Questions and Answers.xls
XLS spreadsheet 56 KB Posted
- Attached to
- R&D Optical Techniques, Devices and Measurements Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N00173-21-R-NA01
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for research and development services in optical techniques, devices, and measurements for the Naval Research Laboratory. The solicitation seeks unclassified basic and applied research over five years involving materials, devices, processing, fiber optics, lasers, imaging, signal processing, and other areas. Efforts include coordination across multiple tasks supporting various mission areas. Work will take place primarily at the Naval Research Laboratory facilities in Washington, D.C. The incumbent contract is held by Jacobs Technology Inc. Questions clarify aspects of the proposal submission process, labor categories, period of performance, and other solicitation details. Answers provide additional context or corrections as needed.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N00173-21-R-NA01.pdf | ||
| Questions and Answers.pdf | ||
| Questions and Answers.pdf | ||
| N00173-21-R-NA01.pdf | ||
| N00173-21-R-NA01.pdf | ||
| Questions and Answers.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Questions and Answers.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| N00173-21-R-NA01.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 Cost Proposal Format Updated.XLSX | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Questions and Answers.pdf | ||
| N00173-21-R-NA01.pdf | ||
| Questions and Answers2.pdf | ||
| Questions and Answers.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 Past Perfomrance Questionnaire.pdf | ||
| Attachment 5 Offeror Questions Submittal Form.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 2 On Site Requirements.pdf | ||
| N00173-21-R-NA01.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 Personnel Qualifications.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 Cost Proposal Format Updated.XLSX | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Exhibit A CDRLs A001-A005.pdf |
Show all 20
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions QUESTIONS & ANSWERS, August 16, 2021
N00173-21-R-NA01
| Question # | Name of Document Affected | Affected Section, Page, and Paragraph | Question | Answer | |
| 1 | Vol IV - Cost Proposal | L-6(1), Pg 92, Para 7 & Table 4 | LOE for Physicist/Electrical Eng. is listed at 7,820 per year, total of 36,400. However, 7,820 hours per year x 5 years totals 39,100 hours. Can the government please confirm the Physicist/Electrical Eng. LOE per year and for the duration of the effort? | The LOE for the Physicist/Electrical Engineer in Table 4 should be 7,280 per year for a total of 36,400. This matches the yearly total in paragraph 7 of 22,488 hours per year and a total LOE for the duration of the effort 112,440 hours. | |
| 2 | Level of Effort. Vol IV - Cost Proposal | H-6(a), Pg 36, Para 1. L-6(1), Pg 92, Para 7 & Table 4 | Adding up the total hours in each year (base and each option year) in Table 4 on page 92, the current totals are 23,028 hours per year and 115,140 for the duration of the effort. This differs from the document stated totals of 22,488 per year, 112,400 for the effort. Can the government please confirm the total LOE per year and for the duration of the effort? | See answer to question 1. | |
| 3 | Vol V - Contract Information | L-7, Pg 95 Heading | The Volume heading reflects IV, but should be V. Can the government please confirm that the Contract Information should be Volume V? | L-7 Volume heading should be volume V. | |
| 4 | SOW / Vol I - Technical Proposal | Section 3.7 - Pg 13 and Pg 85. | Is this offering 100% Onsite at NRL in Washington DC or are there opportunities to conduct research in contractor owned and operated labortories? | There are no opportunities for research to be conducted in contractor owned and operated labortories. | |
| 5 | Overal Proposal | L-2 (1) PAGE AND SIZE FORMAT, Pg 83, Paras 2 & 3 | Section L-2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS/OFFERS, (1) PAGE SIZE AND FORMAT states: "A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information." and "Legible tables, charts graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 X 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and shall count as two pages for each side; double sided shall count as four pages." Question: Would the Government confirm for 11x17 foldout pages if printed on one side only the page count for this foldout is 2 pages? | 11 x 17 foldout pages, if printed on only one side, will count as two (2) pages as per section L-2 (1) of the solicitation. | |
| 6 | SOW | SOW 1.0 Pg 11 | SOW 1.0 (pg 11) refers to “certain key research projects”. Will the government | ||
| be more specific about the application and mission objective of these projects as related to or driven by this research effort? | Sufficient details regarding the unclassified technology required to execute the research projects can be found in section 4.0, Technical Task, of the SOW. | ||||
| 7 | SOW | SOW 2.1 Pg 11-12 | SOW 2.1 (pg 11-12) “dictates that a major portion of the tasks be performed | ||
| [at NRL]”, which suggests a portion may be performed elsewhere. Is the balance typically performed at sub-contractors’ site? Or is there some work that has or is typically performed at the prime contractor’s site? | It is anticipated (based on historical data) that the work to be performed will require the unique NRL laboratory equipment facilities (as well as interfacing with other project personnel at NRL). As such the work will need to be performed at NRL, with the exception of work performed while on travel. | ||||
| 8 | SOW | SOW 3.8 Pg 13-14, SOW 7.0 Pg 17 | All work is expected to be unclassified (SOW 7.0/pg 17), but Travel/TDY | ||
| (SOW 3.8/pg 13-14) identify trips to military test ranges. Are those mutually exclusive requirements? Does this indicate that personnel could or should have security clearances? | The various facilities given in Section 3.8 are examples of various duty stations where work may occur. As stated the work performed on this contract is unclassified, and clearances are not required by personnel on this contract. | ||||
| 9 | SOW | F-1 Pg 21 | Period of Performance (F-1/pg 21), states “Performance under this contract | ||
| shall not exceed 60 months total” and the text and chart in this section clearly identify a total of 60 months of performance. However, the government also includes FAR 52.217-8 (pg 46) option to extend services, for an extension not to exceed 6 months. The government also includes in FAR 52.217-9 (c) (pg 46) that the total duration including exercise of extension shall not exceed 60 months. The detail under 52.217-9 (a) on pg 65 is blank regarding the timing to exercise options. 52.217-8 appears in conflict with the other two sections and statements. Please confirm that there is or is not the potential for the government to extend work beyond the 60 month period. | The Government anticipates a total Period of Performance of 60 months. | ||||
| 10 | SOW | H-6 (a) Pg 36 | H-6(a) (pg 36) specifies that sub-contractor direct labor counts against the | ||
| maximum total per year. If a sub-contractor works under a Firm Fixed Price agreement, please confirm that does not constitute direct labor and therefore doesn’t count against the maximum hours. | H-6(a) The level of effort for performance of this contract shall not exceed 22,488 total hours for year 1 and 22,488 total hours for each option, if exercised, for years 2-5 of direct labor, including subcontractor direct labor for those subcontractors specifically identified in the Contractor's proposal as having hours included in the proposed level of effort IS counted against the maximum hours. | ||||
| 11 | SOW | Section L-2 Pg 82 | Section L-2 (pg 82) Proposal Content/Proposal organization chart. Please | ||
| clarify the page limits for the Volume I Technical Proposal. Is the total 30 pages, inclusive of 10 pages each for Management, Transition, and Staffing Plan? Or is the total 60 pages, inclusive of 30 pages for Technical discussion and the aforementioned 3 x 10 page sections? | Total is 60 pages inclusive of 30 pages for Technical discussion and the Management, Transition and Staffing Plans. | ||||
| 12 | SOW | Section L-5 (B) Pg 90 | Section L-5(B) (pg 90) is titled Small Business Subcontracting Plan. | ||
| However, through the text in this section, a Subcontracting plan is not required though a Participation plan is required (as matches the chart in L-2). Please confirm the section heading and required content is a Participation plan with content as outlined in this section. | The heading for section L-5 (B) on page 90 should be Small Business Participation Plan with content as outlined in this section. | ||||
| 13 | RFP | What branch is this effort supporting, or does is this effort spread across | |||
| the NRL (56XX) branches? | This effort supports all of NRL code 5600. | ||||
| 14 | RFP | Please confirm the incumbent contract information, or if not directly | |||
| incumbent work, if and under what contracts are parts of this work currently being executed? | Contract N00173-14-D-2024, Key W now Jacobs Technology Inc. | ||||
| 15 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | L-5 (B), Pg 90, Para 3 | L-5 (B) is titled a SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN; however the requirements detail a Small Business Participation Plan and note that a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not required. Can the Government please confirm that a Small Business Participation Plan is required, not a Small Business Subcontracting Plan? | See the response to question 12 above. | |
| 16 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | L-2, Pg 83, Para 2 - 5 | In the section titled (1) PAGE SIZE AND FORMAT, the Government establishes size requirements, but not font preferences. Are Contractors permitted to presume that any standard system font is permissible so long as it is legible at the sizes stated? | Any uncomplicated, legible, 12 point font is acceptable. | |
| 17 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | L-2, Pg 82 | In the table on page 82, the RFP references Volume # and Title, III Cost Proposal, yet on page 91, L-6 the heading of this paragraph is VOLUME IV - COST PROPOSAL. Can the Government please clarify the volume numbers? | The table on page 82 should list IV - Cost Proposal, followed by IV - Cost Spreadsheet (Excel). The heading on page 91, L-6 should read Volume IV - Cost Proposal. | |
| 18 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | L-2, Pg 82 | In the table on page 82, the RFP lists Small Business Participation, Cost Proposal, and Cost Spreadsheet (Excel) all as Volume III. If in fact Cost Volume is Volume IV (see question # 3 above) then is Contract Information Volume V? | The table on page 82 should list V - Contract Information. Section L-7 should read Volume V - Contract Information. | |
| 19 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | L-2, Pg 82 | In the table on page 82, the RFP lists specific file naming conventions for the Management Plan, Transition Plan, and Staffing Plan. Can the Government confirm that these are to be submitted as part of the Offeror's Volume I - Technical Proposal submission and not as separate files? | The Management Plan, Transition Plan, and Staffing Plan are to be submitted as part of the Offeror's Volume I - Technical Proposal submission. See section L-3 Volume I - Technical Proposal of the solicitation. | |
| 20 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | Table 4 | Referencing the Table 4 of the Solicitation, ‘LCATs, Skill Mix and Labor Hours’, can the Government please review or further explain the hours contained in the table as well as the summary hours? |
| Specifically, the number of hours for the ‘Physicist/Electrical Eng.’ is listed as 7,820 which is not an efficient derivative or multiple of the basic full-time equivalent (FTE) hours of 1,920. Can the Government explain whether that is a combination of whole FTEs and partial FTEs? | See the response to question 1 above. | |||
| 21 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | Table 4 | The total numbers in the table do not accumulate correctly to the total listed at the bottom of the table. The 22,488 listed is short of the accumulated hours of 23,028 for each year. Coincidentally, a correction to the total hours for the Physicist/Electrical Eng.’ to be 7,280 corrects the accumulation of the line items of hours to equal the Total – both within each year as well as the line item total of 36,400 hours for the 'Physicist/Electrical Eng.’ However, a total of 7,280 is not an efficient derivative or multiple of the basic full-time equivalent (FTE) hours of 1,920. |
| Can the Government explain whether that is a combination of whole FTEs and partial FTEs, and can the Government review and correct as appropriate Table 4 in its entirety as applicable? | See the response to question 1 above. | ||||
| 22 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | Table 4 | References to the 22,488 hours per year are present in several places within the solicitation. If necessary changes are made to this number, would the Government also correct those numbers throughout the solicitation document? | See the response to question 1 above. | |
| 23 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | Section M, Factor 4 Cost | Referencing the Section M-6 Factor 4 Cost criteria, specifically the instructions to provide actual incurred direct and indirect labor rates for the past three contractor fiscal years, can the Government elaborate on the request? Specifically, and in consideration of the offeror’s ability to provide supporting documentation from DCMA/DCAA that supports our proposed indirect rates, would the Government accept a DCMA letter accepting the utilized indirect rates as sufficient support for our proposed indirect rates? |
| Our experience of this type of requirement to provide a number of years of historical data is most often applicable to offerors who cannot produce a viable document from DCMA/DCAA. Would the Government consider modifying this requirement to also include notification from DCAA/DCMA (e.g., PBR letter) as a viable source of our proposed indirect rates? | Please provide your actual incurred direct and indirect labor rates to support the rates being proposed for this solicitation. A letter from DCMA / DCAA accepting the utilized direct and indirect rates is sufficient support for proposed rates. Notification from DCAA/DCMA would be considered a viable source of proposed indirect rates on agency letter head. | ||||
| 24 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | Government Provided Cost / Price Model | Within the Government provided Cost/Price Model certain cells were populated with Material and ODC amounts. Can the Government confirm that these amounts were placeholders and should be replaced by the specific figures provided in the solicitation? | Offerors are instructed to propose the plug amounts provided in the Cost/Price Model - Attachment 3. | |
| 25 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | Government Provided Cost / Price Model L-6(1) CLIN Pricing Instructions, Pg 92 | Section L-6 (1) has been updated to state that "Offerors are instructed to propose only the above stated plug amounts for Material and ODC. |
However, the Government's answer to Question 24 states that "Offerors are instructed to propose the plug amounts provided in the Cost/Price Model - Attachment 3."
| The table provided in Section L-6 (1) provides different plug figures than the amounts included Attachment 3. Can the Government please confirm that Offerors should use the plug figures included in Section L-6 (1) and provide an updated Attachment 3 reflecting these dollar amounts? | The plug figures in both section L-6(1) and attachment 3 have been updated. | ||||
| 26 | Cost Proposal | L-6(1) Tables 3, 5, and 6. Attachment 3 excel file | Can the government please clarify the total amounts of materials and ODC costs as the tables on page 92 and 93/94 (Tables 3, 5, and 6) of the solicitation do not align? May the government please also confirm Attachment 3 will be updated to reflect these updated values? | See the response to question 25. | |
| 27 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | Attachment 3: Government Provided Cost/Price Model |
Tables 3 (Page 93), Table 5 (Page 94), Table 6 (Page 94), and GTEPC Table (Page 109) Can the Government please clarify the total amounts of materials and ODC costs within the tables on RFP pages 92, 93, and 94 (Tables 3, 5, and 6) compared to the figures on RFP Page 109 (GTEPC Table) and the figures in Attachment 3, Cost/Price Model? The numbers in the Tables 3, 5, and 6 do not match the number in the GTEPC Table and also appear to be inconsistent with the figures in Attachment 3?
Table 3 (RFP Page 92) Material/Equip Cost $45,544 $49,659 $53,214 $56,836 $59,984 Travel/Freight/Shipping/ODC $13,603 $14,099 $14,568 $15,081 $15,604
Table 5 (RFP Page 93) Material/Equip Cost $45,544 $49,659 $53,214 $56,836 $59,984
Table 6 (RFP Page 94)
ODC $13,603 $14,099 $14,568 $15,081 $15,604
GTEPC Table (RFP Page 109) Material $53,297 $57,343 $60,856 $64,392 $67,446
ODC $5,850 $6,416 $6,926 $7,526 $8,143
Attachment 3 ODCs - Travel $2,295.00 $3,208.00 $3,463.00 $3,763.00 $4,071.50 Total ODC - Travel $10,678.25 $10,837.82 $11,105.38 $11,318.95 $11,531.51 ODCs - Material $2,925.00 $3,208.00 $3,463.00 $3,763.00 $4,071.50 Total ODC - Materials and Equipment $42,619.00 $46,451.00 $49,751.00 $53,073.00 $55,913.00
| The numbers added together for Cells G56 – G58 ($2,925+$10,678.25) equal the number ($ 13,603) referenced in Tables 3 and 6 in the solicitation file, but the reason for the accumulation of these numbers is still a source of inquiry, and doesn’t equal the numbers referenced in the GTEPC Table on Page 109 of the solicitation. | Pg 109 GTEPC table updated and match tables 3, 5, 6 and attachement 3. | ||||
| 28 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | Attachment 3: Government Provided Cost/Price Model | The spreadsheet file (Attachment 3) does not seem to utilize the formula approach to the Plug figures. For example, one would assume that Cell G58 would be an accumulation of Cells G56 and G57 [‘=SUM(G56:G57)’]. But the number in Cell G58 is hard coded. Would the Government please confirm that the lack of formulas is intential or would the Government please provide an updated Attachment 3 with formulas included? | Cell D58 does include the following formula. SUM(G58+J58+M58+S58) | |
| 29 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | Attachment 3: Government Provided Cost/Price Model | The ODCs – Travel and the ODCs – Material are identical in Attachment 3. Can the Government please confirm if that is intentional and/or accurate? | This is intentional. | |
| 30 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | Please confirm that the RFP is a total small business set-aside. | This is full and open competition, no set-aside was made. | ||
| 31 | N00173-21-R-NA01 | We request a small extension to the due date based on availability of personnel due to the recent vaccine mandates from DOD. Azimuth personnel are in the process to support the new issuance and some essential personnel are not available. Azimuth requests an extension to 8 August. | The closing date of the solicitation will not be extended at this time. | ||
| Explanation of Fields: |
1. Submitting Organization: Provide the name of the organization submitting the question.
2. Point of Contact: Provide the full contact information for the individual(s) that are submitting the questions. 3. Organization Question #: Submit questions separately and consecutively. All questions shall have a unique number assigned.
4. Name of Document Affected: Provide the name of the document affected (ex. RFP, or Att. J-8).
5. Affected Section Page, and Paragraph: Provide the affected section/page/paragraph title in relation to the question.
6. Question: Provide detailed question.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .