012 shall be implemented for all covered defense information on all covered contractor information systems that support the performance of this contract.

(c) For covered contractor information systems that are not part of an information technology service or system operated on behalf of the Government (see 252.204-7012(b)(2))--

(1) By submission of this offer, the Offeror represents that it will implement the security requirements specified by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171, ``Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations'' (see http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171) that are in effect at the time the solicitation is issued or as authorized by the contracting officer not later than December 31, 2017.

(2)(i) If the Offeror proposes to vary from any of the security requirements specified by NIST SP 800-171 that are in effect at the time the solicitation is issued or as authorized by the Contracting Officer, the Offeror shall submit to the Contracting Officer, for consideration by the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO), a written explanation of—

(A) Why a particular security requirement is not applicable; or

(B) How an alternative but equally effective, security measure is used to compensate for the inability to satisfy a particular requirement and achieve equivalent protection.

(ii) An authorized representative of the DoD CIO will adjudicate offeror requests to vary from NIST SP 800-171 requirements in writing prior to contract award. Any accepted variance from NIST SP 800-171 shall be incorporated into the resulting contract.

(End of provision)

L.2.5 NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT(S) OF INTEREST (NAVSEA) (JUN 1994)

(a) Offerors are reminded that certain existing contractual arrangements may preclude, restrict or limit participation, in whole or in part, as either a subcontractor or as a prime contractor under this competitive procurement. Of primary concern are those contractual arrangements in which the Offeror provides support to DoD Contractors listed in Attachment J-2 of this solicitation, or related laboratories (if applicable), in support of operation of the office or any of its programs. General guidance may be found in FAR 9.505; however, this guidance is not all inclusive. The Offeror's attention is directed to the "Organizational Conflict of Interest" (or similar) requirement which may be contained in current or completed contract(s) which prohibits the prime or subcontractor from providing certain supplies or services to the Government as described above during the period of the current "support" contract(s) or for a period after completion of the "support" contract(s). Notwithstanding the existence or non-existence of an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) clause or similar requirement in current or completed contract(s), the offeror shall comply with FAR 9.5 and identify whether an OCI exists and not rely solely on the presence of an OCI requirement.

(b) If a potential conflict of interest exists at any tier, each potential prime offeror is requested to notify the Contracting Officer within 14 days of the date of this solicitation. The Offeror shall provide: (1) the contract number and name and phone number of the Contracting Officer for the contract which gives rise to a potential organizational conflict of interest; (2) a copy of the requirement; (3) the statement of work (or technical instruction) from the existing contract; (4) a brief description of the type of work to be performed by each subcontractor under the competitive procurement; and (5) any additional information the Contracting Officer should consider in making a determination of whether a conflict of interest exists. The Government may independently verify the information received from the offeror. Notwithstanding the above, the Government reserves the right to determine whether a conflict of interest exists based on any information received from any source.

(c) The Government will notify an offeror of any conflict of interest within 14 days of receipt of all required information. Those offerors deemed to have a conflict of interest may be ineligible for award. Failure to provide the information in a timely manner does not waive the Government's rights to make a conflict of interest determination. The offeror is notified that if it expends time and money on proposal preparation, such expenditure is at its own risk that the Government will not determine that an organizational conflict of interest exists.

(d) Any potential prime contractor which proposes a subcontractor later determined to have a conflict of interest and deemed ineligible to participate in the current competition, may not be granted the opportunity to revise its proposal to remove the ineligible subcontractor. The Government reserves the right to determine which offerors remain in the competitive range through the normal source selection process.

(e) If the offeror determines that a potential organizational conflict of interest does not exist at any tier, the offeror shall include a statement to that effect in its response to this solicitation.

(End of Provision)

L.2.6 NOTIFICATION OF USE OF NAVY SUPPORT CONTRACTORS FOR OFFICIAL CONTRACT FILES

(NAVSEA) (APR 2004)

(a) NAVSEA may use a file room management support contractor, hereinafter referred to as "the support contractor", to manage its file room, in which all official contract files, including the official file supporting this procurement, are retained. These official files may contain information that is considered a trade secret, proprietary, business sensitive or otherwise protected pursuant to law or regulation, hereinafter referred to as “protected information”. File room management services consist of any of the following: secretarial or clerical support; data entry; document reproduction, scanning, imaging, or destruction; operation, management, or maintenance of paper-based or electronic mail rooms, file rooms, or libraries; and supervision in connection with functions listed herein.

(b) The cognizant Contracting Officer will ensure that any NAVSEA contract under which these file room management services are acquired will contain a requirement that (1) The support contractor not disclose any information; (2) Individual employees are to be instructed by the support contractor regarding the sensitivity of the official contract files;

(3) The support contractor performing these services be barred from providing any other supplies and/or services, or competing to do so, to NAVSEA for the period of performance of its contract and for an additional three years thereafter unless otherwise provided by law or regulation; and, (4) In addition to any other rights the offeror may have, it is a third party beneficiary who has the right of direct action against the support contractor, or any person to whom the support contractor has released or disclosed Protected Information, for the unauthorized duplication, release, or disclosure of such Protected Information.

(c) Submission of a proposal will be considered as consent to NAVSEA's permitting access to any information, irrespective of restrictive markings or the nature of the information submitted, by its file room management support contractor for the limited purpose of executing its file room support contract responsibilities.

(d) NAVSEA may, without further notice, enter into contracts with other contractors for these services. Offerors are free to enter into separate non-disclosure agreements with the file room contractor. (Please contact Director, E Business Division for contractor specifics.) However, any such agreement will not be considered a prerequisite before information submitted is stored in the file room or otherwise encumber the government.

(End of Provision)

L.2.7 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (NAVSEA) (JUN 1999)

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.

(End of Provision)

L.3 ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.3.1. GENERAL

L.3.1.1 This requirement is for system level cost analysis with total ownership cost modeling to support Navy-wide major systems procurements.

L.3.1.2 The Government intends to award based on initial offers and without holding discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussions at the Government’s discretion. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal shall contain that Offeror’s best terms from a technical standpoint. Multiple proposals are not acceptable. Awards will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) are found to be technically acceptable by the Government following evaluation in accordance with the factors specified in the solicitation. The Offeror shall submit all information required by this solicitation. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. The Offeror’s proposal shall be based on the requirements contained in the solicitation (including those documents, exhibits, and other attachments to the solicitation identified in Section J). Offerors are required to submit a proposal encompassing all items listed in Section B herein. The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government’s best interest.

L.3.1.3 The Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying offeror(s) determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

L.3.1.4 If the Government makes multiple awards, awardees will be provided a fair opportunity to compete for individual delivery orders, in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1), using either a Best Value source selection approach, pursuant to FAR 15.101-1, or Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable source selection approach, pursuant to FAR 15.101-2. Each delivery order will identify which source selection approach will be utilized. All awardees will be notified via email of a new delivery order opportunity, unless one of the one of the exceptions to FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i) applies. If one of the exceptions applies under FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i), then all other awardees will be notified in accordance with instructions contained in FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii).

L.3.1.5 The solicitation, solicitation-related information, and amendments will be made available through the internet at:

https://www.fedbizopps.gov

L.3.1.5.1 The solicitation and related information will be listed under the solicitation number and can be downloaded directly to a workstation.

L.3.1.5.2 Offerors are hereby notified that from time to time, the Government may post additional information to the website relating to this solicitation (e.g. responses to questions, amendments, etc.). It is the Offeror’s responsibility to check the website for any such information.

L.3.1.6 No classified material shall be submitted in response to this solicitation under any circumstance.

L.3.1.7 Pre-Award Survey

The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey or to require other evidence of technical, production, managerial, financial, and similar abilities to perform the required work prior to the award of a contract.

L.3.1.8 Submission of Bidder’s Questions

Offerors may electronically submit questions requesting clarification of solicitation requirements by sending completed Bidder’s Question Submittal Form, Addendum L-1, via email to Mr. Brendan Byrne, at

Brendan.P.Byrne@navy.mil . All questions should be submitted within 7 days after release of the solicitation to allow the Government adequate time to issue responses to all Offerors prior to the date and time set for receipt of proposals. Questions submitted via e-mail must use the subject line: NAVY SYSTEM LEVEL CATOC BIDDER’S QUESTIONS. The Government will continue to accept questions up to the closing date and time of the solicitation;

however, time may not permit responses to be issued prior to proposal receipt. It is the Government’s intention that questions and responses will be posted as amendments to the solicitation at the Federal Business Opportunities Online at https://www.fedbizopps.gov. Although every effort will be made, the Government makes no guarantee that all questions will be answered.

L.3.1.9 This acquisition will be accomplished in accordance in accordance with FAR Part 15. All Offerors are required to submit proposals at the close of this solicitation in order to be considered.

L.3.1.10 Offerors are advised that Offerors without DCAA approved accounting systems may be eligible for award.

However, if an Offeror does not have a DCAA approved accounting systems, and receives an award, then that Offeror/Awardee will not be eligible for awards of cost-type task orders competed under ITEMs 0002 and 0003 until such time that their accounting system is approved by DCAA.

L.3.2. SOLICITATION RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

L.3.2.1 The solicitation response shall be contained in two separate volumes as follows:

Volume I Technical Proposal…