Q and A - N00039-18-R-0059 - RFP - 10 JAN 2018.pdf

N00039-18-R-0059 (N00039-17-R-0003)

Questions & Answers

N00039-18-R-0059

Version Date: 10 January 2018

# Reference Question Answer/Resolution

RFP

M-307(c)(2)(ii)

The submarine contract reference requirement for the incumbent contract was $30M over 6 years ($5M per year). The Draft RFP specifies $35M over 6 years ($5.8M per year). Perhaps consider extending qualifying period to 7 years to maintain $5M per year metric

M-307 (c)(2) will be updated to read as follows: “Relevant organizational experience must take place after March

13, 2012; and Offerors shall demonstrate a current cumulative value of prime and subcontractor relevant organizational experience for shipboard and submarine installation work that is equal to or exceeds the following:

(A) $95 million of shipboard installation work

(B) $30 million of submarine installation work”

QASP

Enclosure 1

All but 1 CORN provided contains sufficient technical information and cost breakdown and are clearly understandable to the Government, and information needed to clarify the one CORN is provided to the

Government within 2 working days of request. Quality of CORN

Submissions sets performance on absolute number of CORNs rejected. Due to Planning Yard drawing issues, Shipyard issues and

Ship Schedule issues, some tasks can result in many dozens of CORNs, even more than a hundred. To require a contractor to have no less than one rejected CORN to receive a satisfactory rating seems unreasonable in such circumstances. Recommend this language be revised to reflect a percentage of CORNS overall versus an absolute number.

Enclosure 1 “Acceptable Quality

Levels” will be updated to reflect “No more than one (1) CORN submission is rejected by the Contracting Officer”

(underlined for emphasis)

QASP

Enclosure 1

The Government requires amplifying information for clarity that is not provided within 2 working days of request, or more than 1 CORN requires clarification.

Recommend this be extended to min 7 business days. 2 business days is unrealistic for most requests given the magnitude of coordination and data to obtain.

No changes will be made. The

Government finds that 2 business days is sufficient time to meet the requirement.

N00039-18-R-0059

SOW

3.13.1.4

Recommend revision to “Report for all TOs with a final JID cost that overruns or underruns the target cost for the same JID by more than three percent (3%).” A hard number such as $3,000 on a TO with a large value will always require reporting which may not be a benefit to the Government and will increase cost.

SOW Section 3.13.1.4 will be updated to reflect “The Contractor shall include a Cost Analysis Report in the Task

Order Completion Report for all TOs with a final JID cost that overruns or underruns the target cost for the same

JID by more than three percent (3%) or

$15,000, whichever is less.”

SOW

WBS

The complexity of meeting the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) as called out throughout the PWS/SOW in accordance with Attachment A is extensive and cost prohibitive to the individual programs. Additional management, financial, administrative and on-site supervision hours will be required to meet the requirements. Additionally, the requested requirements are independent but redundant to other requirements throughout the PWS (e.g. POA&M in accordance with NAVSEA

TS9090-310, Cable Inspection and Test Report, etc.).

Reporting to this level on a per JID basis will not provide the accurate reporting and detailed tracking as is intended. The Government’s desire to reduce installation cost by awarding multiple tasking to be performed concurrently creates an inherent detailed tracking problem. With the multiple tasking to be completed concurrently there are numerous aspects of the installation that involves concurrent work. As such the level of tracking is diluted to the point where the concurrent tasking is reported as a guess of the percentage of the respective JIDs.

Recommendation: The tracking and reporting should go down the to the

JID level only to include: pre-avail/set up; rip-out; installation; SOVT and; task closeout. This will provide information to determine the health of the task at an economical cost to the program and will be more compatible to the NAVSEA TS9090-310 requirements.

The Government will be revising the

WBS attachment to make the requirements clearer and more definitive.

N00039-18-R-0059

SOW

3.1.9

Contractor shall notify OSIC of a Draft CORN before submission into

SPIDER & include a ROM.

Recommend removal from ROM requirement.

No Changes will be made. The

Government considers the ROM to be necessary.

3.1.9.2

Contractor shall update CORN form with additional info requested within 2 business days. Recommend this be extended to min 7 business days. 2 business days is unrealistic for most requests given the magnitude of coordination and data to obtain.

See the Answer to Question 3 above.

RFP

L-325

Are teammates allowed to be part of the 10 Past Performance citations or can only the Prime submit relevant Past Performance Information?

M-307 (C)(2)(iv) will be revised to state

“Offerors are considered to be inclusive of the prime and all subcontractors that are submitted in the “offer” or proposal.”

3.1

The PM shall participate in weekly status meetings of the IMO and shall participate in and support Program Management Reviews (PMRs). As there are both LANT and PAC meetings, is the PM expected to attend both?

Yes, Section 3.1 of the SOW will be revised to clarify “The Program

Manager shall participate in regular weekly status meetings with the FIO in person or by video teleconference

(VTC), and shall participate in and support Program Management Reviews

(PMRs).”

N00039-18-R-0059

SOW

3.1.3

Would the Government please clarify the intent of developing a

“networked” IMS? Would this be just for the contractor’s work, or would the contractor be responsible for developing the IMS for all the work that could potentially impact our schedule? If by “networked”, is the Government’s intention to include the RMC activity schedule(s) that have historically been very challenging? Would the Government please provide a sample IMS?

The intent of the Government for this requirement is that the contractor will provide a networked IMS with enough detail “to be networked” into the RMC

IMS. The format and content requirements are specified by the DID in CDRL A030.

3.1.7

PWS section 3.1.7 states the need for compliance with ANSI/EIA –

748B. Should this be ANSI/EIA – 748C?

Yes, Sections 3.1.7 and Table 1 of the

SOW have been updated to reflect

ANSI/EIA 748C

3.12.1

PWS section 3.12.1 states: “Encryption/digital signing of communications is required for authentication and non-repudiation.”

Does the Government expect all emails to be encrypted and signed?

This SOW section will be revised to state “Digital signing of communications is required for authentication and non-repudiation.

Emails that contain sensitive/controlled information or enclosures shall be digitally signed and encrypted.”

3.12.1

Will the Government provide Common Access Cards (CACs)?

The Government will provide CACs when access to Government IT Systems is determined to be necessary for contract performance.

3.12.1

PWS section 3.12.1 states: “In compliance with Section 6.1.1, Safeguards, the Contractor shall ensure Data-at-Rest is required on all portable electronic devices including storage of all types.” Does this requirement apply to cell phones?

Yes, refer to Section 6.1.1 (d).

4.1.f

PWS section 4.1.f states: “Be scalable by 20%.” Would the Government please clarify what is meant by this statement

The SOW will be revised to remove this

N00039-18-R-0059

RFP

L-317(b)(1)(C)

RFP section L-317(b)(1)(C)states: “The type used shall be no smaller than 10 point font.” Does this font requirement apply to graphics, tables, charts, etc as well?

The RFP will be revised to state “All pages (excluding charts) shall be prepared using Times New Roman 12-point font, single spacing, single-sided, 8 ½” x11”sized paper. For charts only, fold-outs using 11” X 17” sized paper are allowed and shall be counted as one page.”

Quals

PM (Key)

The Program Manager is required to support Contract Statement of

Work (SOW) Section 3.1, Program and Project Management. Due the size, complexity, and highly technical nature of this Program, as evidenced in sections 3.1 through 3.1.14 of the SOW (listed below), applicable Education requirements for this position will be highly beneficial.

The Government’s requirements for all personnel requirements will be listed in

RFP Attachment #2 - Personnel

Qualifications

3.1.8

Comment – Respectfully recommend that the WBS within the final RFP be modified, removing the requirement to calculate and report material costs, travel costs, and ODC costs for each WBS element, for each Task

Oder SOW. This requirement will prove highly complex for offeror’s to comply with, and of uncertain value to SPAWAR. Allocating elements such as travel to a single WBS, such as 10.4.8 Stud Mounts Removal is impractical, as this WBS function may be performed in unison with numerous additional WBS activities, take place over the life of the Task

Order, and would require an excessive number of contractor charge codes used by each craftsman to capture the data, creating significant deck plate level confusion, and requiring extensive amounts of time.

Further recommend that upon award, WBS structure, in relation to Task

Order estimates and reporting, be discussed and finalized with each individual successful offeror. This would ensure SPAWAR receives the information they require, and provides individual offeror’s an opportunity to present innovative solutions and recommendations in regards to useful, accurate, and timely cost estimates and reports.

Acceptable, value added solutions can then be replicated across the

Program.

See the answer to Question #5

N00039-18-R-0059

SOW

3.13.1.f

Recommend revision to “If the final cost deviates (overrun or under run) from the target cost by more than three percent (3%), a “Cost Analysis

Report” shall be included within the TOCR.

See the answer to Question #4

How much of the work done under the current GIC contract has been for submarine installations?

Approximately 20% of installations have been for submarines.

RFP, Page 98, Section M, M-

307(c)(2)(ii)

As a follow on to the C4ISR Global Contract, the Afloat and Ashore contracts each represent approximately one half the value of the Global contract. As such, we would ask that the Government consider reducing the past performance afloat installation experience threshold of $95M proportionately to the reduction in the ceiling value (e.g., ~$55M). A reduction in the $95M experience threshold is in line with the value of the new contract and more representative of the corresponding size of the C4ISR Afloat procurement compared to the prior C4ISR Global contract. Additionally, it provides an opportunity for non-incumbent providers with proportionate applicable C4ISR Afloat experience to submit a bid on this effort.

No changes will be made. The

Government considers the experience thresholds to be correct for this

Which volume is the Small Business Plan for large businesses to be included in? What is the Small Business Plan based on – Total

Acquisition Value or Subcontracting value?

As stated in L-317(a)(3), the Small

Business Subcontracting Plan is to be included in VOLUME III. Offerors will be evaluated on the extent of participation of small businesses in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 Alt II.

N00039-18-R-0059

RFP, Pages 89-90, Section L, L-

317(b)(3)(C)

With regards to Draft RFP for SPAWAR Afloat C4ISR Installation

Contract (N00039-18-R-0059) and the language on pages 89-90, could the government define “contractor support services?” The language on pages 89-90 reads, “Companies providing contractor support services are involved in the development of or have access to information concerning installation requirements and related documentation for GIC, including procurement or other contractor sensitive information which could create an OCI or perceived OCI that cannot be mitigated.”

This language will be revised.

RFP, Page 88, Section L, L-

317(b)(3)(A)(iii)

RFP Section L-317(b)(3)(A)(iii) states in part that each prime contractor

“…shall submit the cover sheet for their letter of commitment with each proposed small business subcontractor. (Each letter shall detail the teaming agreement between the prime contractor and each proposed small business subcontractor, but only the signed cover sheet is required.)”

Does the Government expect this this Letter of Commitment to be a letter from the prime contractor to the proposed small business subcontractor, or vice versa?

Are details of the teaming agreement between the prime contractor and proposed small business subcontractor expected to be included on the

“signed cover sheet” required for submission, or will an acknowledgement of the Teaming Agreement between the two parties for this contract suffice for the signed cover sheet?

The Letter of Commitment should be from the prime contractor to the small business subcontractor.

An acknowledgement of the Teaming

Agreement between the two parties will suffice; the details do not need to be included.

N00039-18-R-0059

RFP, Page 102, Section M, M-

307(d)(3)

Section M – Factor 3 – Extent of Small Business Participation. On Page

102 in Afloat RFP N00039-18-R-0059 (N00039-17-R-0003) the following verbiage is included in regard to Attachment 8 and Factor 3 evaluation:

Small businesses identified in more than one small business socioeconomic category may be counted to meet more than one of the minimum proposed percentages. This exception applies solely to Factor

3 and is strictly for the purpose of meeting the minimum proposed percentages in the table below in order to earn an “Exceptional” rating.

All other calculations for the extent of participation of small business are in terms of proposed total acquisition value, and each small business may only be counted once.

The last sentence is unclear. Please clarify this sentence regarding the counting of small businesses only once for “all other calculations.”

There is similar language on page 106 in Shore RFP N00039-17-R-0004

(N00039-17-R-0004).

The intention is to allow a small business subcontractor that falls into more than one socioeconomic category to count towards meeting the minimum proposed percentages in multiple categories.

This language will be updated to clarify.

RFP Attachment

2: Personnel

Qualifications

The Draft Afloat RFP omits LCAT descriptions for Engineering

Technician 3 & 5; however, hours are shown in the draft pricing file for both of these LCATs. Does the government intend to include descriptions for these categories modeled after the Engineering

Technician 3 & 5 LCATs used in the incumbent contract?

This will be revised to clarify.

The questions above are all of the questions received to date. If your company submitted a question and it is not listed above, it was not received. All questions need to be submitted to chris.thompson1@navy.mil and travis.cowsert@navy.mil.

mailto:chris.thompson1@navy.mil mailto:travis.cowsert@navy.mil