Q&A RFP CEnIIC 14 February 2017.pdf

N00039-16-R-0024 Q and A's

14 February 2017

RFP

Page(s) RFP Reference(s) Question/Discussion Item Govt Responses

3 of 89, 78 of 89, and 86 of

Section B, CLINs 0003 and 0004, L- 329, and Section

M – Factor 4

In Section B, CLINs 0003 (Material) and 0004 (Travel) list “NTE” along with their Not to Exceed amounts. Section L- 329 lists the NTE amounts for each ordering year along with the statement that, “Additionally, these amounts do not include any provision for G&A expense or other loading factors”. However, in Section M – Factor 4: Cost/Price, the RFP states ODC costs, “… will be evaluated by using the Government provided estimates inclusive of any burden factors such as G&A, material handling, etc., as specified in the Cost Spreadsheets (Attachment 10) and Section L.”

Attachment 10 provides a cell for the material amount as well as cells/lines for G&A/burdens, but no indication as to whether the to use the NTE amount and add the Offeror’s burdens, or back into the NTE amount by adding G&A burdens first. Please clarify if the NTE amounts provided for the Travel and Material include any G&A/burdens.

Yes, the Travel and Material amounts set forth in clause L-329 include the G&A/burdens. Offerors are to propose the total NTE amounts which should include its indirect rates/burdens, see Amendment 0001.

2 35 of 89 52.222-42

The chart displayed in Section 52.222-42 shows the RFP Labor Category of the Drafter/CAD Operator III mapped to WD Title Drafter/CAD Operator III and SCA Number of 30064. The chart also shows the RFP Labor Category of the Drafter/CAD Operator IV mapped to WD Title Drafter/CAD Operator IV and SCA Number of 30063. The SCA/WD schedules provided lists the Drafter/CAD Operator III as SCA Number 30063 and the Drafter/CAD Operator IV as SCA Number 30064. Should the SCA Numbers displayed in the chart on Section 52.222-42 be reversed for those two labor categories?

Updated, see Amendment 0001.

3 60 of 89 L-317.6

With the exception of a cover sheet (see L-317.6.1), there is no mention of or accommodation made for standard proposal volume Front Matter (e.g., Table of Contents, Glossary of Acronyms, Proposal-to-RFP Cross Reference, etc.). Does the government desire these items in each proposal volume? If so, do they lie outside of any and all page limitations imposed?

No, the Government does not desire front matter items.

and 74 of

L-317.4.5 and Vol.

III, Section A

Section L-317.4.5 states a proposal validity period of 320 days, whereas on page 74, the validity period is specified as 365 days. Please clarify.

It should be 320, see Amendment 0001.

and 69 of

L-317.7, Subfactor 4 Small Business

Utilization, Factor 3

– Past

Performance and Attachment 9 –

Relevant Experience Form

For the Small Business Utilization response, Large Business Offerors are directed to provide copies of the two most recently submitted ISR reports for the past performance references provided in Factor 3. For Factor 3, Attachment 9, Block 14, item 14c directs the Offeror to “attach” the most recently submitted eSRS report for each past performance reference. This appears to be a duplicative requirement. If the Government requires identical reports to be provided in both sections, we ask that these reports, in the Past Performance section, not count against the page limit for this section.

Yes, ISRs are not part of the page count, see Amendment 0001.

6 69 of 89 L-317.7, Factor 3 – Past Performance

For past performance verification requiring submission of Attachment 8, how does the Government desire to be notified to anticipate submission to their office?

There is no requirement for notification of anticipated submission.

and 78 of

L-317.7, Factor 4 (Vol. III), paragraph

(b) (1) and L-328

The labor hour totals shown on page 71 do not match the labor hour totals displayed on page 78 (Section L-328) for any of the 5 Ordering Period(s)/Year(s). For example, the total for the 1st Ordering period on page 71 has 68,140 hours and the total on page 78 shows 68,144 hours. Please clarify.

Hours updated, see Amendment 0001.

and 81 of

Section L, Factor 4 (Vol. II), paragraph

(c) (5) and L-349

Paragraph (c) (5) states that subcontractors may submit their “Proprietary” data/cost proposal under a separate cover to the Contracting Officer. Section L-349 does not appear to state as to how Subcontractors are to submit/address their proposal electronically. Please clarify how subcontractors should address their proposals and note that they are a subcontractor.

All proposals from subcontractors or primes are to be submitted in accordance with L-

349. Prime's are expected to pass all instructions down to its subcontractors.

N00039-16-R-0024 Q and A's

14 February 2017

9 76 of 89 L-328

The table on page 76 shows for the Mobile, AL Area, “Overtime” hours (4) for the “Electronics Technician III” on the 1st Year Ordering Period, but does not list the “Engineering Technician III” labor category at all for any “Straight Time” hours. Is that correct and/or is it assumed that the Offeror will have employee(s)/personnel in the area working on another contract to fill that position in addition to their regular straight time work on that contract?

Incorrect, these hours should be in Straight Time, see Amendment 0001.

10 81 of 89 L-349

In the 16 December 2016 Response to Industry Questions, the Government confirmed submission of the IMS as a Microsoft Project File was acceptable. The final RFP, however, did not reflect this guidance. We recommend Offerors be allowed to provide the IMS in native format (rather than a PDF) to allow government evaluators the ability to manipulate the submitted IMS. This will ensure all of the schedule events, dependencies, and resources, can be performed as delineated and thus ensure the ability of the Offeror to manage complex customer requirements.

The Government provided in the response on 16 December 2016 that IMS in Microsoft Project File is acceptable.

11 73 and

Contracts Documents Section A

In Section L, Volume III, Contract Documents under Section A, pg. 73, within the title it reads Completed RFP Section B through K. However, on pg. 74, the RFP states that “The offeror’s proposal shall provide a completed RFP to include completed SF 33 and Sections B and K. Will the government clarify that only sections B & K are required in the submission?

The title of Section L, Volume III - Section A reads: 'Letter of Transmittal, Completed Standard Form (SF) 33, and Completed RFP Section B through K.' All these documents are required for submission. See Amendment 0001.

12 19 of 89 5252.209-9203 Organizational

Conflict of Interest

Will the government please consider modifying the language in 5252.209 to limit this requirement to the legal entity of the Offeror and its subcontractors? The compilation of the required data from all “affiliates” is a significant effort. We recommend that the requirement at the affiliate level be to certify an OCI does not exist, but not to list each contract, as currently required.

No, clause 5252.209-9203 applies.

13 65 of 89

L-317.7, Volume I, Factor 1, Subfactor

1.3 – Key Personnel

This section identifies “Platform Manager” as a key personnel labor category with a requirement for two.

However, “platform manager” is not included as a labor category in the breakout provided in section L-328 on pages 74 through 78. Please provide direction/ clarification.

See Amendment 0001.

14 65 of 89

L-317.7, Volume I, Factor 1, Subfactor

1.3 – Key Personnel

Would the government accept significant C4I systems and/or requisite military experience in lieu of specified degree requirements for all key personnel categories?

Recommend 15 years of experience to be equivalent to degree requirements specified. Such clarification allows Offerors to better understand how key personnel will be evaluated.

Key Personnel requirements are desired qualifications and the Government will consider collective experience IAW with Section M.

15 23 of 89 PWS, para 4.2.2

On page 23 of the Performance Work Statement, para 4.2.2, process reviews and audits are to be conducted in accordance with NAVSEA TS9090.310E. This document is the ALTERATIONS TO SHIPS ACCOMPLISHED BY

ALTERATION INSTALLATION TEAMSTECHNICAL

SPECIFICATION. Furthermore, this reference has been superseded twice and now is NAVSEA TS9090.310G. Can the government provide further guidance on what the appropriate reference for para 4.2.2 should be?

The PWS has been revised to state NAVSEA TS9090.310 as the appropriate reference, see Amendment 0001.

Is there an incumbent?

Yes, Scientific Research Corporation

17 Is this a follow-on? Yes.

Question: Reference A states that all dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest dollar while the formatting in reference B that offerors need to complete displays cents on most cells with no rounding formula/format. Is reference a referring to only rounding of the amounts in Section B or do offerors also need to round to the nearest whole dollar (excluding hourly labor/indirect rates) also in completing Attachment 10?

Item 7 – The total amounts proposed in Section B shall be the same as the total amounts in Attachment 10.

Sheet1