QandA 6.24.24.pdf

N0017324RBR05

Questions and Answers Date: 06/18/2024

Question 1: We are in receipt of RFP N0017324RBR05. However, it would appear that the actual RFP files is missing. Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 appear to be identical. Can you please clarify how we can find the full RFP files that would include Sections L & M.

Answer 1: The actual Solicitation has been posted to SAM.gov. The SOW IDIQ and SOW Task Order are substantively the same.

Question 2: Could you provide clarification on the inclusion of the PPQ in the Volume as directed in the RFP or if you would like them electronically submitted by the CORs to the Contract Specialists?

Answer 2: The questionnaire shall be provided to the customer POC with instructions to complete and submit it directly to the Contract Specialist on or before the proposal due date. Electronic submission is the only acceptable method.

Question3: The RFP indicates a budget of $155,364.50 for travel. Can the government provide an estimated number of trips and trip locations?

Answer 3:

Travel estimates are shown below. Please note that these are estimates for planning purposes only.

Actual travel may vary.

Year 1

ORIGIN/DESTINATION # of People # of Days

# Trips

MRY/Washington, DC 1 5 10

MRY/Norfolk, VA 1 3 2

MRY/Jacksonville, FL 1 5 4

MRY/Honolulu, HI 1 5 2

MRY/OCONUS (e.g. Paris, FR) 1 5 5

MRY/Unknown Travel 1 5 15

Year 2

ORIGIN/DESTINATION # of People # of Days

# Trips

MRY/Washington, DC 1 5 10

MRY/Norfolk, VA 1 3 2

MRY/Jacksonville, FL 1 5 4

Question 4: Can the government confirm that this is an 18-month contract with 1 year base and a 6 month option period?

Answer 4: This is a single award Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract with a five-year ordering period utilizing FAR Part 15. Task orders are expected to be issued on a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (completion and/or term) basis. The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options, shall not exceed 5 years and 6 months. The initial task order has a one year base period plus a 6 month option period.

Question 5: Section: 3.4.3 Procurements to support R&D, states that a "$200,000 annual cap on purchasing of equipment or supplies." However, the ODC clause in the RFP is limited to $3,000. Can you please clarify this?

Answer 5: Section 3.4.3 was written to provide the “option” to purchase equipment/materials up to $200K under special circumstances (e.g., in support of a field program). The $3,000 amount is only an estimate and was envisioned as “routine” equipment/materials (e.g., laptop).

Question 6: The Task Order Level of Effort table in section L page 58 of Amendment 1 states that the Research Scientist, Senior is a key position for 5880 hours of year 1. Is the government looking for resumes of 1, 2 or 3 persons?

Answer 6: The government is looking for three resumes for three key personnel positions for Sr. Research Scientist.

Question 7: Given that Management Capability is directly addressed in Section L-8-2 “Factor 2 – Management Capability”, when the RFP states in Section L-8-1 Factor 1, “address each of the task areas of the SoW”, does that exclude section 3.5 “Program Management” from the Factor 1 discussion?

Answer 7: For evaluation purposes, “Technical Capability” under Factor 1 is different from “Management Capability” under Factor 2.

Question 8: When the RFP states “each of the task areas of the SoW,” does that mean each numbered section and subsection found in Sections 3.1 – 3.4 to include the set 3.1.x, 3.2.x, 3.3.x, and 3.4.x of “Attachment 1 -SOW IDIQ.pdf”

Answer 8: The offeror should attempt to provide at least some general knowledge/expertise on the subsections found in Sections 3.1 – 3.4 to include the set 3.1.x, 3.2.x, 3.3.x, and 3.4.x.

Question 9: Since evaluation Factor 4 is “PAST PERFORMANCE” is addressed separately in RFP Section M-4-2, would it be correct to interpret that RFP Section M-4-1 only address Factors 1 through 3?

Answer 9: RFP Section M-4-1 only addresses Factors 1 through 3.

Question 10: Is it correct that evaluation Factor 4 is NOT considered a Technical Factor?

Answer 10: Evaluation Factor 4 – Past Performance is NOT considered a Technical Factor

Question 11: A sentence in the section states, “The Offeror's past performance volume shall contain electronic copies of the first page of the Customer's Questionnaire and the transmittal letters.” Given that earlier in the same section the section L instruction states, “Offerors shall provide Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire) and/or CPARS Reports ....” should the first sentence referenced be changed to read, “The Offeror's past performance volume shall contain electronic copies of the first page of the Customer's Questionnaire or CPARS Reports and the transmittal letters ?

Answer 11: It should be re-read as follows: “The Offeror's past performance volume shall contain electronic copies of the first page of the Customer's Questionnaire and/or CPARS Reports and the transmittal letters.”

Question 12: For the Key Personnel position of Program Manager listed on Page 54 of Section L-8-3 is it compliant to propose this role be filled remotely? Can this position be filled remotely?

The table listing labor categories and key personnel lists the Program Manager position as “GOV” in the “Site” column.

Answer 12: The program manager is not required to be on-site. The site listing of Program Manager as GOV is preferred, but not required.

Question 13: For the Key Personnel position of Research Scientist, Senior listed on Page 54 of Section L-8-3 is it acceptable and compliant to propose this role be filled remotely? Can this position be filled remotely?

The table listing labor categories and key personnel lists the Research Scientist, Senior position as “GOV” in the “Site” column.

Answer 13: The position of Senior Research Scientist is preferred to be onsite. However, the onsite/remote status will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based upon justification.

Question 14: The table listing labor categories and key personnel lists some position as “GOV” in the “Site” column. Can the government site be government sites other than NRL-MRY?

Answer 14: It is preferred that the site be NRL-MRY but will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and could include government sites other than NRL-MRY, if justified and warranted.

Question 15: For the Key Personnel position of Application Development Engineer, Senior listed on Page 54 of Section L-8-3 is it compliant to propose this role be filled remotely? Can this position be filled remotely?

The table listing labor categories and key personnel lists the Application Development Engineer, Senior position as “GOV” in the “Site” column.

Answer 15: Application Development Engineer, Senior is preferred to be onsite. However, the onsite/remote status will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based upon justification.

Question 16: Which of the roles are located in Hawaii?

Answer 16: No roles are located in Hawaii. Travel is possibly anticipated to Hawaii.

Question 17: Considering the depth and breadth of the requirements in the SOW, would the government consider allowing 4 past performances instead of 3?

Answer 17: The Governments requirement of a maximum of 3 relevant efforts for the Past Performance Questionnaires and/or CPARS Reports for the subcontractor, teaming partner, etc, remains unchanged.