L-4_Questions_and_Answers_09.25.14.pdf

L-4 Questions and Answers (Q&A)

Question 1: Will the Government sponsor a facility clearance if the offeror does not have a facility clearance.

Response 1: No, the Government will not sponsor a facility clearance. A Secret facility clearance is required at the time of contract award.

Question 2: We previously had a facility clearance but our firm no longer has it. Can we still bid on the contract?

Response 2: Yes, your firm may bid on the contract. However, a Secret facility clearance is required at the time of contract award.

Question 3: For page 83, M-2.8 Evaluation Factor 5: Corporate Experience, it states that “key technical areas, including SAP work, Navy ERP work, and supporting a Navy ERP Business Office over approximately the last three years” is not relevant to the key technical areas within the statement of work for this RFP. Additionally, it does not appear to correlate to L-6.3.7 Section VI: Corporate Experience that states “key technical areas, understanding of the SOW and financial policy; understanding of Navy organization, systems and interfaces; technical and schedule risk/transition plan; and hosting/storage of applications, over approximately the last three years.”

Would the government consider removing the “including SAP work, Navy ERP work, and supporting a Navy ERP Business Office over approximately the last three years” language as follows for M-2.8: “Corporate Experience will be evaluated to determine the extent the offeror and subcontractor(s) (if any) have current corporate experience with programs of a similar nature and size to the proposed effort. The evaluation will consider the type, complexity, and depth of the offeror’s and subcontractor’s corporate experience with respect to key technical areas.”

Response 3: Yes. There was an inconsistency in the RFP between L-6.3.7 and M-2.8. M-2.8 has been updated to reflect the language in L-6.3.7. See Amendment 0001 for updated language to the solicitation. M-2.8 now reads:

M-2.8 Evaluation Factor 5: Corporate Experience. Corporate experience will be evaluated to determine the level to which the offeror and subcontractor(s) (if any) have current corporate experience with programs of a similar nature and size to the proposed effort. The evaluation will consider the type, complexity, and depth of the offeror’s and subcontractor’s corporate experience with respect to key technical areas, understanding of the SOW and financial policy;

understanding of Navy organization, systems and interfaces; technical and schedule risk/transition plan; and hosting/storage of applications, over approximately the last three years.

Question 4: Table L-5.2 on page 71 indicate that Volume II Technical has a 40 page limit, not including resumes, or pages listed under Section L-3.10. However, the Attachment L-1 Past Performance Information (PPI) sheet included in the 40 page limit? In the template provided, a completed PPI would be approximately 3 pages in length and as such, for five past performances references required would be approximately 15 pages for solely the PPI responses. Would the government consider removing the PPI from the page count?

Response 4: Yes. Past Performance Information responses are now excluded from the 40-page limit. Resumes are also excluded from the 40-page limit; however, resumes are limited to no more than 20 pages combined. See Amendment 0001 for updated language to the solicitation.

Question 5: Due to the information requested in Table L-5.2 and Section I – Section V, would the government consider increasing the page limit for the Volume II Technical?

Response 5: No, however, see Response 4.

Question 6: Per M-1.3, Mandatory Factors: “Offeror must have Oracle 11G software and license to support, maintain and modify the UK Monthly Expenditure Application (UKME) and Automated Budgeting Cashflow (ABC) at time of contract award.”

This requirement is extremely unusual for an 8(a) firm to be able to fulfill and thereby greatly restricts the competition. Although we have outstanding qualifications for this solicitation, we are being forced to base our decision as to bid/no-bid solely on this one sentence. Recommend the government remove the sentence in its entirety or add language to permit this mandatory requirement to be filled by the prime or subcontractor, not necessarily the prime.

Response 6: The prime contractor, subcontractor, or both may hold the license. The license is a requirement for operating the UKME and ABC applications. No update is necessary to the solicitation.

Question 7: Can this proposal be submitted electronically?

Response 7: No, proposals may not be submitted electronically. Please see paragraphs L-3.5, L- 3.6, and L-3.6.1 under Section L for proposal submission instructions.

Question 8: Can this requirement be facilitated as a SBA 8(a) set-aside?

Response 8: This procurement is already set-aside for an 8(a) competition. Please see provision 252.219-7010, Section 8(a) Direct Award, Alternate A under Section L.

Question 9: Does the Department of the Navy have the requisition in-house for this particular solicitation (Number N00030-15-R-0201)?

Response 9: The question is unclear. Please clarify your question.

Question 10: Is this the first issue of this solicitation? Is this a re-compete of an existing Department of the Navy requirement or a new requirement?

Response 10: Yes, this is the first issuance of this solicitation. This requirement is follow-on for N00030-10-C-0012 and is not a new requirement.

Question 11: Who was the incumbent provider for this effort?

Response 11: The incumbent is SPRY Methods. As SPRY Methods has graduated from the 8(a) Business Development Program, it is no longer eligible to compete as the prime contractor for this effort.

Question 12: Has Department of the Navy held preliminary meetings with specific contractors interested in responding to this solicitation?

Response 12: No.

Question 13: Is it estimated that full funding exists for this solicitation? If so, is there an intended funding threshold and what is the minimum for this threshold?

Response 13: Yes, it is estimated that full funding will be obtained by SSP for this requirement.

The Government budget will not be provided.

Question 14: Is this requirement on schedule to execute a contract with the selected vendor doing the current fiscal period?

Response 14: No. This requirement is estimated to be awarded in FY15.

Question 15: Is there a prescribed procedure for technical evaluation on this solicitation? If so, can you describe procedures?

Response 15: Yes, prescribed procedures for technical evaluation are described in the solicitation under Section M.

Question 16: Can you assist us by sending a copy of the solicitation, as we have had difficulty downloading the documents?

Response 16: The documents are available for download on FBO.gov.

Question 17: Section L-3.3 provides: “To be eligible for award, the offeror shall meet the following mandatory security requirements at the time of award: a. Have a SECRET facility clearance at the time of contract award.” Section L-3.3 provides that the “offeror” must have a Secret facility clearance at the time of contract award. Similar language is incorporated in Section M-1.3.

Please confirm that for joint ventures, an offeror complies with this requirement if the managing member of the joint venture has a Secret facility clearance at the time of contract award and revise the RFP to reflect this clarification.

Response 17: Yes, an offeror complies with this requirement if the managing member of the joint venture has a Secret facility clearance at the time of contract award. No update to the solicitation is necessary.

Question 18: Section L-6.3.6 provides as follows with regard to Past Performance Information (PPI): “A maximum of five PPIs may be submitted for the entire team. The team consists of the prime offeror and its proposed subcontractors (including partnerships and/or joint ventures). The PPI can reflect experience at either the prime contractor or subcontractor level. A minimum of three PPIs should be submitted for the prime offeror.” With regard to the last sentence of this section, it is unclear whether the “prime offeror” also includes members of a joint venture, if the joint venture is the prime contractor.

Please revise Section L-6.3.6 of the RFP to clarify that the term “offeror” for joint ventures includes the members of the joint venture and revise sentence on PPI submissions as follows: “A minimum of three PPIs should be submitted for the prime offeror, which includes for joint venture prime offerors, PPIs of the members of the joint venture.”

Response 18: The term “offeror” for joint ventures includes members of the joint venture. No update to the solicitation is necessary. See FAR Subpart 9.6.

Question 19: Section M-2.7 refers only to the past performance of the “offeror.” Please clarify in the RFP that the term “offeror” includes, for joint ventures, members of the joint venture.

Response 19: The term “offeror” for joint ventures includes members of the joint venture. No

Question 20: Section L-6.3.7 provides as follows with regard to Corporate Experience: “The offeror and subcontractor(s) (if any) current corporate experience with programs of a similar nature and size to the proposed effort.”

In order to clarify that this includes corporate experience of the members of a joint venture, please revise this sentence as follows: The offeror (including, if the offeror is a joint venture, the members of the joint venture) and subcontractor(s) (if any) current corporate experience with programs of a similar nature and size to the proposed effort.

Response 20: The term “offeror” for joint ventures includes members of the joint venture. No

Question 21: Similarly, Section M-2.8 refers to corporate experience of the “offeror and subcontractor(s) (if any).” Please clarify in the RFP that the term “offeror” includes, for joint ventures, members of the joint venture.

Response 21: The term “offeror” for joint ventures includes members of the joint venture. No

Question 22: Section M-1.3(3) provides that “Offeror must have Oracle 11G software and license to support, maintain and modify the UK Monthly Expenditure Application (UKME) and Automated Budgeting Cashflow (ABC) at time of contract award.”

Please clarify in the RFP that the in the case of joint ventures, the license may be held by one or both of the joint venture members.

Response 22: The license, in the case of joint ventures, may be held by one or both members of the joint venture. Please also refer to Response 6.

Question 23: Per paragraph L-6.3.4 under Section L, does the government anticipate a transition period from the incumbent contractor to the new contractor? If so, how many days does the government anticipate allowing for the transition?

Response 23: Yes, the Government anticipates a 45 day transition period.

Question 24: Per Section H, Earned Value Management System Requirements (Nov 2013), SSP 5252.234-9751, it is our understanding that the Earned Value Management System Requirements do not apply to this RFP as it is a Firm Fixed Price contract. Will the government confirm that this understanding is correct?

Response 24: Yes, your understanding is correct. EVMS does not apply to this requirement because it is a Firm-Fixed-Price, Level-of-Effort (FFP-LOE) contract. However, the apparently successor offeror must still comply with the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) posted with the original solicitation. Many clauses included in this solicitation are self-deleting when they do not apply.

Question 25: Per Section H, International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) Compliance for the Export of Defense Services (Jul 2014), SSP 5252.225-9751, it is our understanding that the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) do not apply to this RFP based on the nature of the services to be provided. Will the government confirm that this understanding is correct?

Response 25: Yes, your understanding is correct. ITAR does not apply to this solicitation. Many clauses included in this solicitation are self-deleting when they do not apply.

Question 26: Per paragraph L-5.10 under Section L, the table provided on page 71 indicates that Section VII should be titled "Subcontracting Plan", but the criteria on page 76 indicate that Section VII should be titled "Solicitation". Please clarfiy which requirement is correct.

Response 26: You are correct, there is an inconsistency. Table 5.2, Volume I on page 71 shows Section VII is labelled “Subcontracting Plan (if any), but paragraph L-5.10 on page 76 shows Section VII is labelled “Solicitation”.

Table 5-2 is the correct requirement. The RFP has been updated to correct this issue. Please see Amendment 0002 for this update.

Question 27: Per paragraph L-5.11 under Section L, the table provided on page 71 indicates that Section VIII should be titled "Solicitation", but the criteria on page 76 indicate that Section VIII should be titled "Other Information". Please clarfiy which requirement is correct.

Response 27: You are correct, there is an inconsistency.. Table 5.2, Volume I on page 71 shows Section VIII should be labelled “Solicitation”, but Paragraph L-5.11 on page 76 shows that Section VIII should be labelled “Other Information”

Question 28: Per Section IX: Use of Existing Government Property under Section L, the table provided on page 71 indicates that Section IX should be titled "Other Information" but the criteria on page 76 indicate that Section IX should be titled "Use of Existing Government Property". Please clarfiy which requirement is correct.

Response 28: You are correct, there is an inconsistency.. Table 5.2, Volume I on page 71 shows that Section IX should be labelled “Other Information”, but paragraph L-5.8 shows that Section IX should be labelled “Use of Existing Government Property”.

Question 29: Per paragraph L-5.2, there do not appear to be specific criteria in Section L.5 for the Subcontracting Plan. Will the government please provide proposal content criteria for the Subcontracting Plan?

Response 29: You are correct, there is no specific criteria provided for the subcontracting plan.

Any proposed subcontracting plan must comply with FAR Subpart 19.7, the Small Business Subcontracting Program and any DFARS and NMCARS supplements for FAR Subpart 19.7.

Criteria for proposed subcontracting plans is available at FAR 19.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements.

Question 30: Is there potential for the dedicated office space for on-site contractor personnel to increase from four (4) as cited in the Section F-2.1 to provide surge support as needed?

Response 30: No, there is no potential for dedicated office space for on-site contractor personnel to increase from four (4) as cited in Section F-2, paragraph 1.

Question 31: Will the government confirm that the Letters of Commitment to be signed by all personnel as required in Section L-6.3.3 are also exempt from the page limit for Volume II?

Response 31: Yes. Please see Amendment 0003 permitting letters of commitment to count as excepted pages.

Question 32: Per Section L-3.10, resumes are exempt from the page count for Volume II (but are themselves limited to 20 pages). However, RFP section L-6.3.3 requires that Section II Personnel of Volume II include the resumes and letters of commitment. Would the government consider allowing the resumes and letters of commitment to be placed in an appendix to avoid gaps in page numbering within the Volume?

Response 32: No.

Question 33: Per Section L-3.10, past performances and consent letters are exempt from the page count for Volume II. However, RFP section L-6.3.6 requires that Section V Past Performance of Volume II include the past performances and the consent letters. Would the government consider allowing the past peformances and consent letters to be placed in an appendix to avoid gaps in page numbering within the Volume?

Response 33: No.

Question 34: Section L-6.3.6 allows the offeror to incorporate information provided in the Corporate Experience section by reference in the Past Performance Section. However, Table L.5.2 in Section L.-3.8 perscribes the Volume II content and states that Corporate Experience (Section VI) should be placed after Past Performance (Section V). Additionally, much of the contractual data required in the Corporate Experience Section (e.g., contracting agency, contract type, dollar value) is required in the Past Performance Section. Would the government consider changing Section L-6.3.6 to allow the offeror to reference information from the Past Peformance section in the Corporate Experience section (versus the reverse as currently outlined in the RFP)?

Response 34: No.