Q and A - N00039-18-R-0060 - Shore - 26 MAR 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.

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 sharla.vanbramer@navy.mil.

mailto:chris.thompson1@navy.mil mailto:sharla.vanbramer@navy.mil