Q and A - N00039-18-R-0060 - Shore - 10 JAN 2018.pdf

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

Questions & Answers

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 requirement.

(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.

(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.

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 robert.wiley1@navy.mil.

mailto:chris.thompson1@navy.mil mailto:robert.wiley1@navy.mil