The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Sheet1
| Question Number: | Question Source: (RFP, Attachment #, etc.) | Page Number and Paragraph Header from Source: | Question: | Government Response: |
| 1 | RFP | | Would the Government provide an additional question period for Offerors following the release of the initial Q&A responses to allow for clarification or follow-up questions? | No. |
| 2 | RFP Section C, L | Pg 13, C.1.0; Pg 85, Table L3 | "DFARS 252.225-7976 Contractor Personnel Performing in Japan (DEVIATION 2018-O0019) (AUG 2018)" is typically seen on contracts with performance in Japan. Would the Government confirm that this clause would be added for task orders with performance in Japan? | When applicable, this clause will be added at the order level. |
| 3 | RFP Section L | Pg 103, 3.7.1.(h).3.ix | Would the government confirm that allowable and allocable facility costs (such as rent, utilities, and maintenance) are included in the government-provided ODC estimate and considered billable as Other Direct Costs? | Allowability and allocability of individual costs will be determined at the order level during execution. |
| 4 | RFP Section L, Attachment L-3 | Pg 109, 3.7.2.4.(d); Atch L-3 | Entitlement to HOLA/COLA and other related costs associated with prescribed OCONUS work on a permanent basis is considered an allowable cost. Would the Government confirm that those costs are included in the Government provided ODC plug and will be billable to the ODC line in execution? | Allowability and allocability of individual costs will be determined at the order level during execution. |
| 5 | RFP Section L, Table of contents and Master | Pg 73, General Content Requirements; Pgs. 77-78, 3.1 Prop Overview, Table L1-Volume Descriptions; Pg 80 A. Prop. Structure b) Master Table of Contents; Pg 84 3.5 (b) | Section L.3.5 and Table L1 of the RFP require a Table of Contents to be included in each proposal volume, following the title page. Separately, Section 2.0 (pages 73 and 80) calls for a Master Table of Contents. | |
Given that Table L1 specifies only a volume-specific Table of Contents, is it the Government’s intent that these satisfy the Master Table of Contents requirement in Section 2.0?
| If not, and the Government requires a Master Table of Contents that spans all volumes, will it be acceptable to include this consolidated TOC as an appendix in each volume to preserve clarity? | Yes. The "master table of contents" referenced in Section 2.0 is the same as the volume-specific table of contents required. A cross-volume table of content is not required. --> See Amendment 0001. The term "master" has been removed. | | | | |
| 6 | RFP Section L, Past Perf - CPARS | Pg 78, 3.1 Prop Overview, Table L1-Volume Descriptions, III Past Perf: Pg 97, 3.6 Instructions for Vol III | Table L1, Volume III – Past Performance, does not include a separate section number or heading for CPAR/RIS references. Is it the Government’s intent that Offerors should include CPAR/RIS documentation within each corresponding Past Performance example? | |
| Yes. | | | | |
| | RFP Section L, Past Perf - CPARS | Pg 78, 3.1 Prop Overview, Table L1-Volume Descriptions, III Past Perf: Pg 97, 3.6 Instructions for Vol III | To comply with the requirement to list contracts performed within the last three (3) years, what section number and title should Offerors use to present this list in Volume III? | A section number and title is not mandated for this list. Please use Offeror discretion. |
| 7 | RFP Section L, Vol II Factor I | pg. 87, L.3.5.1, 1.2 Organization Plan and 1.2 Transition Plan | Would the Government please consider renumbering Section 1.2 – Transition Plan to Section 1.3 – Transition Plan to ensure alignment with the proposal structure and to avoid numbering inconsistencies? | Yes. See Amendment 0001 Section L.3.5.1 for the correction. |
| 8 | RFP, Section C, SOW 1.5 numbering | 1.5.8-1.5.9 | In reviewing the RFP, the website address is listed under Section 1.5.9. However, the content appears to be directly associated with the material in Section 1.5.8. Should the website reference be considered part of Section 1.5.8? | |
| If so, will the Government please adjust the numbering accordingly to ensure consistency and clarity within the section structure? | Yes. See Amendment 0001 Section C, Para 1.5.8 for the correction. | | |
| 9 | RFP, Section B | Pg.2, CLIN 0001 - Max Quantity. |
Pg. 10, Note E Pg. 42 Section F CLIN 0001; Pg.10, Note E, Table 5 and Attachment L-3 The labor hours referenced in CLIN 0001 on pages 2 and 42 of the RFP appear to state 3,132,022 hours, whereas Attachment L-3 references 3,245,622 hours for the same CLIN.
| Is it the Government’s intent that the correct labor hour quantity for CLIN 0001 should be 3,245,622 hours, consistent with the value noted in Attachment L-3? | Yes. See Amendment 0001. --> The RFP has been revised to reflect 3,245,622 hours. | | | |
| 10 | RFP Section L | Pg. 105 - L.3.7.2.2(a) | Section L.3.7.2.2(a) states that "the proposed indirect rates and profit percentage shall apply to all orders placed under CLIN 0001 and 0002 (but not CLIN 0003) for the duration of the contract." |
| Would the Government confirm it should read, "the proposed indirect rates and profit percentage shall apply to CLINs 0002 and 0003 (but not to CLIN 0001) for the duration of the contract?" | Yes. See Amendment 0001. --> Section L.3.7.2.2(a) revised as requested. | | | | |
| 11 | RFP, section L, Vol IV | P. 106, para 3(b) | Would the Government confirm the criteria for a subcontractor to submit Attachment L-3 under a cost-type arrangement is only if they have a cumulative value of greater than $2,000,000.00 and ten percent (10%) of the contract value? | Yes, that is correct. |
| 12 | RFP, Section L | p.78, Table L1, 2.3 Offerors’ and Significant Subcontractor’s safety organization; p.94 L.3.5.2(b); P.94 L.3.5.2(d) | Table L1, Section 2.3, and clause L.3.5.2(b) of the RFP refer to a “Significant Contractor”. In contrast, L.3.5.2(d) refers to a “major contractor”, which appears inconsistent with the established terminology. | |
| Would the Government please confirm whether L.3.5.2(d) should instead reference a “Significant Subcontractor” to align with the terminology used elsewhere in the RFP? | Yes. See Amendment 0001. --> Section L3.5.2(d) updated to say 'significant' rather than 'major'. | | | |
| 13 | RFP, Section L | P.85, 3.5(f) – Letters of Commitment; P.95 L.3.5.3(d) Factor 3 Recourse | There is a reference to “Paragraph C” under Section 3.5(f) on pg. 85 which appears to be inconsistent with the surrounding section citations. |
| Would the Government please confirm that this reference is intended to refer to Section L.3.5.3(d), (Paragraph D), on page 95? | No. The correct reference is Section L3.5.1(c). See Amendment 0001 for clarification. | | | |
| 14 | RFP, Section L | p.100, L.3.7.1.(h).3., L.3.7.1.(h)3.(i),(iii) – Estimating Rationale | L.3.7.1.(h).3 refers to "Significant Subcontractor", L.3.7.1(h).3.(i)&(iii) refer to "major subcontractors", creating a potential inconsistency in terminology. |
| Would the Government please clarify whether the intended reference throughout these sections should be “Significant Subcontractor(s)” ? | No. Subcontractor cost data requirements are identified in Section L, 3.7.2, Paragraph 3. See Amendment 0001 for clarification. | | | |
| 15 | RFP, Section B | Pg. 8, Note B | Note B (page 8) of the RFP states: “Each order placed will use the contract composite rate established for that ordering period. All subcontractor labor will be incorporated into the total composite labor rates established for CLIN 0001.” |
Would the Government please clarify how the contractor is expected to apply the composite rate at the task order level in the following scenarios:
1) When overtime labor is required.
2) When subcontractor or other labor costs exceed the established composite rate.
| Note B states that each order will be placed using the proposed and negotiated composite rate, inclusive of subcontractor labor. The contractor shall bill actual costs during execution which could exceed the composite rate. | | | |
| 16 | RFP | Pg 7, B-232-H004 | "B-232-H004 PAYMENTS OF FEE(S) (LEVEL OF EFFORT)--BASIC (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018)", "H-216-H001 LEVEL OF EFFORT--BASIC (NAVSEA) (NOV 2022)" and "B-216-H006 FEE TABLE (NAVSEA) (MARCH 2019)" are included in the solicitation. |
| B-232-H0004 and H-216-H0001 calculate fee and payment on percentage and these clauses conflict with B-216-H006 which converts the fee from a percentage to fee per man hour. Would the Government delete B-216-H006 to remove the conflicting clause? | B-216-H006 has been removed. | |
| 17 | RFP, Section B |
| Attachment J-12 | Pg 10, Note F | |
| We respectfully request the Government revise Attachment J-12 to align its small business subcontracting incentive threshold with the 30% goal stated in the solicitation. As written, J-12 requires offerors to achieve a 40% small business subcontracting level to earn the full 2% incentive fee, which is inconsistent with the overall objectives communicated in the RFP. | |
In accordance with FAR 19.705-4, subcontracting plans should reflect goals that are reasonably attainable through good faith efforts and consistent with acquisition objectives. Adjusting the incentive fee threshold to 30% would establish internal consistency within the solicitation, ensure a fair and equitable incentive structure for offerors, and promote robust small business participation without penalizing those who meet the stated expectations in the RFP. Attachment J-12 is correct. See Amendment 0001. --> The RFP has been revised to reflect the goal of 40%.
Attachment J-12 Table 5 has been updated for consistency to reflect 40% goal.
| 18 | RFP, Section B | | | |
| Attachment J-12 | Pg 10, Note F | | | | |
| CLIN 0001 utlizes specialized labor categories with advanced technical expertise, which significantly limits the pool of qualified small business vendors. In contrast, CLINs 0002 and 0003 present meaningful opportunities for small business participation and are integral to overall contract performance. Given the importance of subcontracting under these CLINs, will the Government consider including CLINs 0002 and 0003 in the calculation of small business subcontracting goal achievement? | No. The RFP is clear that the SBIF goal is spcifically for CLIN 0001 labor hours. | | | |
| 19 | RFP, section L | P. 105, para 2(a) | Reference: "Labor hour phasing by Contractual Year has been provided in Attachment L-3 and will be used for evaluation purposes only." And "Offers shall include the proposed labor hours for each Completion CLIN and must align with the Labor Hour Phasing by Contractual Year table provided in exhibit L-3. Offerors shall identify the proposed individual labor categories (ex: Junior, Mid, Senior, or Level 1, 2, 3 or I, II, III, IV) for each CLIN with the proposed number of labor hours for each labor category, in accordance with the technical effort provided in Section C." | |
| Please confirm that Offerors have the flexibility to adjust the number of hours per labor category, skill-level, and location as shown in Attachment L-3, tab "CLIN 0001_Labor Hours" as long as the total labor hours per year match the government's estimate. | Yes. | | | | |
| 20 | Attachment L-3 | CLIN 0001_Labor Hours tab, I110:N217 and W110:AB217 | Would government confirm that the locations SSNN and PMS 378 sites in Attachment L-3 should be "onsite", since currently that work is "offsite"? | Work is split between Newport News Shipyard and the Woodlake facility in Chesapeake. |
| 21 | Attachment L-3 | CLIN 0001 _ Labor Hours tab | Would the Government provide the qualifications for a Senior Program Manager and confirm that the position can be resumed as a Program Manager Key Personnel? | There is no separate qualifications for a senior program manager. This position can be included as a key personnel program manager. |
| 22 | RFP, Section M | | | |
| Attachment L-3 | Pg 92, Table L5 | | | | |
| CLIN 0001_Labor Hours tab | Table L1 and paragraph 3.5(d) on page 84 reference 17 key personnel resumes, while Tables L3 and L5 only list 14 key personnel. | | | | |
Are the additional three key personnel resumes intended to support the amphibious surface ship work added to the scope?
| If so, would the Government please clarify the key personnel categories for these three positions, and update Tables L3 and L5 to reflect all 17 key personnel? | Yes. See Amendment 0001. --> Table L1 and RFP have been updated to correct key personnel resumes to 14 in Section L. | | | |
| 23 | RFP, Section L | Pg 90. 3.5 Factor 1.5 | The solicitation requests certain information in paragraphs 1–4, while also referencing the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD), which contains similar elements outlined in paragraphs (a) through (d). |
Would the Government clarify whether the required information in paragraphs 1–4 should be incorporated directly into the SBPCD? Or should the Offeror provide a separate narrative response in addition to the SBPCD?
| If the Government’s intent is for paragraphs 1–4 to be incorporated into the SBPCD, does the Government plan to delete or revise the request for information in paragraphs 1 and 2 on page 90, given the apparent duplication with the SBPCD requirements? | Factor 1.5 states that the SBPCD is not limited to the items in paragraphs (a) through (d). Offerors may incorporate information responsive to paragraphs 1 - 4 in the SBPCD vice submitting a separate narrative. | | | | |
| 24 | RFP, Section L | Pg 83, 90. 3.5 Factor 1.5 | The solicitation specifies that Volume II should not include cost information. Given that, could the Government please confirm whether the intent is for the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) to reflect the extent of small business participation solely as a percentage of total effort? | Yes. |
| 25 | RFP, Section L | Pg 90. 3.5 Factor 1.5 | Paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) include an asterisk noting that the referenced documentation should not be submitted with the SBPCD. | |
| Could the contractor provide the documentation referenced in these paragraphs as an appendix to Volume II, instead? This would enable the Offeror to provide supporting materials without including them directly within the SBPCD itself. | Yes. See Amendment 0001. --> Language added to asterisk following Section L1.5(e). | | | |
| 26 | RFP, Section L | Pg 90. 3.5 Factor 1.5 | The solicitation requests evidence of the Offeror’s past performance in small business utilization, including examples such as Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) reports. |
| Would the Government please confirm whether the submission of up to three reports will be sufficient to satisfy this requirement? | There is not a specific number of reports required. | | | |
| 27 | RFP, Section L | page 90, 1.5 Small Busines Participation (d) AND page 110, Section 3.7.2, 5.0 instructions for Section 4.0 - Other Data | Reference: "(d) Provide evidence of its level of commitment, e.g. letters of intent, actual teaming agreements." |
To fulfill this requirement, would the Government confirm whether Offerors may submit Letters of Intent, or whether they may instead reference the actual Teaming Agreements that are required under Volume IV Cost, Section 3.7.2, subsection 5, rather than resubmitting them in Volume II?
| This clarification would help Offerors avoid redundancy while ensuring that the documentation meets the intent of Volume II (d). | It is sufficient to just reference the Teaming Agreements. | | | |
| 28 | RFP, Section L | Section L 3.6 Vol III, page 98-99 | Reference: All Offerors shall provide a list of contracts within the last three (3) years demonstrating that the Offeror has carried out the policy described in FAR 52.219-8, in awarding of subcontracts to small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. This list of contracts will be used solely to determine historical compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8 (Utilization of Small Concerns). |
| Question: May the Offeror submit the last the last three (3) years Summary Subcontracting Reports (SSR) to fulfill this requirement in lieu of the list of contracts? | Yes. | | | | |
| 29 | RFP Section L | Pg 94, L.3.5.2 Vol II Factor 2.0, (e ) Prior Technical Experience | Section L.3.5.2(e) requests offerors to demonstrate technical experience related to naval propulsion systems, auxiliary machinery, steam plant systems, and aviation systems associated with naval propulsion plants. Upon review of the ESU Statement of Work, these systems are not included within the scope of required support. For consistency within the solicitation and to avoid conflicting requirements recommend the Government either a) remove the requirement to demonstrate technical experience related to OR b) incorporate naval propulsion systems, auxiliary machinery, steam plant systems, and aviation systems associated with naval propulsion plants within the scope of the required support. | See Amendment 0001. -->Section L.3.5.2(e) has been revised to align with the SOW. |
| 30 | RFP Section L | Pgs 78, 3.1 Prop Overview, Table L1-Volume Descriptions, Factor 2 | May Offerors add "Surface Ship" to 2.4 so it reads: 2.4 Technical Maritime Based Aircraft Carrier and Surface Ship Work Experience? | Yes. See Amendment 0001. --> Table L1 Factor 2.4 has been updated to include "Surface Ship Work Experience." |
| 31 | RFP Section L | pg 85-87, 3.5.1 areas (a) though (k); Pgs 87-91, 3.5.1, 1.1 Approach through 1.6 Key Labor Category | Confirming that Offerors should decide where to address each of the 3.5.1 Areas (a)-(k) within subsections 1.1 - 1.6 using Offeror's best judgement of appropriate subsection? As an example, may offerors address Areas (c) - (e) in 1.5 Subcontracting Managment Plan? | |
| Yes. | | | | |
