Q&A RFP CEnIIC 28 February 2017.pdf

N00039-16-R-0024

RFP Q&A

28 February 2017

1. Question: Page 61 of the RFP, L-317-4.5 Validity of Proposals, requires a validity period of 320 days. Page 74, VOLUME III-SECTION A (7) requires a validity period of 365 days. Which is correct?

Answer: See RFP Q&A dated 14 February 2017 #4.

2. Question: Would the Government consider replacing 5252.209-9203 ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ACCESS TO PROPRIETARY INFORMATION) (DEC 1999) with current version, as listed below?

5252.209-9203 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ACCESS TO PROPRIETARY INFORMATION) (DEC 1999)

(a) This contract provides for the Contractor to provide technical evaluation and/or advisory and assistance services in support of [Contracting officer insert system or program]. The parties recognize that by the Contractor providing this support a potential conflict of interest arises as described by FAR 9.505-3 and FAR 9.505-4.

(b) For the purpose of this clause, the term “contractor” means the contractor, its subsidiaries and affiliates, joint ventures involving the contractor, any entity with which the contractor may hereafter merge or affiliate, and any other successor or assignee of the contractor.

(c) The Contractor agrees to execute agreements with companies furnishing proprietary data in connection with work performed under this contract, which obligates the Contractor to protect such data from unauthorized use or disclosure so long as such data remains proprietary, and to furnish copies of such agreements to the Contracting Officer. The Contractor further agrees that such proprietary data shall not be used in performing additional work for the Department of Defense in the same field as work performed under this contract whether as a prime, consultant or subcontractor at any tier.

(d) The contractor shall, within 15 days after the effective date of this contract, provide, in writing, to the Contracting Officer, a representation that all employees, agents and subcontractors involved in the performance of this contract have been informed of the provisions of this clause. Any subcontractor that performs any work relative to this contract shall be subject to this clause. The contractor agrees to place in each subcontract affected by these provisions the necessary language contained in this clause.

(e) The Contractor further agrees that it will not perform technical evaluations as described in the SOW for any product it has designed, developed, or manufactured in whole or in part. The Contractor further agrees to notify the Contracting Officer should it be tasked to conduct such technical evaluations on such products and to take no action unless directed to do so by the Contracting Officer.

(f) The Contractor acknowledges the full force and effect of this clause. It agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions and understands that violation of this clause may, in the judgment of the Contracting Officer, be cause for Termination for Default under FAR 52.249-6. The Contractor also acknowledges that this does not represent the sole and exclusive remedy available to the government in the event the Contractor breaches this or any other Organizational Conflict of Interest clause.

(End of clause) Answer: No, because this clause leaves it up to the contractor to determine an OCI. The Government needs to make that determination and the only way we can do that is for offerors to submit all its contractual efforts in accordance with the existing clause in the RFP.

3. Page 60 of 89, L-317.6, Following up the Government’s answer to Question #3:

(a) RFP section L-317.4.2 states, “the offeror shall indicate that the proposal is in compliance with each requirement of the RFP and shall explain how compliance is achieved.” The easiest way to do this is via a Proposal-to-RFP Cross Reference Matrix, included in the front of each proposal volume. Will the Government allow offerors to include this matrix in each proposal volume without counting it against any volume page limits?

Answer: If a matrix is included it will count against the volume page limits.

(b) RFP Section L-317.6, sub 2 states, “The volumes shall contain a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms used and an explanation of each.” Can the Glossary be provided in each volume as an Appendix and not count against the volume page limit?

Answer: If a glossary is included it will count against the page volume limits.

4. Page 69 of 89, Vol I, Factor 3 Past Performance. Will the government confirm the following for instances of commercial Past Performance References: The offeror is to provide POC information for the commercial contact being referenced on Attachment 9 and if required, the government will request Past Performance data or additional information (attachment 08) from the commercial POC.

Answer: If the Offeror cannot provide a completed Attachment 9, then the Government may contact the POC referenced to obtain relevant information. However, there is no guarantee that we will receive a response and in that instance may be considered Neutral Confidence for that reference.

5. RFP paragraph 1.2.2 requires the Contractor to establish, within 45 days of contract award, support facilities at designated shipyard locations “capable of meeting security requirements for storage and safeguarding of classified information … and/or storage space to support normal operations…” Further, paragraph 1.2.3 (Industrial/Warehouse Facilities) stipulates, “… Additional warehouse space may be required due to the recent change from traditional delivery to the shipbuilder’s warehouse to just-in-time delivery directly to the ship.” Respectfully request, the Government provide a more specific estimate of the additional shipyard location storage and warehouse facilities that may be required to support performance under the CEnIIC contract?

Answer: The location and size of storage and warehouse space to the shipyard locations will be determined after contract award as each task order requirements are known.

6. PWS Paragraph 1.2.1 lists Norfolk, VA as an anticipate shipyard/place of performance. Section L- 328, Estimated Level of Effort does not identify labor hours for Norfolk, VA. Respectfully request, the Government confirm Norfolk, VA as an anticipated place of performance and provide clarification.

Answer: Norfolk, VA is not a Place of Performance and is removed from PWS. See Amendment 0002.

7. PWS Paragraph 3.1.1 stipulates that “The Contractor [Systems Engineering Management Plan] SEMP shall be available to the Government upon request, and the Contractor shall notify the Government when changes have been made.” The SEMP should reflect and address the overarching requirements captured in the Program Systems Engineering Plan (SEP). Does the Government have and will the Government share with potential offerors the most current version of the PEO C4I Ship Integration Program SEP?

Answer: The Government will not be providing a SEP.

8. Per RFP page 14 of 89 Section F, Delivery Date states N/A. Respectfully request, the Government clarifies the Period of Performance of each Ordering Period in Section F.

Answer: Refer to Section B, five year ordering period.

9. Please note, that the SCA-WD provided in the RFP SCA-WD Attachments 4-1 through 4-7 are not the most current. Respectfully request, the Government provide the most recent SCA-WD Attachments 4-1 through 4-7.

Answer: The most current SCA-WD will be incorporated into the contract at the time of award.

10. In Section L, paragraph L-317.7 (on page 5 of the Amendment 0001 to the RFP) offerors are limited to 20 pages for their response to Factor 2 (Technical Approach.) With 41 “3-digit” subparagraphs in PWS paragraphs 3.1 through 3.5 (i.e., 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, etc.), the 20-page limit equates to an average of less than one-half page per “3-digit” subparagraph for an offeror to “be specific in demonstrating…innovative engineering solutions” and to demonstrate “knowledge, development, and use of platform test and integration plans, procedures, equipment, and documentation” to answer the CEnIIC requirements. As such, respectfully request the Government modify the Factor 2 page limit to allow one (1) page for each of the 41 “3-digit” subparagraphs that need to be addressed in offerors’ Factor 2 response.

Answer: The Government has reviewed this again and will allow 5 additional pages in Factor 2.

See Amendment 0002.

11. L.Vol1, F1, 1.1 "Program Management/ Execution Plan; Facilities and Operations (PWS Subparagraph 1.2.3)" "Apparent mistaken reference to Facilities: This requirement calls for the offeror to respond to Facilities that reference PWS 1.2.3 Industrial/Warehousing Facility, however, it does not reference PWS 1.2.2 Facilities and Operations." Clarify whether the government would like bidders to respond to both PWS 1.2.2 Facilities and PWS 1.2.3 Industrial/Warehousing Facility requirements.

Answer: Both, see Amendment 0002.

12. Page 66, Volume 1 Subfactor 1.3 Key Personnel. To facilitate proposal evaluation, all resumes shall be in the format in Section L, Attachment 11 (Resume Format) to this solicitation. Resumes that do not conform may be considered unacceptable. Will the Government change the Resume limit from two pages to three pages, as the table at the top, when properly filled in with the RFP Key Personnel requirements takes up a half page by itself - this along with the Sign Statement section uses 1/2 to 3/4 of one page - this restricts the offeror from adequately highlighting how its candidate meets the respective key personnel requirements.

Answer: No, the resume format remains as is.

13. L-317.7 PROPOSAL FORMAT, Limitations on Page Counts for the Technical Volumes. "As an established C4I engineering services provider, we endeavor to demonstrate to the government both, a comprehensive program management and execution approach, and a thorough approach to the sample management scenario through our proposal, as required by the RFP. To achieve this, it is requested that the government please consider adding only five pages - each to Factor 1.

Management Approach, and Factor 2. Technical Approach page limits."

Answer: The Government has determined that 35 pages are sufficient for Factor 1 and will not increase the page limitations for Factor 1. As specified above the Government has increased the page limitation for Factor 2 to be 25 pages. See Amendment 0002.

14. The resume format (Attachment 11) contradicts the proposal format as stated in L-317.6. ..Type size shall be in Times New Roman and no smaller than 12 point in the text. Attachment 11's font is Times New Roman 10. Is this acceptable?

Answer: See Amendment 0002.

15. In accordance with Section L-317.7 Proposal Format, Factor 4 – Cost Proposal (Volume II), respectfully request the Government to clarify for the subcontractor submission of Attachment 10 Prime and Sub cost Spreadsheets they should only provide the Significant Subcontractor Tab for the RFP required submissions.

Answer: Yes, significant subcontractor should be provided for that tab; however, on the summary tab under subcontractor cost tab, the prime offeror shall list all subcontractors and proposed amounts for both significant/major and non-significant/major.

16. Respectfully request Government clarify if a subcontractor does not meet the RFP Major subcontractor requirements, those subcontractor are not required to provide Volume II and Volume III of the said RFP.

Answer: In accordance with Section L Factor 4 Cost Proposal Volume II (a)(4) If subcontractor is not greater than 10% of prime’s labor cost excluding fee and subcontractor’s cost, then they are not required to be provided in Volume II or III except in the excel spreadsheet as mention in Q15.