Q and A - N00039-18-R-0060 - Shore - 02 MAY 2018.pdf

N00039-18-R-0060 (N00039-17-R-0004) (Shore)

Questions & Answers

***Changes are highlighted in yellow***

N00039-18-R-0060 (Shore)

# Reference Question/Comment Answer/Resolution

RFP, Page 95, Section L, L-317

Vol III

L-317 Submission of Proposals mentions “Organization Conflict of

Interest (OCI) Disclosure: Any contract resulting from this solicitation will provide for a full spectrum of C4ISR installation services for all afloat (surface ships, submarines, and special purpose craft worldwide)

C4ISR and supporting systems, current and future, under the cognizance of SPAWAR as provided in the Statement of Work.” Should this reference “shore” work instead?

All references in N00039-17-R-0004 should be for “shore” work. N00039-

17-R-0003 will be the contract vehicle for afloat work. The RFP will be updated to reflect this.

RFP, Pages 93/97, L-325, Vol I

There are discrepancies in the dates referencing relevant past performance timelines. What is the correct date?

The correct date is 30 January 2012.

The RFP will be revised to reflect this date.

RFP, Pages 97/98, L-325

Referencing L-325 paragraphs (e) and (b), if an offeror has a CPARS in

PPIRS, does the offeror need to submit a Past Performance Citation?

L-325 (e) provides instructions on what to do if an offeror has Past Performance information in PPIRS. CPARS is considered by the Government to be past performance information.

RFP, Page 101, L-

Will a financial statement in lieu of credit references be acceptable?

No changes will be made. The requirement will remain the same.

RFP, Section I, multiple references to FAR

52.222-20

Given that the Government has provided pricing plug numbers for all construction-related CLINs, should the contractor assume the qualifications in the labor categories provided in Attachment 2 do not apply to these CLINs post-award?

Attachment 2 will not apply to construction-related CLINs, but Task

Order specific Wage Determinations will apply to all construction CLINs.

Clause 5252.237-9600 will be revised to state “See Attachment 2 for

Personnel Qualifications for all work performed under CLINs 0001- 0004 and

1001 - 1004. The contractor shall adhere to the applicable Wage

Determination for all work performed under CLINS 0005 and 1005.”

Attachment 3

(SOW), Page 16, Paragraph 3.1.9

Current SOW paragraph 3.1.9 language states, “The Contractor shall initiate the CORN process by completing an ‘Info CORN’ in accordance with CDRL A003A. This shall be accomplished in the IMOTracker within two (2) business days of becoming aware of the problem or condition. The Contractor shall enter a description of the problem or condition found on the CORN form and a proposed solution, including a

Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate for any additional work to be performed. The Contractor shall notify the On-site Government

Representative (OSGR), Project Engineer (PE), or another Government representative as identified on the IMOTracker of the ‘Info CORN’ prior to submission.”

Recommend removal from SOW, or allow five business days to provide a ROM.

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

Attachment 3

(SOW), Page 16, Paragraph 3.1.9.1

Current SOW paragraph 3.1.9.1 language states, “The Contractor shall update the CORN form to provide any additional information requested within two (2) business days of receipt of the notice.”

Recommend this be extended to minimum seven business days. Two business days is unrealistic for most requests given the magnitude of coordination and data to obtain.

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

(SOW), Page 34, Paragraph 3.13.1.f

Attachment 3 SOW paragraph 3.13.1.f states, “If the final cost deviates

(overrun or under run) from the target cost by more than $3,000 or three percent (3%), a ‘Cost Analysis Report’ shall be included within the

TOCR…”

Request the language be amended to read, “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.”

The Ashore SOW posted with the Draft

RFP states” “If the final cost for any

JID deviates (overrun or under run) from the target cost by more than three percent (3%) or $15,000, whichever is less, a ‘Cost Analysis Report’ shall be included within the TOCR.” No changes will be made.

(SOW), Page 35, Paragraph

3.13.1.4

Attachment 3 SOW 3.13.1.4 reads “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.”

Request the language be amended 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%).”

No changes will be made.

Attachment 3

(SOW),

Attachment 1

WBS

The Draft RFP is extremely detailed in the level to which cost are to be estimated and accounted. For typical combined JID installation packages, cost accuracy between JID accounting codes is difficult enough, but to attempt to capture to the level requested will be extremely expensive, contain many errors, or both. This will create significant burden on the government as well, to evaluate and interpret accuracy.

Can the WBS structure be changed from the current four levels to two levels?

The Government will be revising the

WBS attachment to make the requirements clearer and more definitive.

Attachment 3

(SOW),

Attachment 1

WBS

The complexity of meeting the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) as called out throughout the SOW in accordance with WBS attachment 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 SOW (e.g. POA&M in accordance with the SIPH, 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: planning and design, pre-installation; removal;

installation; SOVT; and task closeout. This will provide information to determine the health of the task at an economical cost to the program.

See answer to question #10 above.

Attachment 5

(QASP),

Enclosure 1

Attachment 5 (QASP) currently states: “Outstanding: No CORNs are rejected. Satisfactory: All but 1 CORN provided contains sufficient technical information and cost breakdown and are clearly understandable to the Government, and the information needed to clarify the 1 CORN is provided to the Government within 2 working days of request. UNSAT:

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

Quality of CORN Submissions sets performance on absolute number of

CORNs rejected. Due to site availability issues, FRCB approval issues, inclement weather, dependency on outside pre-requisite activities, and changes to travel and access restrictions to name just a few, some tasks can result in many dozens of CORNs, even more than a hundred. To limit to one rejected CORN and be satisfactory seems unreasonable in such circumstances. Can the performance metrics be worded in percentages of CORNs submitted, vice absolute numbers?

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)

Attachment 7

(Reference

Information

Sheet), Block 15

Should Block 15 reference “shore” work and not shipboard C4ISR installation work?

Block 15 should reference “shore” work. Attachment 7 file will be updated to only reference “shore” work.

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?

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.

RFP, 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.

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 page 87, (A)

Volume I, Written

Capability

Information, (i)

Section A requires submission of Attachment 7. Page 88 (ii) Section B seems to refer to the same Attachment 7. Under which Section is the

Attachment 7 information to be placed?

Attachment 7 is the form that shall be used to respond to both sections.

Section A and Section B have separate instructions and will be evaluated accordingly.

Can you please give us the currently expected RFP release and response date, based on the acquisition plan progress.?

As posted on 11 January 2018, the

Government still anticipates release of the FINAL RFP on 26 March 2018 and the RFP due date to be 25 May 2018.

19 RFP

Given the diversity of Shore work between East and West coast, Serco requests a second project manager added to Key Personnel requirements, which will then become a speaker during Orals.

The Government has looked at the requirement again, and determined that two (2) key personnel is the correct number for this acquisition. No additional key personnel will be added.

20 Section L

With Ashore being of similar magnitude of Afloat DRFP N00039-18-R-

0059 (over $1B), with presentation format being equivalent (four hours of preparations and two hours of briefing) and with additional systems requirements being added as result of enforcement of SPAWAR

4720.1B Serco respectfully requests the Government increase the Orals team to be in line with the Afloat section L (three speakers, eight total team members).

The Government will be increasing the total number of team members allowed in the oral presentations. Per the answer to #19 above, no additional key personnel will be added. Accordingly, no additional speakers will be permitted at the oral presentations.

I noted that the subject RFP states questions are to be submitted at or before Industry Day to be held on 4/2. Is there a final date or deadline for question submissions? I don’t think I found one in the RFP based on my first review.

The offeror shall submit all questions electronically no later than 10 calendar days prior to the proposal submission due date.

After reviewing the RFP language below, can you please provide clarification if bidders are allowed to ask questions now the Final RFP has been released and if so, is there a question deadline.

See answer to question #21 above.

Please provide the closing date for clarifications.

“Clarifications” are covered in FAR

15.306. The closing date for questions

is covered in the answer to question

#21.

RFP Section L-

317, Volume I, Section B

L-317, Volume I, Section B “Organizational Past Performance” requires

Attachment 7, which is also provided in Section A “Relevant

Organizational Experience.” Please confirm that the Government is requesting two copies of the completed Attachment 7 for all contract references in both sections: one in Section A and one in Section B.

The Government is amending the solicitation to clarify the requirement.

25 RFP Attachment 6

Attachment 6, Proposed Ceiling Distribution, Tab 2 requests the details of oral presenters. Does the Government agree that this is not required as part of the original submission?

Attachment 6 is required in the original submission. The Government is amending the solicitation to clarify the

RFP Attachment

Attachment 12 Gate Review Matrix - If a task order of a contract has requirements that meet the requirements of shore installation while also having shipboard requirements, can that task order still be referenced in the Attachment 12 Gate Review Matrix to meet the $95M threshold.

Provision L-317(b)(3)(A)(i) states:

“Where the contract reference is for a task order(s) under an IDIQ contract, offerors shall identify only the experience for the value of the task order(s) that are relevant to this procurement based on the key SOW areas listed below.” Thus, only the value of the shore installation work would be allowed.

RFP Reference L-

Reference: L-343 Contractor Responsibility (JUN 2002), (c ) (2) states that the contractor is to provide the analysis performed on the subcontractor’s cost proposal to determine a fair and reasonable price. This analysis would include subcontractor pricing. Does the Government expect to receive pricing?

The Government is amending the solicitation to clarify the requirement.

Section L-325 on page 99 of the proposal states: “Offerors shall provide information on no more than ten (10) previous

Government contracts whose effort was relevant to the effort required by this solicitation… If the offeror has not had ten (10)

Government contracts for work performed after 30 January 2012, information on relevant subcontracts and/or commercial contracts may be submitted instead.”

Question: Does the government require exactly ten (10) previous contract citations?

No, the Government does not require ten (10) contract citations, but the offeror is limited to no more than (10) references. The solicitation will be amended to clarify the requirement.

RFP Section L-

317 (b)(3)(A)(i), Page 95 of the solicitation under section L-317 (b)(3)(A)(i) second paragraph states: “In accordance with the instructions provided in

Block 15 on the form, additional pages (one side of a printed page is one page) may be submitted for each Reference Information

Sheet, as follows: A maximum of two (2) additional pages to address shore installation experience. No more than ten (10) total

Reference Information Sheets may be submitted per proposal.

Including additional pages, a total of thirty (30) pages may be submitted.” If the government allows less than 10 Reference

Information Sheets / citations, are more than two (2) additional pages permitted per citation as long as the total page count is less than 30 pages, or does the two-page maximum per Reference still apply?

In accordance with L-317(b)(3)(A)(i), “a maximum of two (2) additional pages to address shore installation experience” is permitted. The number of total pages is allowed are determined by the number of reference information sheets submitted by the offeror. The solicitation will be amended to clarify this requirement.

Section L-317(a)(3) Section H (d) request for Offerors to provide

“Name and address of DIS office.” Please confirm that this request is for the Defense Security Service (DSS) office.

Yes, the request is for the DSS office.

The solicitation will be amended to clarify the requirement.

We’re looking to confirm if the acquisition of Giant Voice

Systems and indoor Mass Notification Systems will be expected under the task orders of this contract. The items in the table below do not specifically list Giant Voice Systems and indoor Mass

Notification Systems. Is there additional information such as the data item descriptions available which could help us confirm this?

252.211-7002 AVAILABILITY FOR EXAMINATION OF

SPECIFICATIONS, STANDARDS, PLANS, DRAWINGS,

DATA ITEM DESCRIPTIONS, AND OTHER PERTINENT

DOCUMENTS (DEC. 1991)

The specifications, standards, plans, drawings, data item descriptions, and other pertinent documents cited in this solicitation are not available for distribution but may be examined at the following location:

Request access from the PCO.

As stated in page 2, under the block 14 continuation page, “THIS

SOLICITATION WILL RESULT IN A

MULTIPLE AWARD, INDEFINITE

DELIVERY, INDEFINITE

QUANTITY (IDIQ) TYPE

CONTRACT.” As such, the

Government does not currently know what work will be issued under the prospective contract, thus no specifications or drawings are currently available for review. Clause 252.211-

7002 is referring to the documents specified in Section 2 of the SOW and the data item descriptions in Exhibit A.

L-317(b)(3)(C)(i) states “Offerors shall identify and describe any contractual support they or any affiliate, joint venture or subcontractor under this solicitation are presently providing to

PEO C41, SPAWAR, SPAWAR Systems Center (SSC) Atlantic, SSC Pacific, or any other activity, where that support relates to

C4I installation support services.”

Question: Does this apply to the entire offeror’s team?

Yes, it applies to the entire offeror’s team.

33 M-307(d)(3)

Factor 3 states that Small Business can be counted in 2 categories.

Can you explain this?

M-307(d)(3) states: For this FACTOR only, small businesses identifying as more than one socioeconomic category may be counted to meet more than one of the minimum proposed percentages for socioeconomic purposes. Offerors shall not be permitted to use small businesses more than once for the

Extent of Participation of Small

Business “Minimum Gate

Requirement”.

RFP Section

M-307(d)(1)

Factor 1

Section M-307(d)(1) Factor 1 states “The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrates the breadth and depth of its technical and management capability relative to its

Key Personnel, staffing, tasking, processing, executing, reporting and managing consolidated task orders for shore-based installations of C4ISR or other like shore electronic systems installations.”

Question: What does the Government mean by “processing”?

The Government will evaluate the depth and breadth of the offeror’s technical and management capability in administratively processing consolidated task orders for shore-based installations of C4ISR or other like shore electronic systems installations.

In other words, what will be the process that the contractor follows after it wins a task order?

RFP Section

L-317(b)(3)(A)(i)

The solicitation has a requirement for a signed cover letter, but we typically do not have finalized subcontract agreements during the

RFP process.

Question: Can the Government clarify the requirement?

L-317(b)(3)(A)(i) states “Each prime contractor shall also submit the cover sheet from each letter of commitment with each proposed subcontractor. Each letter of commitment shall detail the teaming agreement between the prime contractor and each proposed subcontractor submitted as a reference, but only the signed cover sheet is required.” The solicitation requires the signed cover sheet from each letter of commitment from each proposed subcontractor, as applicable. The offeror shall also ensure all information requested in the solicitation is included on the cover sheet.

Question: How many contracts does SPAWAR expect to award as a result of this solicitation?

SPAWAR anticipates awarding up to 5

IDIQ contracts. However, SPAWAR will award to all offerors that meet the requirements as set forth in Section M of the solicitation.

Question: What are subcontractors required to submit in response to the solicitation? Other than OCI information?

Subcontractors are required to sign the cover sheet of the letter of commitment.

If they are a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) subcontractor, that needs to be annotated on the signed cover sheet from the letter of commitment.

RFP Section L-

Question: Can the Government clarify the Past Performance

Questionnaire (PPQ) submission requirements?

L-325 states: “The offeror shall furnish the information required in paragraph

(b) of this provision or submit a statement that past performance information for an individual contract resides in the Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).”

Offerors are required to submit a PPQ if there is no record of CPARS information for the referenced contract in PPIRS.

RFP Section M-

307(c)(2)

Question: Factor 2 - Organizational Past Performance specifies that the Government will evaluate worked performed after January

30, 2012. Would work count if it started prior to January 30, 2012?

No. M-307(c)(2) states: “Offerors’ provided relevant organizational experience must take place after

January 30, 2012” If a contract began prior to January 30, 2012, only the amount of work specifically performed after January 30, 2012 may be counted toward the Gate requirement.

RFP Section B –

Supplies or

Services and

Prices

Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices: Attachment 6 is a ceiling distribution per year with no direct correlation to contract type and CLIN structure in Section B. Question: Will the

Government please provide instructions to offerors on filling in the cost elements for each CLIN in Section B?

Page 2 of the solicitation, “NOTES TO

OFFERORS” states: “Offerors shall not provide pricing for any CLINs identified below.” There is no requirement for offerors to fill out the

CLINs in Section B.

RFP Section L-

317(b)(3)(C)(ii)(3

)(D)(v)

RFP Section L, Dv on page 98 states that each of the seven personnel participating in the oral presentation shall be proposed as 1 Full Time Equivalent committed to this contract. The nature of IDIQ contracts where the offeror may not be awarded a subsequent Delivery Order means although personnel may be 100 percent committed to the contract, the requirement to fulfill hours equating to one FTE may not feasible. This requirement in paragraph v seems to limit an offeror’s ability to be proposed on other similar solicitations. Is it permissible for the oral presentation team to be comprised of members who are also eligible to participate in future oral presentations relating to a different contract?

No. The Government considers this requirement to be reasonable and does not intend to revise it.

42 FAR 52.219-9

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required to be in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Alt II per Q&A No. 14. This would require us to submit a plan that was based on

“subcontracted dollars” and not “total contract dollars”. In addition, Amendment 0001, Section M(3)(iv) states that the acceptability of this criteria (Minimum Gate for Small Business

Participation which is based on Attachment 8) will be evaluated for consistency with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. If the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is to be in accordance with the FAR clause, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will not match Attachment 8, Small Business Participation Data which is based on TAV. Please clarify if the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan should be based on total contract dollars or subcontracted dollars.

FAR 52.219-9 and Attachment 8 of this solicitation both require a total dollar amount that will be subcontracted to small businesses. This amount will be evaluated for consistency.

RFP Section L-

317(a)(2)

Attachment 6 contains two Excel tabs. The first tab is the Ceiling

Distribution Proposal which is to be submitted in Volume II, Cost

Related Information. Where do we include Attachment 6 Tab 2, Oral Presenters?

L-317(a)(2) states Section A includes

“Ceiling Distribution Proposal

(Attachment 6)”. There is no “tab” distinction.

RFP Attachment

Please confirm that RFP Attachment 12, “Gate Review Matrix”, will not count towards the page count limit for Volume I, section

A.

In accordance with Amendment 1, L-

317(a), RFP Attachment 12, “Gate

Review Matrix” will not count towards the page limitation.

RFP Section M-

307(2)(iv)(A)

Section M-307(2)(iv)(A) states that subcontractors may be used to meet the minimum threshold only where the offeror proposes a subcontractor for the contract at a value equal to or greater than the referenced organizational experience value in Attachment 6. Is the value meant to be relative or absolute? That is, if proposing a subcontractor with $20M in referenced experience, would the prime offeror need to demonstrate $20M in total commitment for all years, or would the amount need to be prorated against each year?

There is no requirement in this solicitation to prorate a subcontract.

Is the information requested in L-343 to be provided in Volume 2, Section B, or Volume 3, Section H?

The information requested in RFP L-

343 is to be provided in Volume III, Section D. See RFP Amendment 1, Section L-317(a) table.

RFP L-317

Amendment 1, (page 10 of 22)

Amendment 1, page 10 of 22: Section L -317 Volume I Section B requirements Organization Past Performance (As Specified in

Provision L-325):

* Section L-325 (b) requires offerors submit Attachment 9

“Past Performance Questionnaire” for each contract reference.

* Section L-325 (e) states that the offeror furnish information in paragraph (b) above or submit a statement that past performance information resides in the Past performance Information Retrieval

System (PPIRS).

Question: Given the “or” in Section L325 (e) – If a contract reference has past performance information in PPIRS, can the offeror state that past performance resides in PPIRS and not submit a PPQ for those references?

Correct, the offeror can state that past performance resides in PPIRS and not submit a PPQ for those references.

However, offerors are reminded of L-

325 (d) which states “The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the Offeror.

The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror.”

RFP L-317(b)

Amendment 1

Format, Organization, and

Content (page 11 of 22)

Attachment 7 appears to use Times New Roman 8-point font.

Please confirm that content entered by Offerors’ use Times New

Roman 10-point font as specified in Section L-317, (b) Format, Organization, and Content, (B), for tables, charts, graphs, and spreadsheets.

Yes, offerors shall consider content entered by Offerors in Attachment 7 to fall under the “exception” of tables, charts, graphs, and spreadsheets as specified in Section L-317 (b)(1)(B).

Information provided by offerors in response to block 15 shall NOT be considered to fall under the exception, and shall be prepared using Times New

Roman 12-point font as specified in L-

317(b)(1)(B).

RFP L-317(b)

Amendment 1

Format, Organization, and

Content (page 11 of 22)

Item 15 on Attachment 7 requires a summary description to be provided on additional pages. Please confirm that the Offeror is allowed to provide this summary description using Times New

Roman 10-point font, as these pages are a direct requirement specified in the Attachment.

See answer to question #48.

RFP Amendment

1 M-307(c)(3)(iv), For the “Minimum Gate Requirement: Extent of Participation of

Small Business” the solicitation states: “A conflict or disparity between the proposal for this acceptability criteria and the proposed Small Business Plan may result in exclusion from further consideration for award.” This offeror is concerned by the terms

“conflict” and “disparity” because the dollar values and percentages evaluated for the acceptability criteria will likely not match those in the subcontracting plan for the following reasons:

1) The percentages for the Extent of Small Business

Participation are calculated as the percentage of total acquisition value, while the percentages in a Small

Business Subcontracting Plan are calculated as the percentage of total subcontracted dollars.

2) Small businesses identifying as more than one socioeconomic category are counted for each category. Our understanding is for the Minimum Gate Requirement

Attachment 8 – Small Business Participation Data, small businesses should only be counted one time.

We respectfully request the Government provide additional clarity as to what constitutes “a conflict or disparity” between this

Minimum Gate Requirement and the Subcontracting Plan.

See answer to question #42, and

Amendment 0002 to the RFP.

RFP Amendment

1 M-307(d)(3), The referenced section of the solicitation states: “Information provided under RFP Attachment 8 will be evaluated in accordance with Attachment 11.” The Attachment 11 criteria include minimum percentages by socioeconomic category to be calculated as a percent of the total proposed acquisition value. Where are offerors to include the calculations showing adherence to the

Attachment 11 minimum percentages? Should this be included as a separate table in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan or included as separate subtotals in Attachment 8 – Small Business

Participation Data?

Offerors are required to populate

Attachment 8, to include the small business socioeconomic categories, and the % of TAV for each proposed subcontractor.

The Government will ensure that the offeror adheres to the Attachment 11 minimum percentages based on the information provided in Attachment 8.

However, per L-317(a), there is no page limitation to Attachment 8, thus offerors are permitted to submit additional tables as desired.

RFP Amendment

1 L-

317(b)(3)(B)(ii), The instructions require offerors to provide accounting system audit report(s) for the prime and any subcontractors that will utilize CPFF, FPIF, CPIF or Cost-reimbursement pricing. Often, subcontractors may deem certain aspects of their audit report(s) to be proprietary information. Should this be the case, would the

Government allow a redacted audit report(s) enclosed with the prime contractor’s proposal Volume II, or would the Government prefer the unredacted report(s) submitted by the subcontractor(s) directly to the Government?

Subcontractors shall be permitted to submit reports directly to the

Government. See Amendment 0002 to the RFP.

RFP L-325 Past

Performance

Information

If an offeror provides a CPARS report to Attachment 7, will that negate the need to complete and submit Attachment 9 to the

Government?

See answer to question #47.

54 RFP L-343(c)(2)

The Contractor Responsibility section contains a requirement to provide the following information: “(2) Analysis performed on the subcontractor’s cost proposal to determine a fair and reasonable price.” Because cost/price proposals are not required for this competition, will the Government be removing this requirement?

See RFP Amendment 1, Section L-

343(c).

Is the Service Contract Act (SCA) applicable for the GIC Shore solicitation, as it is currently not applicable for the incumbent GIC contract?

The Service Contract Act (SCA) does not apply to this acquisition. FAR

52.222-41, Service Contract Labor

Standards, will not be included in the solicitation and resultant contract(s).

The Service Contract Act (SCA) does not apply to work being done Outside the Continental United States

(OCONUS). The preponderance of the proposed contract will be performed

OCONUS. Work that is to be done within the CONUS requires highly skilled technical experts not covered by the SCA.

If the Contracting Office asserts the Service Contract Act (SCA) is not applicable for the GIC Shore solicitation, please provide the applicable exemption.

See answer to question #55.

RFP L-

317(a)(4)(3)(A)(i)

Reference

Information

Sheets

The RFP states “The same contract may be used to address more than one key area of the SOW; however, offerors shall not provide a consolidated response for multiple key areas of the SOW and shall clearly format their proposal to separate the discussion for each key area of the SOW identified below.”

Is it the Government’s intent that, if one (1) contract / reference can demonstrate experience in each of the three (3) key areas of the SOW (3.4, 3.5, and 3.6), that the offeror should submit three

(3) separate reference sheets each covering one (1) key area of the

SOW per sheet? Or would the Government accept a single reference sheet organized in such a way as to clearly discuss each key SOW area separately within the single reference sheet?

The RFP states “however, offerors shall not provide a consolidated response for multiple key areas of the SOW and shall clearly format their proposal to separate the discussion for each key area of the SOW identified below.”

In this context, “consolidated” refers to mixing the discussion of key areas together within a single reference information sheet.

The Government does not require separate reference information sheets for one contract/reference.

Of the Seven personnel participating in the oral presentation, some individuals hold positions which support both the Shore and

Afloat C4I installations. An example includes the QA specialist and the overall C4I Program Manager. Would the government allow participation of cross-functional C4I personnel to participate in both oral presentations for Afloat and Ashore providing that these individual work for the same Prime Offeror?

The intent of L-317(b)(3)(D)(v) is to ensure that if an offeror is awarded a contract as a result of this solicitation, the five (5) non-key personnel that participate in the oral presentation shall not only be available to that offeror after award, but shall also be the first choice of that offeror to be proposed for their respective labor categories on task orders awarded under the IDIQ contract.

The two (2) key personnel proposed shall be the only individuals proposed for their respective labor categories as specified in the contract on any task orders awarded under the IDIQ contract.

Attachment 7, Block 16 requires that the Offeror provide CPARS evaluations with the proposal. FAR 2.101 and 3.104 are applicable to CPARS for a company as CPARS are considered Source

Selection Information. Accordingly, the Prime Offeror's teaming partners should not share CPARS information outside of their respective organizations. We propose that CPARS information be retrieved from the existing CPARS database (PPIRS).

See answer to question #47.

60 Attachment 4

In box 4, it states that this is not a follow-on contract. Should the yes box be checked instead, it is a follow-on to the current GIC contract?

No. This procurement is not a direct follow-on to the previous contract for these services.

RFP Section L-

317(b)(3)(C)(i)

Section L-317 (C) Volume III, Offeror Information (i) states, “Offerors shall identify and describe any contractual support they or any affiliate, joint venture or subcontractor under this solicitation are presently providing to PEO C41, SPAWAR, SPAWAR Systems Center (SSC) Atlantic, SSC Pacific, or any other activity, where that support relates to C4I installation support services. The offeror shall include: (1) the name of the contractor, joint venture, affiliate, or subcontractor; (2) the contracting agency; (3) contract number; (4) a short description of the work;

and (5) whether the offeror believes that the support results in an

OCI. Offerors shall specifically address why they believes no OCI exists (if applicable).”

This is not identified in the L-317 Submission of Proposals

(Complex) (Jul 1999) (a) chart on page 8 of 22 in Amendment 1.

Should it be submitted with Vol III Section F – OCI Disclosure

Information?

Yes, all OCI Disclosure information requested under this solicitation shall be included in Volume III, Section F.

RFP Section L-

317(b)(3)(C)(ii)

Section L-317 (C) Volume III, Offeror Information (ii) states, “(ii)

Offerors shall provide an OCI Disclosure Analysis to address the following, as applicable:

(1) Whether by virtue of the contracts listed in response to section

(a), the contractor has had access to non-public information that may provide an unfair advantage in competing for some or all of the proposed effort; or whether by virtue of the contracts listed in response to section (a), the contractor was in a position to set the ground rules for this solicitation, and thereby affect the competition.

(2) Whether by virtue of the contracts listed in response to section

(a), the contractor will be in a situation of evaluating its own services if awarded a contract resulting from this solicitation.

Offeror shall specifically address the situation where impaired objectivity arises because of the relationship between work previously awarded to the contract and work arising under this solicitation.

(3) How the contractor will identify and avoid actual or potential

OCIs during performance.”

This is not identified in the L-317 Submission of Proposals

(Complex) (Jul 1999) (a) chart on page 8 of 22 in Amendment 1.

Should it be submitted with Vol III Section F – OCI Disclosure

Information?

Yes, all OCI Disclosure information requested under this solicitation shall be included in Volume III, Section F.

63 Attachment 7

In Attachment 7, question 14 tells the offeror to submit their most recent SF294. Should this be attached to our Section A response?

Also, can the Government confirm this will not go against page count?

Offerors shall submit a copy of the

Individual Subcontracting Report for the contract referenced in Attachment 7 in Section A and Section B. It will not count against the page count.

64 DD 254

Is the offeror required to fill out and submit Attachment 4? No. There is nothing in Attachment 4 for offerors to fill out.

Factor 3 language in M-307(d)(3) appears contradictory indicating in the second sentence of paragraph one (“For this FACTOR only, small businesses identifying as more than one socioeconomic category may be counted to meet more than one of the minimum proposed percentages for socioeconomic purposes.”) that offeror may count firms in multiple socioeconomic categories as applicable to the firm, which is consistent with FAR small business regulations. However, the last sentence of the paragraph indicates that “Offerors shall not be permitted to use small businesses more than once for the Extent of Participation of Small

Business “Minimum Gate Requirements.”” Please confirm that the Government allows offerors to count small business in more than one socioeconomic category, but only to the maximum percent of participation per the FAR small business regulations?

For example, if a small business partner is both HubZone and

SDVOSB and they are offered 5% of workshare: 5% can be credited for HubZone and 5% for SDVOSB; and only 5% can be claimed for the extent of participation of this small business for the “minimum gate requirements.”

Yes, as per the example provided, if a small business partner is both HubZone and SDVOSB and they are offered 5% of workshare: 5% can be credited for

HubZone and 5% for SDVOSB; but, only 5% can be claimed for the extent of participation of this small business for the “minimum gate requirements”.

The 7% profit, 50/50 share ratio and 113 percent ceiling price structure stated in the RFP for FPIF target task orders is an extremely “tight structure” and places an exceptionally high level of cost control incentive on the contractor. Since task order requirements can be considerably different, some with a high level of technical and cost uncertainties, we believe the determination of the fee, share ratio and ceiling price now at the IDIQ level is problematic. Will the Government consider delaying these term negotiations at the task order level when confidence in achieving performance is high and technical and cost uncertainties can be reasonably identified, thereby providing a fair and reasonable incentive?

No. The “tight structure” is based on years of historical data, and the

Government finds the FPIF terms to be appropriate for this solicitation.

RFP L-

317(b)(3)(A)(i), Attachment 7, Item 16

On Attachment 7, Item 16, the Government requests Offerors include CPARS. “Provide CPARS evaluations for all portions of the past six years on this contract, if available … (CPARS evaluations do not count towards page limits.)”

Should the CPARS immediately follow the two (2) additional pages that address shore installation experience for each RIS in

Volume I Section A or should the CPARS be contained in Volume

I Section B, Past Performance Questionnaires, and ignore the 10-page limit for this section?

CPARS evaluations shall be included with each applicable RIS (following the two additional pages) in Volume I, Section A and Section B.

The industry day brief lists an acronym list; however, the latest amendment does not explicitly identify the acronym list in the table of contents for Volume 1. Question: Please confirm a 1-page acronym list can be included in Volume 1, and does not count towards the page count.

The solicitation will be amended to include a one (1) page acronym list that shall be included in Volume I, and will not count toward the page count.

RFP Attachment

In Attachment 13, CENTCOM Joint Theater Support Contracting

Command Clauses – Afghanistan. Clause 5152.225-5908

Government Furnished Contractor Support, none of the types of support are checked. Will this information be updated on a task-order basis?

Yes, that is correct. Attachment 13 will be updated on a task order basis.

317(b)(3)(A)(i)

Page 95 of the RFP, Section L-317 Page Limitation Section

(3)(a)(i) states, “…Offerors claiming multiple task orders under an

IDIQ contract as one reference shall also provide a separate sheet

(which will not count toward the page limitation) identifying the task order numbers and values for each task order.” In addition to the completed Attachment 12 which lists relevant delivery/task orders is the Government looking for a complete list of all task orders and delivery orders under each cited IDIQ contract

(whether or not they are relevant)?

L-317(b)(3)(A)(i) states: “Offerors shall complete RFP Attachment 12 “Gate

Review Matrix” to summarize the cumulative value of all referenced contracts/task orders. Only one Matrix shall be completed per offeror. The number of pages submitted shall correspond to the number of referenced contracts and/or task orders.”

“Referenced” in the above excerpt from the solicitation means that only contracts/task orders specifically identified in Attachment 7 shall be listed in Attachment 12. Attachment 7 is not designed for offerors to specify every task order under an IDIQ contract, especially one with a significant number of task/delivery orders.

The separate sheet to identify task order numbers and values shall only be for relevant task orders under the referenced IDIQ contract.

71 RFP

We would like to request a two-week extension on the due date to facilitate fair competition. This is based upon the size of the extent of the proposal requirements, to include: Administrative

Documents, Technical – Resumes/Certifications/Past

Performances/Program Management, and Pricing.

The proposal due date is being extended to 07 May 2018.

72 L-317(b)(3)(D)(v)

Is it the Government’s intent to have all seven Presentation Team members committed to support this contract 100% of their time after award, without regard to task orders awarded under the contract? Or, is it the Government’s intent for these Presentation

Team members to be employed by the Prime/Subcontractor at the time of the proposal submission, listed in Attachment 6, and be available to support task orders on an as awarded basis?

See the answer to question #58.

73 L-317(b)(3)(A)(i)

In regards to the Government requirement for Offerors to include “cover sheet from each letter of commitment with each proposed small business subcontractor,” there appears to be conflicting information as to exactly what should be included in this cover sheet, and where it should be included within the proposal.

For example, instruction L-317.4.3.A.i states “The cover sheet(s) shall be signed by both parties, and shall provide the subcontract amount, the type of contract and the period of performance.”

However, instruction L-317.4.3.A.iii states “The cover sheet(s) shall be signed by both parties, and shall provide the subcontract amount, and the amount of the subcontract allocated to Direct Labor Hours and ODCs.”

In order to ensure Offerors’ cover sheets include the exact information the Government requires, can the government provide a template for

Offerors to use as a guide for the developing Letter of Commitment cover sheets as it did on Attachment 7 and Attachment 9?

L-317(b)(3)(A)(i) is referring to a cover sheet for all subcontractors (large and small) for the purposes of meeting the

Relevant Organizational Experience

Gate, and shall be included in Volume I, Section A as prescribed in L-317(a).

L-317(b)(3)(A)(iii) is referring to a cover sheet for small business subcontractors to meet the requirements of Factor 3 and the Extent of Participation of Small Business

Minimum Gate Requirement and shall be included in Volume I, Section C as prescribed in L-317(a).

The solicitation will be revised to clarify the submission requirements.

74 L-317(b)(3)(A)(i)

In regards to the Government requirement for Offerors to include “cover sheet from each letter of commitment with each proposed small business subcontractor,” there appears to be conflicting information as to exactly and where it should be included within the proposal.

For example, per instruction L-317.4.3.A.i, the cover sheets should be included within Volume I Written Capability Information, Section A

Section A, Relevant Organizational Experience.

However, per instruction L-317.4.3.A.iii, the cover sheets should be included within Volume I Written Capability Information, Section C, Extent of Participation of Small Business.

Can the Government please clarify where offerors should include the

Letter of Commitment Cover Sheets?

The solicitation will be revised to

75 L-317(b)(3)(A)(i)

Instruction L-317.4.3.A.iii states “The cover sheet(s)…shall provide the subcontract amount, and the amount of the subcontract allocated to

Direct Labor Hours and ODCs.” However, the changes in the pricing instructions does not allow for the calculation of ceiling direct hours.

Please advise if the Govt wants the ceiling Direct Labor amount.

The solicitation will be revised to cite

“direct labor” vice “direct labor hours”.

76 Attachment 7

Attachment 7, questions 14b and 14 c ask:

“ 14b. If “Yes” to 14a, have you regularly submitted SF 294/295 reports on time? Yes___.No ___.

14c. Attach a copy of your most recently submitted SF 294.”

However, SF 294 is no longer in use. Is it acceptable to the Government for the contractor to replace the SF 294 form with the Summary

Subcontracting Report (SSR)?

See answer to question #63

L-349

SUBMISSION OF

ELECTRONIC

PROPOSALS (SEP

2003)

Can the Government provide any detail as to if there is a file size limit to offerors’ electronic proposal submissions?

There is no specified file size limit.

However, your proposal posting time will depend upon the size of your file(s), the bandwidth of your connection, and the amount of traffic on the network at that particular time.

RFP, Block 9 of

As there are some offeror questions that have yet to be answered that will have a significant effect on offerors submissions (i.e. possibly reworking / reformatting content, asking for and receiving signatures and other input from partners, etc.), we respectfully request an extension equal to two weeks following the release of final answers to offeror questions.

See answer to question #71

79 L-317(a)

In the Submission Requirements Table, Volume I Section A requires signed cover sheet(s) from letter(s) of commitment specified in

L317(b)(3)(A)(i) and Volume I Section C requires signed cover sheet(s) from letter(s) of commitment specified in L317(b)(3)(iii).

a. Is it the Government’s intent that Offerors address the Section A requirement by providing signed cover sheets with letter(s) of commitment for all subcontractors that would include subcontract amount, the type of contract, and the period of performance? If so, would a copy of the teaming agreement suffice?

b. Whereas for Section C, is it the Government’s intent that

Offerors address this section’s requirement by providing signed cover sheets with letter(s) of commitment for small business subcontractors only that would include the subcontract amount and the amount of the subcontract allocated to Direct Labor Hours and ODCs?

See the answers to questions #73 and 74

80 RFP

If the offeror plans to use a wholly owned subsidiary to execute work on this contract, does the Government consider this subsidiary to be a subcontractor as defined by FAR and expect to receive a Letter of

Commitment with the subsidiary?

If the offeror…