Q&A Draft RFP CEnIIC 16 December 2016.pdf

CEnIIC Draft RFP Q&A N00039-16-R-0024 16 December 2016

1. Industry Day Discussion

a. Given the emphasis on Testing during Industry Day, will the government increase the relative importance of Subfactor 2.2 (Production and Integration) to be equivalent to Subfactor 1.2 (Sample Management Task)?

b. Given the emphasis on Configuration Management during Industry Day, will the government increase the relative importance of Subfactor 2.1 (Systems Engineering) to be equivalent to Subfactor 1.2 (Sample Management Task)?

ANSWER:

a. No, the weightings were developed after careful consideration, reflect the needs of the Government, and will remain as stated.

b. No, the weightings were developed after careful consideration, reflect the needs of the Government, and will remain as stated.

2. Section L - Key Personnel

The degree requirement for Platform Managers and other Key Personnel excludes career veterans by discounting their experience while serving and after separation. Veterans with training and experience in applicable NECs should qualify for these positions by using experience in lieu of the degree requirements.

Will the government accept an increased amount of specific C5I experience in lieu of the BS degree requirement for the Platform Managers and other Key Personnel?

ANSWER: Key Personnel requirements are desired qualifications and the words “shall meet” have been removed from the final RFP.

3. Contingent SCA Hiring

Staffing Plan. Section M "The Government will consider the number of current and contingent employees in the staffing plan in assessing risk to successful performance.“

Executive Order 13495 requires the successful bidder to offer first right of refusal to incumbent SCA workforce. These factors preclude us from completing the staffing matrix with named personnel.

We request the government remove the requirement for naming SCA personnel from Section M.

ANSWER: The Government considers the number of named personnel; however if an offeror does not have named personnel then the offeror may propose TBD. The solicitation language remains.

4. Proposal Format, Section L 317.6, Submission of Paper, Item 2, Format

Given the large number of PWS requirements (~66 in Factor 1, Subfactor 1 and ~260 in Factor 2) to be addressed in Volume 1, we request that use of 11x17 foldouts be permitted. The PWS requirements when converted to the format required by Section L occupy 16 pages. 20 pages allows only 25% more space to respond to each requirement than the space required for the requirements themselves. Without these changes it may not be possible to address all Section L and PWS requirements to the degree needed for compliance.

Will the government allow 11x17 pages or increase the page count, of Volume 1, by 5 pages to increase the readability for evaluators and ensure increased competition?

ANSWER: Yes, 11x17 are allowed; however they will be considered as two pages towards the page count, and should be marked as two pages (e.g. pg. I-1-1/2). It is up to the Offeror whether they restate the requirements; however the requirements do not need to be restated. Only electronic submissions are accepted.

5. Format Requirements for Resumes, RFP Attachment 11, Resume Format; L-317.6, 2, Format.

All embedded text in the Resume Format template is TNR 10 point, other than the title.

Should our response in the resume templates conform to the existing font size, or does the 12 point font size of L-317.6, 2, govern. Alternatively, should this template be treated as narrative, or a table?

ANSWER: TNR 12 point font should be used.

6. Staffing Plan and IMS as 11” x 17”, L-317.6 SUBMISSION OF PAPER - 2. Format: The proposal shall be on 8 1/2" × 11" with single-spaced typed lines, including figures, glossaries, table of contents, and cover sheets.

To increase the readability of the sections during the evaluation, will the government allow the Staffing Plan and the IMS in Subfactor 1.2 (which are not page limited) be submitted on 11” x 17”?

ANSWER: Yes, see answer to Q4.

7. Microsoft Project Submittal, Section L – Sample Task: The Offeror shall develop and provide a single Integrated Master Schedule in MS Project that incorporates the notional schedules for all five platforms and eleven Task Orders.

L-349 SUBMISSION OF ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS (SEP 2003)

Offerors shall submit their proposals electronically to SPAWAR under the instructions contained in this provision. Offerors shall submit their signed proposals as either scanned (“TIFF”) or “PDF” documents.

Section L - Key Personnel

To allow the details of the schedule be evaluated in its native format, will the government confirm that the IMS in Subfactor 1.2 will be submitted as a Microsoft Project File?

ANSWER: Yes.

8 Organizational Conflict of Interest, Section H – Special Contract Requirements 5252.209-9203

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ACCESS TO PROPRIETARY INFORMATION) (DEC

1999) Specifically-

(1) ALL OFFERORS SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING, REGARDLESS OF POTENTIAL OCI

DETERMINATION: Offerors shall identify and describe any contractual efforts they or any affiliate, joint venture or subcontractor are presently providing to PEO C41, SPAWAR, SPAWAR System Center (SSC) Atlantic, SSC Pacific, or any other activity where the effort relates to PMW 760 programs.

Offeror shall include name of contractor, joint venture, affiliate, or subcontractor; the contracting agency; contract number; a short description of the work; and whether the offeror believes that the listed efforts result in a potential OCI for this solicitation. The offeror shall specifically address why it believes no OCI exists (if applicable).

Would the government confirm that section (1) of the OCI DFAR clause (5252.209-9203) is limited to the offeror’s legal entity that is submitting the bid?

9 ANSWER: The Organizational Conflict of Interest (access to proprietary information) (DEC 1999), 5252.209-9203, speaks for itself.

9. L-317.7, F1, SF1.3 Key Personnel, Program Manager "Key Personnel Requirement: Program Manager Education Requirements with years of experience.

The Key Personnel Qualifications, as written in the DRFP appears to limit bidders from presenting Program Manager candidates who have helped shape major relevant-programs within the C4ISR community, and who succeed as leaders from within government or private industry, and yet who may have elected to forgo graduate studies in lieu of pursuing professional achievements -- to include the advancement of their major C4I projects and programs.

In contrast to the DRFP requirement, it is noted that the government Program Manager position IAW the Defense Acquisition University (DAU), which states they shall possess BA/BS degrees, while MA/MS degrees are only preferred. " It is recommended that the RFP requirement be revised to state that PM candidates "shall have" BA or BS degrees in Business, Computer Science, Engineering, Math or Physics, and "desired" MA/MS degrees.

ANSWER: See answer to Q2.

10. L-317.7, Factor 3 Past Performance "Limit of three Past Performance Citations Allowed:

The Draft RFP limits the total Relevant Experience Forms for both prime and/or significant subcontractors to (3) three of the most current and relevant contracts.

Offeror teams could demonstrate experience with greater depth and breadth of relevant contract experience, given the option to submit a few more past performance examples." "It is requested that the government allow a maximum of five Relevant Experience Forms to be submitted.”

Because the material/ODC plug-number is not representative of the workscope, it is requested that the government change the definition of significant subcontractor, which is defined as subcontractor whose proposed cost is greater than 10% of the total of prime contractor’s cost to ""significant subcontractor is defined as whose proposed cost greater than 10% of the total of prime contractor’s labor cost"" (not the total cost).”

ANSWER: No, the Offeror shall submit three (3) of the most current and relevant contracts for Past Performance evaluation. No, the definition of significant subcontractor remains.

11. L-328 ESTIMATED LEVEL OF EFFORT (DEC 1999) N/A - Labor Table Summary Hours - Do not Total Correctly. It's requested that the hour summaries be reviewed.

ANSWER: See Final RFP for corrected Labor Table.

12. Attachment 10, Tab Summary, Row 4 Formula Error Please review the formulas found in row 4.

ANSWER: See Final RFP for corrected Attachment 10.

13. 5252.209-9203 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ACCESS TO PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION) (DEC 1999); Para d)1 "OCI Clause Applicable to Subcontractor (Teammates)

(1) ALL OFFERORS SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING, REGARDLESS OF POTENTIAL OCI

DETERMINATION: Offerors shall identify and describe any contractual efforts they or any affiliate, joint venture or subcontractor are presently providing to PEO C41, SPAWAR, SPAWAR System Center (SSC) Atlantic, SSC Pacific, or any other activity where the effort relates to PMW 760 programs."

Request that the government remove this requirement for subcontractors (teammates).

ANSWER: See Answer for Q8.

14. Sec B, CLINs 0003 and 0004 Materials/Travel "No Fee Applicable to Material/ODC/Travel:

Would the government consider changing these CLINs from cost-only, to CPFF with a nominal (capped) fee percentage? The Material/ODC/Travel CLINs constitute a significant portion of the total contract value which is currently non-fee bearing and reduces the contractor's overall profit margins. If the Gov't estimate is underestimated and the actual Material/ODC/Travel cost exceeds the Gov't estimate, the margin issue is further degraded. "

ANSWER: CLIN 0003 Material and CLIN 0004 Travel will remain cost-only.

15. L-317.7, F1, SF1.2 Subfactor 1.2: Sample Management Scenario "PWS 3.2.6 TIF Design Products Section Referenced within the Sample Management Scenario Phase II. Some of the work included within PWS 3.2.6 TIF Design Products would appear to be addressed in 'Phase 1: Design and Engineering' of Table 2 on page 66 of 90: Task Order PWS Requirements, as it naturally occurs there as part of the overall engineering. " "It is recommended that PWS sections 3.2.6.1 through 3.2.6.6, TIF Design Products development are moved within Phase 1 Design and Engineering of Table 2: Task Order Award Schedule for the Sample Management Scenario. Or, should the contractor assume that the design products associated with PWS sections 3.2.6.1 through 3.2.6.6 are furnished as GFI as part of the Sample Management Scenario? "

ANSWER: No, PWS section 3.2.6 TIF Design Products will remain in Task Order Phase II ‘Material Procurement and TIF’. The Contractor should not assume the Design Products associated with PWS Paragraphs 3.2.6.1 through 3.2.6.6 are furnished as GFI.

16. L-317.7, F1, SF1.2 Subfactor 1.2: Sample Management Scenario "PWS 3.4.1 – 3.4.3 Development of Test Procedures and 3.4.7 Environmental Testing Sections are not Explicitly Referenced within the Sample Management Scenario. The work included within PWS 3.4.1 - 3.4.3 would appear to be addressed in 'Phase 1: Design and Engineering' of Table 2: Task Order PWS Requirements, as it normally occurs there as part of the overall engineering. The associated man hours needed to perform this tasking may not be appropriately captured within the Attachment 12 labor-hour estimates, if these PWS sections are not included within Phase 1 of the Sample Management Scenario." "It is recommended that PWS sections 3.4.1 through 3.4.3, (Platform Test Plans/ Test Procedures/ Test Documents) and 3.4.7 Environmental Testing be included within Phase 1 Design and Engineering of Table 2: Task Order Award Schedule for the Sample Management Scenario. Please clarify whether the Test Documentation referenced in PWS 3.4.3 is provided to the contractor as GFI. "

ANSWER: PWS Paragraphs 3.4.1 Platform Test Plans. and 3.4.2 Test Procedures are added to Table 2 in the Sample Management Scenario under Task Order Phase II ‘Material Procurement and TIF’ in the final RFP. PWS Section 3.4.7 Environmental Testing will not be included in the Sample Management Scenario.

17. L-317.7, F1, SF1.2 Subfactor 1.2: Sample Management Scenario "PWS 3.4.6 Test Equipment Section not Explicitly Referenced throughout all Sample Management Scenario Phases. The Provision of General Purpose Electronic Test Equipment (GPTE) would appear to normally occur across all three Sample Management Scenario Phases as part of the overall engineering, but it does not. In its absence, the associated equipment logistics-work may not be appropriately reflected in bidder labor-hour estimates for Attachment 12. " "It is recommended that PWS section 3.4.6 be annotated within Table 2 of the Sample Management Scenario to reflect its application across all three Phases to address the identification, acquisition, and management of the required General Purpose Electronic Test Equipment."

ANSWER: PWS Paragraph 3.4.6 Test Equipment is added to all three Phases in Table 2 of the Sample Management Scenario in the final RFP.

18. Subfactor 1.2: Sample Management Scenario "PWS 3.5.3 - 3.5.6 Equipment Integration Sections not Explicitly Referenced within Phase 2, and also inadvertently referenced within 'Phase 3 Shipboard Integration' of the Sample Management Scenario. Equipment Integration tasking (PWS 3.5.3) would appear to normally occur within 'Phase 2 Material Procurement and TIF' as part of inter/intra rack integration that takes place in the TIF, as opposed to Phase 3 Shipboard Integration onboard ship- as it is currently referenced. As written, the applicable task-work may not be accurately reflected in bidder labor-hour estimates proposed within Attachment 12." "It is recommended that PWS sections 3.5.3 through 3.5.6 are included within Phase 2 of the Sample Management Scenario. It is also recommended that the PWS 3.5.3 reference should be removed from 'Phase 3 Shipboard Integration'."

ANSWER: PWS Paragraph 3.5.3 Equipment Integration is added to Table 2 in the Sample Management Scenario under Task Order Phase II ‘Material Procurement and TIF’ in the final RFP, however is NOT removed from Phase III ‘Shipboard Integration’ as there is still integration work required onboard the ship. PWS Paragraph 3.5.6 TIF Completion Report is added to Table 2 in the Sample Management Scenario under Task Order Phase II ‘Material Procurement and TIF’ in the final

RFP.

19. L-317.7, F1, SF1.2 Subfactor 1.2: Sample Management Scenario "PWS 4.3 Platform Logistics Support Section not Referenced within the Sample Management Scenario. Platform Logistics Support work appears to be unevenly applied across Table 2 of the Sample Management Scenario. As written, the corresponding logistics work may not be accurately reflected in Attachment 12 bidder labor-hour estimates. " It is recommended that the government amend the RFP to include PWS 4.3 in every Sample Management Scenario Phase, as logistics support is required throughout the entire design/integration/installation process.

ANSWER: PWS Section 4.3 Platform Logistics Support is included in all three Phases in Table 2 of the Sample Management Scenario in the final RFP.

20. L-317.6 Submission of Paper "Provision for 11x17 Foldouts in the Proposal. The Draft RFP requirements could be best addressed through a combination of text and large graphic illustrations that fully explain bidder approaches and abilities applicable to Factors 1 and Factor 2. A single F-size drawing would provide sufficient space to present a comprehensive bidder response; however, smaller and more screen-legible print sizes offer an easy-to-evaluate alternative." It is requested that the Final

RFP allow for a maximum of ten 11x17 foldouts to be used in the Technical Volume; five foldouts for Factors 1 Management Approach, and five foldouts for Factor 2 Technical Approach.

ANSWER: See Answer to Q4.