LPD-17 RFP QA Master List Amend 0002.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Planning Yard contract for operational (in-service) LPD-17, LHD-1, LHA-6, LSD-41/49, and LCC-19 class ships.
- Solicitation number
- N00024-20-R-4205
About this file
This document contains a question and answer log related to solicitation number N00024-20-R-4205 for a Planning Yard contract. The solicitation seeks proposals for operational support of LPD-17, LHD/A, LSD, and LCC class ships. Services include provisioning items orders and other planning yard material. The Naval Sea Systems Command is the contracting agency. Proposals were due by 3:00 p.m. on November 16, 2020. The document provides answers to contractor questions on proposal page limits, past performance examples, pricing assumptions, travel costs, security requirements, and subcontracting plans. It clarifies evaluation criteria and technical data to be provided to the awardee.
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
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
LPD-17 RFP Q&A Round 1
| No. | Date Received | Page | Section/Paragraph | Question | RFP Update? | Action Taken/Answer | Notes |
| 1 | 10/7/20 | Page 176 | Section L. 2.1 | Would the government consider an Executive Summary to be excluded from the page count if an offeror chose to include one? | No | An executive summary of less than two pages can be included to not impact page count. However, only information in the main body of the offeror's proposal will be considered in the evaluation. | |
| 2 | 10/7/20 | Page 176 | Section L. 2.1 | Would the Government please clarify the meaning of Index pages and Tabs in regards to electronic proposal submission? | Yes | See Amendment 0001. Offeror should ensure the separation of individual sections and subsections are readily understandable with electronic linkage to the TOC. | |
| 3 | 10/7/20 | Page 176 | Section L. 2.1 | Since Factor 3 Management Approach is limited to 45 pages and the inclusion of the Resumes for the six identified key personnel would effectively reduce the Management Approach page count to 33 pages, would the government consider excluding the six Key Personnel Resumes from the page count? | Yes | Yes, see Amendment 0001 | |
| 4 | 10/7/20 | Page 176 | Section L. 2.1 | Since Factor 3 Management Approach is limited to 45 pages and the inclusion of the Teaming agreements would significantly reduce the Management Approach discussion , would the government consider excluding the Teaming Agreements from the page count? | Yes | Yes, see Amendment 0001 | |
| 5 | 10/7/20 | Page 182 | Section L. 4.1.4.1.C | Is it the Government’s intent that the offeror propose labor category requirements for the Key personnel? | Yes | No. See Amendment 0001 for Key Personnel requirements. | |
| 6 | 10/7/20 | Page 184 | Section L. 4.1.5 | Can the Government clarify the content of the list on page 184 Section L. 4.1.5? | No | Section L-4.1.5 resides on page 185 and contains the following list: (a) Contract number. |
(b) Customer’s name, address, telephone number, and a point of contact (whether Government or Commercial), and whether the Offeror was the prime Contractor or a Subcontractor. Examples of POCs are a DCMA Administrative Contracting Officer or Program Integrator (PI), a Government Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) or Government Program Manager (PM).
(c) Contract type.
(d) Cost Information:
(1) For Cost Reimbursable Type Contracts:
(2) For Fixed Price Type Contracts:
(e) Period of Performance.
(f) Brief product description, including quantities, hours, and stage of acquisition (i.e., development or production).
(g) Quality Assurance:
(h) Small Business Utilization (Not applicable to Small Business Concern Offerors):
| 7 | 10/7/20 | Page 176 | Section L 2.1 | Does each past performance example have a five page limit, plus a two page self- assessment, or is the Government’s intent to limit all past performance citations to a total of five pages? | No | Yes, 5 page limit plus 2 page assessment. The 5 pages need not be inclusive of the 2 page assessment. |
| 8 | 10/7/20 | Page 184 | Section L. 4.1.5 | Is it the Government’s intent for an offeror to list all relevant contracts within the past five years, even if it exceeds two? | No | Observe the page limit and list at least 2. List more if desired and observe the page limit. |
| 9 | 10/7/20 | Page 184 | Section L. 4.1.5 | Regarding terminated contracts, does this also apply to sub-contractors? If so, all sub-contractors, or only those defined as significant? | No | List of all contracts terminated for any reason within the last five (5) years whether offeror was a prime or sub. |
| 10 | 10/7/20 | Page 184 | Section L. 4.1.5 | For item (3) regarding offeror omissions, does this imply if the offeror has more than 2 relevant contracts, they should address all relevant contracts, or is this specific to an offeror’s failure to address any contracts that may have been terminated? | No | The offeror has to list at least 2 but can list more. The government reserves the right to seek customer feedback on other contracts not listed that are believed to be relevant. |
| 11 | 10/7/20 | Page 176 | Section L. 2.1 | Please verify if the oversized pages will be counted as one page for page count purposes? | No | Oversized pages will be counted as one page however oversized pages may only be used for tables, diagrams, charts or graphic material. |
| 12 | 10/7/20 | Attachment 2 | Would the Government provide an updated DD-254 form with the correct solicitation number listed? | Yes | Yes, see Amendment 0001 | |
| 13 | 10/7/20 | Page 181 | Section L. 4.1.4.1.a | Since Factor 3 Management Approach is limited to 45 pages and the inclusion of the Staffing Plan would effectively reduce the Management Approach page count, would the government consider excluding the Staffing Plan from the page count? | Yes | Yes, see Amendment 0001 |
| 14 | 10/7/20 | Page 174 | Section L Para 1.1 | Would the Government consider extending the due date to 23 November 2020 at 1500 EST? | Yes | Proposal receipt date will be extended to Friday 20 November at 1500 EST. See Amendment 0001 |
| 16 | 10/9/20 | N/A | N/A | When solicitation amendments are released, in addition to the standard PDF solicitation file (currently named “RFP N00024-20-R-4205 9.30.20.pdf”), would the Government please provide a clean and a redlined conformed Microsoft Word version? It is requested that the redlines be a comparison to the last publicly-released conformed version of Sections A-M. The clean version would be required for offeror fill-ins (Model Contract Sections A-J, and Reps and Certs Section K), and the redline version would help offerors immediately note the Government’s solicitation changes (and to ensure consistency with the amendment). | No | Yes, a redlined word document will be attached. |
| 17 | 10/9/20 | Pages 8, 11, 14, 17, 20. 23, 191 | Section B, Section L.4.2, Attachment L-2 | The not-to-exceed values for CLINs 0104, 0204, 0304, 0404, 0504, 0604 do not match the values to be priced in Table L-2 or Attachment L-2. Please amend Table L-2 and Attachment L-2 so that it matches the Section B NTE values for the Travel CLINs. | Yes | See Amendment 0001 with updated CLIN amounts |
| 18 | 10/9/20 | Pages 5, 6, 191 | Section B, Attachment L-2 | The period of performance CLINs 0006 and 0007 is for the length of the contract. This appears to conflict with the Attachment L-2, which breaks the NTE for CLINs 0006 and 0007 into 7 periods which parallel the base and option years of the LOE CLINs. Attachment L-2 requires offerors to break out indirect costs and cost of money from direct material costs by base year and the 6 options. The customary process for PIO material orders under Planning Yard contracts is for contractors to use their current indirect and cost of money rates for material proposals at the time the PIO material is requested. Please confirm that the indirect and cost of money rates provided by offerors in Attachment L-2 will be solely for comparison of offerors' proposals under solicitation N00024-20-R-4205 and that the successful offeror is expected to use its then current indirect and cost of money rates for pricing of PIO orders issued after contract award. | No | Yes, the indirect and cost of money rates provided by offerors in Attachment L-2 will be solely for comparison of offerors' proposals and that the successful offeror is expected to use its then current indirect and cost of money rates for pricing of PIO orders issued after contract award. |
| 19 | 10/9/20 | N/A | Attachment 10, Attachment 11 | The Performance Incentive Fee Plan, Attachment 10, provides that the CLIN 0007 incentive fee may only be earned if PIO material is delivered early, i.e., 90 days before the start of an availability or earlier (A-90). The ability of a Contractor to meet this deadline is dependent on timely authorization and funding for the purchase of the PIO material. Due to historically late authorization and funding for PIO orders and other factors outside the control of the contractor, it will be very unlikely or impossible for the successful offeror to earn the CLIN 0007 Performance Incentive Fee under the current terms. Further, some PIO material orders are not tied to a specific availability therefore making the performance incentive fee an impossibility. Attachment 11 appears to recognize delivery by A-90 or by the delivery date contained in the contract modification that funds and authorizes PIO material procurement. Offeror requests the Government amend Attachment 10 to be consistent with Attachment 11 and provide that the PIO incentive may be earned if either of the following conditions is met: a) delivery is made by A-90, or b) delivery is made in accordance with contract modification that that authorizes and funds material orders. | No | The incentive fee (4% max) is above and beyond the maximum fixed fee of 5%. The purpose of the established incentive fee is to incentivize the contractor to manage the end to end material procurement process such that material is delivered by A-90 or better thus exceeding the Government's JFFM requirements. |
| 20 | 10/9/20 | N/A | Attachment 10 | Attachment 10 Performance Incentive Fee Plan paragraph 3.5 defines early delivery of material as delivery of material to the location specified by the Government by A-90 or the cognizant SUPSHIP Office reports material delivery by A-90. Paragraph 5.2 indicates 0% performance incentive is earned if material is not on site by A-90. History has shown that not all Master Ship Repair (MSR) contracts are awarded in sufficient time to allow the Planning Yard contractor to deliver the material by A-90. Offeror requests the Government amend Attachment 10 to provide that, in cases where the MSR contract award does not support A-90 material delivery, the Planning Yard contractor has met the Performance Incentive Fee criteria if the contractor demonstrates material availability at A-90. | Yes | See updated Attachment 10 with Amendment 0001 |
| 21 | 10/9/20 | Page 178 | Section L, Para 4.1/2 | The last sentence in the paragraph marked A. Since this submittal is electronic only, this sentence should state : In order to help ensure non-disclosure, the title page of the technical proposal and other sheets of proposal data should be marked with restrictive legends contained in the Solicitation Instruction in Section I entitled “RESTRICTIVE MARKING ON TECHNICAL DATA.” | Yes | See Amendment 0001 - Removed the statement "and the technical proposal should be marked…." due to electronic submission only. |
| 22 | 10/9/20 | Page 186 | Section L, Para 4.2/2 | The last sentence in the paragraph marked A. Since this submittal is electronic only, this sentence should state : In order to help ensure non-disclosure, the title page of the cost proposal and other sheets of proposal data should be marked with the restrictive legends contained in the Solicitation Instruction in Section I clause 252.227- 7037 entitled “VALIDATION OF RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS ON TECHNICAL DATA.” | Yes | See Amendment 0001 - Removed the statement "and the technical proposal should be marked…." due to electronic submission only. |
| 23 | 10/9/20 | Page 191 | Section L, Para 4.2 | A specified contract award date assumption will provide consistency of proposal evaluation across offerors. For pricing purposes, Offeror recommends the Government provide a specific contract award date. | No | Assume end of month. As stated in Section L-4.2 the anticipated award date is April 2021. |
| 24 | 10/9/20 | Page 64 | Section C, Para 1.4.5 | Effort 2: Perform Installation Work (CLIN 0X05) provides that "Installation work will also include manpower, equipment, consumables, incidental materials, shipping, and travel expenses." A directed Travel expense value has been provided within CLIN 0X04. | Yes | Concur - removed "travel" from that sentence. See Amendment 0001. |
| 25 | 10/9/20 | Pages 191 and 193 | Table L-2, Attachment L-2 | The structure for the Attachment L-2 spreadsheet tab named "CLIN 0X04" currently produces a Total Estimated Cost with COM (FCCM) which exceeds the NTE values identified in Section B for each of the 0X04 CLINs. |
Please clarify that all contract support travel cost, including travel to support CLIN 0X05, will be priced/charged to CLIN 0X04 only.
| In order for the Evaluation Criteria amounts in Attachment L-2 to be consistent with Section B, the offeror recommends that the amounts in purple on Tab “CLIN 0X04” (e.g. cell C2) should be filled in by the offeror such that after application of overheads and cost of money, the row ESTIMATED COST (w/ COM) will equal the NTE values in Section B for each of the 0X04 CLINs. Does the Government concur? | Yes | See Amendment 0001 - Section B Travel CLINs will be revised to reflect the L-2 Cost Element Summary Spreadsheets and Table L-2 in Section L-4.2. Yes, all travel costs including travel to support CLIN 0X05 shall be priced/charged to CLIN 0X04 only. The Government concurs that the offeror can fill in the amounts of the spreadsheet such that after application of overheads and cost of money, the row ESTIMATED COST (w/ COM) will equal the NTE values in Section B, as revised by Amendment 0001, for each of the 0X04 CLINs. The Section B amounts should equal the amounts highlighted in purple in the Cost Element Summary Spreadsheet, CLIN 0X04 tab. | |||||
| 26 | 10/9/20 | Pages 191 and 193 | Table L-2, Attachment L-2 | In order for the Evaluation Criteria amounts in Attachment L-2 to be consistent with Section B, the offeror recommends that the amounts in purple on Tab “CLINs 0006 & 0007” (e.g. cell D4) should be filled in by the offeror such that after application of overheads, fixed-fee, incentive fee and cost of money, the row TOTAL ESTIMATED COST + FIXED FEE + INCENTIVE FEE) will equal the NTE values in Section B. Does the Government concur? | Yes | See Amendment 0001 - The Government concurs that the amounts in purple on Tab “CLINs 0006 & 0007” (e.g. cell D4) can be filled in by the offeror. However, the NTE amounts shall be filled in such that after application of overheads, fixed-fee, incentive fee and cost of money, the row TOTAL ESTIMATED COST + FIXED FEE + INCENTIVE FEE shall equal the NTE values in broken out by year in Section L-4.2 Table L-2. Section B lists the total NTE for all years. | |
| 27 | 10/9/20 | N/A | Attachment L-2 | To be consistent with the Offeror's disclosure statement, the Offeror intends to move cost elements between direct and indirect, as required. Does the Government concur with this approach? | No | Offerors can add, remove, or move rows to realign directs and indirects as necessary. For example, the Fringe row is located under the “Direct Labor” section and can be moved under the “Indirect Costs” section. | |
| 28 | 10/9/20 | Page 25 | Section B | Offeror requests the Government change Note G requirement to state "Airfare costs in excess of the lowest priced airfare available to the contractor during normal business hours are unallowable unless the costs meet an exception per FAR 31.205(b). The contractor shall maintain a record of allowable exceptions and produce said record upon request of the Government." | Yes | Concur to add to Note E vice Note G. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 29 | 10/9/20 | Page 63 | Section 63 | Offeror reads Paragraph 1.3, Security Requirement, paragraph to mean "All contractor personnel accessing classified information or classified material associated with this contract…" is this interpretation correct? | No | Yes, that's the correct interpretation | |
| 30 | 10/9/20 | Page 169 | Section L | Clause 52.215-20, REQUIREMENTS FOR COST OR PRICING DATA OR INFORMATION OTHER THAN COST |
OR PRICING DATA (OCT 2010)— ALTERNATE III (OCT 1997). Paragraph (c) is missing fill in information. Offeror recommends the Government update this clause to state “(c) Submit the cost portion of the proposal via the following electronic media: Microsoft Office products or Portable Document File (PDF) format."
| Yes | Concur with recommended change. See Amendment 0001. | |||||
| 31 | 10/9/20 | Page 114 | Section H | Clause H-216-H001 Level of Effort—Basic (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018), Paragraph (j) allows the Contractor to perform up to 10% of the hours at an alternative worksite. As a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Contractors may be allowing or requiring a larger than normal percentage of its workforce to telecommute in order to reduces the spread of the virus. Offeror requests the Government to confirm that, pursuant to OMB memo M-20-16, Federal Agency Operational Alignment to Slow the Spread of Coronavirus COVID 19, dated 17 March 2020, the alternative worksite limitations contained in Clause H-216-H001 Level of Effort—Basic (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018) will be suspended until the expiration of the OMB memo. If the OMB memo is not applicable to Solicitation N00024-20-R-4205, Offeror requests that 10% alternative worksite limitation in paragraph (j) of H-216-H001 be deleted or waived.” | No | The memo does not have a planned expiration date, therefore the clause will remain in the contract but the 10% limitation will be waved until the provisions of the memo expire or are otherwise superceded by more recent guidance. |
| 32 | 10/9/20 | N/A | Exhibit C - CDRLS A001-A025 | CDRL A024 indicates submissions of the CDRL should be delivered to SUPSHIP Bath. Offeror requests CDRL A024 be edited to remove the reference to "Bath" | Yes | See update to Exhibit C Attachment. |
| 33 | 10/9/20 | Page 195 | Section L | Paragraph 4.6, VOLUME III – CONTRACTS DOCUMENTS, Para (d) requires an offeror to include the following certification with its offer. Offeror requests that the Government specifically identify the "restricted information" provided by the Government in connection with solicitation N00024-20-R-4205 that is subject to the "destroyed within 120 days" requirement. | Yes | There is not any restricted information and the statement will be removed in Amendment 0001. |
| 34 | 10/9/20 | Page 178 | Section L | Under Technical Approach (Factor 1) Para 4.1.1.a.ii, the offeror is required to cite specific existing internal process instructions to accomplish "Managing, evaluating, and documenting Government provided technical data required to define shipboard integration requirements for systems and components." For Combat System and C4I Ship Changes, will the Government provide to the winning contractor system integration and arrangement technical data such as Technical Data Packages (TDP) or Projected Class Baseline (PCB) drawings? If so, when will that technical data be provided relative to the milestones specified in Attachment 1 of COMNAVSURFOR 4700 Ser N00/532 dated 5 August 2019? | No | Yes, the Government will provide to the winning contractor system integration and arrangement technical data such as Technical Data Packages (TDP) or Projected Class Baseline (PCB) drawings. Relative to the Attachment 1 milestones the technical GFI will be provided at A-660 for individual SCDs. If the information is not provided at A-660 the contractor will not be held accountable for SID delivery at A-435.Note that if the overaching requirements of Attachment 1 are revised, milestones for GFI and product delivery may change also. Revision would be made by contract change. |
| 35 | 10/9/20 | Page 181 | Section L | Under Technical Approach (Factor 1) Para 4.1.4.1.a [Labor Force Allocation], the "Offeror shall include the percentage of total workforce with experience in planning yard functions for Navy ships, and specific experience with Amphibious Class ships." Offeror requests Government provide a definition of “planning yard functions.” For example, are Naval Shipbuilding Engineering discipline skill sets (i.e. Combat Systems Integration, Naval Architecture Stability, Fluid Flow Analysis, etc.) equivalent/applicable to planning yard functions? | No | Yes, Naval Shipbuilding Engineering discipline skill sets (i.e. Combat Systems Integration, Naval Architecture Stability, Fluid Flow Analysis, etc.) are equivalent/applicable to planning yard functions. |
| 36 | 10/9/20 | Page 5 | Section B | The title for CLIN 0006 is stated as "Provisioned Items Orders (PIO) and Other Planning Yard Material For LPD-17, LHD/A, LPD, and LCC Class Ships." "LPD" is listed twice. Offeror requests the Government change to the title of CLIN 0006 to "Provisioned Items Orders (PIO) and Other Planning Yard Material For LPD-17, LHD/A, LSD, and LCC Class Ships." | Yes | Concur. See Amendment 0001. |
| 37 | 10/9/20 | N/A | Table L-2, Attachment L-2 | Table L-2 lists the CLIN 0006 NTEs for each year for the contract as a whole. Offeror requests the Government provide a breakout or the CLIN 0006 NTEs by ship class and year. | No | The Government will not provide this information. |
| 38 | 10/9/20 | N/A | Section I | It is Offeror's understanding that, pursuant information published at 85 FR 61505, the new DFARS 252.204-7019 clause (Notice of NIST SP800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements) will become effective in late November 2020 and be required in contracts of the type contemplated under solicitation N00024-20-C-4205 and awarded after the effective date of the clause. Will DFARS 252.204-7019 be added prior to the award on the L-Ship Planning Yard contract? If so, how will Offerors be evaluated in regard to the Offerors DIBCAC assurance assessments in the decision to award the contract? | No | The terms and conditions of the clause and it's applicability to the contract(or) will be considered when clause is released. |
| 39 | 10/9/20 | Page 122 | Section I | DFARs 252.204-7012 requires the application of “Adequate Protection” to Covered Defense Information, a subset of Covered Unclassified Information (CUI). Offeror requests the Government to disclose what data will be CUI in performance of the contract? How will CUI be identified during the performance of the contract? | No | CUI will be identified and handled on a case by case basis. |
| 40 | 10/9/20 | Page 68 | Section C | Clause C-204-H002 and NIST SP 800-171 allow for a Plan of Actions and Milestones (POAM) to supplement a System Security Plan (SSP) for any controls (security requirements) not met by the successful offeror at the time of contract award. How will offerors be evaluated with regard to their compliance with all required SSP security requirements at the time of proposal submission? | No | This is not part of Section L and the SSP will not be used to evaluate the offerors. |
| 41 | 10/9/20 | Page 194 | Section L | Paragraph 6. COST PROPOSAL, ASSUMPTIONS on page 194, Offeror interprets "fee-on-fee" to prevent the prime contractor from adding its fee on top of a subcontractor's proposed fee, but does allow the prime contractor to add its fee to a subcontractor's cost. Is this interpretation correct? | No | Yes this interpretation is correct. |
| 42 | 10/9/20 | Page 181 | Section L | For the first paragraph of 4.1.4.1 a., does the Government intend that offerors provide the names of individuals who are filling the key personnel roles in their staffing plans? If so, is the requirement to provide names for only the “key personnel” roles (without providing names of other non-key personnel staff members)? |
For the second paragraph of 4.1.4.1 a., with respect to “unidentified” positions and staff, does the government intend this paragraph to apply only to unidentified staff who would fill “key personnel” roles?
| No | Yes the offerors will provide the names of the individuals who are filling the key roles. Names will not be required for non-key roles. | |||||
| 43 | 10/9/20 | Pages 5 and 100 | Section B, Section F | Offeror requests that the note to CLIN 0006 in Section B, page 5, be changed from "FOB: DESTINATION" to "FOB: ORIGIN." | No | No action taken. FOB Destination will remain unchanged. |
| 44 | 10/9/20 | Pages 120 and 173 | Section I, Section L | Offeror requests that Clause L-219-H001 SUBMISSION OF SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (NAVSEA) (JAN 2019) be updated to reference FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Plan (June 2020) Alternate II (Nov 2016). | Yes | Removed L-219-H001. See Amendment 0001. |
| 45 | 10/9/20 | Page 85 | Section C | In Clause C-237-H001 ENTERPRISE-WIDE CONTRACTOR MANPOWER REPORTING APPLICATION (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018), paragraph (b), Offeror requests the Government provide an alternative website for submitting the data required by Clause C-237-H001 ENTERPRISE-WIDE CONTRACTOR MANPOWER REPORTING APPLICATION (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018) or, alternatively, delete the clause from the solicitation. The offeror attempted to access https://www.ecmra.mil, which provided the message "ECRMA is de-commissioned as of COB June 19th, 2020. | No | The text of C-237-H001 is mandated by NMCARS 5237.102-90 and will not be changed until the NMCARS is updated. Use this link for more information: https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/site-pages/service-contract-reporting-scr |
| 46 | 11/6/20 | Page 185 | Section L | Section 4.1.5 (h) States “SF 294s for relevant completed and ongoing contracts for the past 3 years must be included in the information provided. If the goals were not achieved, the Offeror shall explain why these goals were not achieved. SF 294s shall be excluded in the page limitation for this volume.” Since the SF 294 may be considered to contain proprietary information, would it be acceptable for significant subcontractors to submit their SF 294’s directly to the Contracting Officer? | No | Yes significant subcontractors can submit their SF 294's directly to the Contracting Officer. |
| 47 | 11/11/20 | Page 122, 207 | Section I, Section M, Paragraph 4.0.c | FAR 52.242-4 Certification of Final Indirect Costs is incorporated by reference in Section I. Section M provides that Volume III will not be evaluated but will be reviewed to ensure Offerors provide, among other documents, a Signed Certificate of Final Indirect Costs in accordance with FAR 52.242-4. Section L of the solicitation does not list the FAR 52.242-4 certification as a required Volume III document. The rate certification under this clause is for incurred costs after contract performance and not for estimated future rates provided in Offerors’ proposals submitted for the L-Ship Planning yard. | Yes | The requirement of the Certification of Final Indirect Costs remains unchanged. See update to section L. The Certification of Final Indirect Costs is required to establish the basis of determining final indirect costs. In accordance with 52.242-4(b), failure by the Contractor to submit a signed certificate may result in final indirect costs at rates unilaterally established by the Contracting Officer. |
| 48 | ||||||
| 49 | ||||||
| 50 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .