Amendment_0001.pdf

MULTIPLEAWARD

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to provide answ ers to questions received; change Section H clause IHEODTD 91; change Section I clause

52.222-42; change Section K clause 52.219-1; change Section L clause IHD 195 and change Section M clause HQ M-2-0001 for this solicitation.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 38

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-May-2016

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N00174-16-R-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Apr-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

15-May-2016

CODE

NSWC INDIAN HEAD EOD TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

ATTN: JOYCE OLIVER

4072 NORTH JACKSON ROAD

INDIAN HEAD MD 20640

N00174 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00174-16-R-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS RECEIVED

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO SOLICITATION N00174-16-R-0003

01. QUESTION:

I noticed that in all items 0001 through 0013 associated with the Base Year and all 4 options the document states that:

“The contractor shall provide a broad spectrum of capabilities by including access to performers that may include, but not be limited to, private industry, academia, and not-for-profit/specially chartered corporations (excluding

Federal Laboratories, National Laboratories, and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers)”.

Our company is looking forward to responding to the above-mentioned RFP.

Our company is a small company that for many years has been collaborating with Sandia National Labs and now we would like to utilize SNL’s services (as a sub) in the potential proposed effort under the Solicitation N00174-16-R-

0003.

I would like to emphasize that in this case SNL is not competing with any organization-they provide a support to a small company such as our company.

Can any exclusion be applied in our case to allow SNL to be used as a subcontractor to Eureka Aerospace?

01. RESPONSE:

Your company would have to have a separate two-party agreement with SNL that would not involve any funds provided on the contract. The costs would have to be borne solely by your company and any liabilities incurred by the agreement would not be mitigating factors to the responsibility of your company meeting contract requirements with IHEODTD. “Consultant” definition may apply here?

02. QUESTION:

Our company is a small US business that has technology of interest for this solicitation - we have presented it a few times to JNLWD and we believe we resonated very well with them and they told us to wait for this solicitation. Yet as a small company we are unlikely to lead an IDIQ proposal. Is there a teaming website or some other vehicle for us to provide information to prospective primes to help them potentially pull us onto their teams.

02. RESPONSE:

Please refer to the 2012 Industry Day attendee list as a starting point:

https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis_file/M6785412JNLW4_JNLWP_Industry_Day_Attendee_List_(2).pdf.

03. QUESTION:

We are a small business interested in either direct responding to this BAA or participating as a sub-contractor. I have a few logistical questions:

1. Must the offeror have office locations in the Wash DC area near Indian Head?

If the answer is yes, we are done. The rest of the questions are not relevant.

If there is flexibility, more questions:

2. We have never had a R&D IDIQ MAC with the DoD so far (although we have DCAA compliance accounting system in place and have performed on many DoD C+FF contracts). Is prior IDIQ contract a must have requirement?

https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis_file/M6785412JNLW4_JNLWP_Industry_Day_Attendee_List_(2).pdf

3. We recently obtained our facility clearance and currently only have “interim secret” facility clearance but expect to have full secret in a couple of months (after the waiting period is over). Is that acceptable?

4. Not all of our personnel have had the need to obtain clearances so far. For those who do not (but necessarily involved with this potential project), is it acceptable to assume we process their clearances at the time of an award?

03. RESPONSE:

#1. NO

#2 NO

#3 Secret facility clearance would be required at the time of award.

#4 Key Personnel clearance would be required to be available to start work at the time of award. Other personnel would be required to be able to start work at contract award+30 days.

04. QUESTION

I had a question regarding the solicitation N00174-16-R-0003. We are a State University interested in cooling solutions for energy dense systems like Non-Lethal Weapons. While at another company I worked a little bit with the Active Denial effort for the Air Force so I have some experience with these types of solutions and the unique thermal management issues they present. I’ve attached a white paper for some research regarding active two-phase cooling of these type of systems as I believe that boiling heat transfer is the key to reducing SWaP significantly. I see that the RFP is much more geared toward industry but I was curious if there was an opportunity for some fundamental research at the university level to assist with your mission. Thank you for your help with this and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

04. RESPONSE

We are equally interested in industry and academia capability and expertise and wish to expand our performer base in both arenas.

05. QUESTION

Referencing page 65, clause 52.222-42, the table provides the equivalent GS level for some of the government requested labor categories. However, the table does not address the following labor categories:

Engineer

Senior Engineer

Instead the table provides information for two labor categories that are not in the solicitation (Technician and Senior

Technician). Will the government provide the GS equivalents for both the Engineer and Senior Engineer labor categories?

05. RESPONSE

Yes, GS equivalents for Engineer and Senior Engineer labor categories have been added to Section L clause 195 as follows:

Engineer GS-11/12 /S10

Senior Engineer GS-13 /S10

06 . QUESTION

Reference: RFP Page 9, Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices

Comment: The text at the end of Section B states: “Note: The total value of all task orders issued under any multiple award contracts awarded as a result of this solicitation, when combined, shall not exceed the value of the highest proposal received and will be identified at the time of contract award. The guaranteed minimum for each contract awarded will be $10,000.00.” (emphasis added)

Question: Does the Government mean the highest proposed cost among successful offeror(s) or the highest proposed amount among all proposals received regardless of whether the proposal was selected for award?

Recommendation: We respectfully suggest that the Government establish the ceiling to be reflective of the anticipated requirements over the life of the contract. Basing the ceiling on a cost buildup of approximately 414,000 hours with no necessarily direct correlation to the actual tasking to be requested does not serve the best interests of the Government or the industrial base proposing to support this requirement.

06. RESPONSE

The ceiling on the contract (i.e., total value of all anticipated task orders) will not exceed the value of the highest proposal received. There will not be a ceiling on each individual award but rather the ceiling will be set at the aggregate level

07. QUESTION

References: RFP Page 11, Clauses HQ B-2-0021 CONTRACT SUMMARY FOR PAYMENT OFFICE (COST

TYPE) (FEB 1997) and IHEODTD 5 - FEE, COST PLUS FIXED FEE INDEFINITE QUANITITY TYPE

CONTRACTS (NAVSEA/NSWC IHEODTD) (OCT 2013), Pate 55-56, Clause IHEODTD 91 - ORDERING

UNDER MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACTS (NAVSEA/NSWC IHEODTD (OCT 2013); FAR 16.505

Comment: The HQ B-2-0021 clause provide that “[t]his contract is an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) type contract with Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) type orders.” IHEODTD 5 clause provides that “[t]he percentage of fee applicable to delivery orders will be the same as the fee established in the basic contract.”

Clause IHEODTD 91 provides that “In the event that multiple awards result from this solicitation, task orders will be issued, competed, evaluated and awarded in accordance with the specific terms and conditions of each delivery order which may include price, past performance, technical proposal, or a combination thereof. Fair Opportunity to compete for each individual order need not be given to awardees for a particular order over $3,000.00 due to (1) urgency of the task, (2) quality of past deliverables or (3) economy/efficiency interests as determined by the

Contracting Officer.”

Because the Government is seeking to limit fee on individual task orders to that proposed at the IDIQ level, offerors need specific information about how the Government intends to conduct the delivery order competitions.

07a. QUESTION

The language in Clause IHEODTD 91 appears inconsistent with FAR 16.505(b)(2) which specifies the permitted exceptions to the fair opportunity process. For example, “quality of past deliverables” is not specified in FAR

16.505(b)(2) as a permissible exception to fair opportunity. Please clarify how this clause is in compliance with the

FAR requirements for competing orders under multiple-award IDIQ contracts.

07a. RESPONSE

Section L clause 195 para 1.1.1 has been to read…Once the Government makes contractual awards individual delivery orders will be competed and awarded based on any one or a combination of source selection criteria, pursuant to FAR 15.101.

7b. QUESTION

The micro-purchase threshold increased from $3,000 to $3,500 in July 2015 and FAR 15.505 (b)(1)(i) provides that

“The contracting officer must provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding

$3,500 issued under multiple delivery-order contracts or multiple task-order contracts, except as provided for in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.” Please confirm whether the reference in clause IHEODTD 91 should be $3,500 versus $3,000.

9b. RESPONSE

IHEODTD 91 has been updated to reflect $3,500.00 versus $3,000.00

9c. QUESTION

FAR 16.505(b)(1) affords the Contracting Officer with a measure of discretion in establishing the ordering process;

however, FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (D) require that Contracting Officer must “[d]evelop placement procedures that will provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for each order and that reflect the requirement and other aspects of the contracting environment” and must “[i]nclude the procedures in the solicitation and the contract.” Please provide information in compliance with FAR 16.505(b)(1) detailing how the Government intends to conduct the delivery order competitions.

9c. RESPONSE

Section L clause 195 para 1.1.1 has been changed to read…Once the Government makes contractual awards individual delivery orders will be competed and awarded based on any one or a combination of source selection criteria, pursuant to FAR 15.101.

9d. QUESTION

How long will successful offerors be given to respond to delivery order RFPs?

9d. RESPONSE

14 day response time

9e. QUESTION

What is the anticipated average value of issued delivery orders?

9e. RESPONSE

The average government values may be but not limited to less than $100K to greater than $2M.

9f. QUESTION

16.506 (Solicitation provisions and contract clauses) identifies a number of mandatory solicitation clauses that appear missing from the RFP. Please clarify whether all of the required solicitation provisions have been included in

Section I.

9f. RESPONSE

The Government believes we have included all applicable clauses in our RFP.

10. QUESTION

Reference: RFP page 92, IHD 195 - SECTION L PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2000) NAVSEA/IHD), Section 5.0 (Proposal Organization), VOLUME III – COST (FACTOR 3)

Comment: The RFP specifies the following with regard to direct labor:

“The Government specified Level of Effort (LOE) by labor hours and labor category is provided in Table 1.

Offerors may deviate from the provided labor category mix but must propose a total of 82,800 total hours per year.

A work-year is based on 1,920 hours. Key Personnel are identified by a “K”. If the Offeror opts to propose a different labor category mix, a detailed justification shall be provided supporting the change. If documentation is not provided, the proposal may be deemed unrealistic and the Government may infer either a lack of understanding of the requirements, increased risk of performance, or lack of credibility on the part of the Offeror.

If any additional support is to be directly charged to the order, it must be added to the specified work years listed in the attachment. For example, if any contract/business management or administrative support is needed by the

Offeror, it shall be proposed. The Offeror shall clearly state all administrative support functions that are to be direct charged, including word processing, reproduction, contract administration (to include support for progress report preparation and invoicing), security administration, contract quality assurance, CDRL review and approval, etc. The hours/amounts proposed for each of these functions shall be fully explained and justified. Support functions not proposed to be direct charged will be considered overhead in nature and will not be allowed as direct charges under the task order.”

The language in is the referenced section above appears to be inconsistent with the multiple-award IDIQ nature of this contract. Rather, the language seems designed to address a specific order under a contract such as SeaPort e where there is a defined LOE for the “order.”

Please review this language and make needed clarifications and modifications to reflect the multiple-award IDIQ nature of this effort.

10. RESPONSE

Contract proposals are aimed at a general labor mix and are not required to anticipate all needs for labor.

Task/Delivery orders would contain specific labor categories, personnel, and hours and may require evaluation of resumes for key personnel not addressed in the contract proposal.

Section L clause 195 para 1.1.1 has been changed to read…Once the Government makes contractual awards individual delivery orders will be competed and awarded based on any one or a combination of source selection

11. QUESTION

Reference: RFP Page 16, Section C - Descriptions and Specifications, Paragraph 6 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED

PROPERTY

Comment: The Statement of Work states: “All Government furnished information, material, and equipment will be specified in the individual task orders. All government furnished information is the property of the U.S. Government and shall not be transferred to any individual or agency public or private without the express written approval of the

Task Order Contracting Officer, except as required for the specific performance of tasks under this contract.” In order for offerors to understand what needs to be included in proposed indirect rates at the IDIQ level, it is necessary that the Government clarify what GFP is reasonably contemplated under the individual task orders.

Question: Please identify the types of GFP that is anticipated to be provided under the individual task orders.

11. RESPONSE

GFP needs would be addressed in the task order proposals and authorized in the task order award.

12. QUESTION

Reference: RFP Page 15, Section C - Descriptions and Specifications, Paragraph 4, PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

AND REPORTING

Comment: Section 4.2 provides: “Resumes may be required on individual task orders.”

12a QUESTION

Please clarify the purpose, intent and application of Section 4.2.

12a. RESPONSE

Contract proposals are aimed at a general labor mix and are not required to anticipate all needs for labor.

Task/Delivery orders would contain specific labor categories, personnel, and hours and may require evaluation of

12b. QUESTION

Are resumes required only for “key personnel” on the delivery order?

12b. RESPONSE

Yes, per 5252.237-9106 (p.52) and Technical Approach-Sub Factor 2 (p97). Also, resumes for any personnel may also be requested as part of contract or order award per IHEODTD 17 (p22).

12c. QUESTION

If resumes are required, will evaluation of the resumes be part of the fair opportunity evaluation of the competitive delivery orders under this IDIQ?

12c RESPONSE

Resumes of personnel proposed for delivery orders could be reviewed to support determination of “technical acceptability” component of the award evaluation.

13. QUESTION

Reference: RFP Page 16, Section C - Descriptions and Specifications, Paragraph 7. SECURITY; RFP page 97 IHD

195 - SECTION L PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2000) NAVSEA/IHD), Section 5.0 (Proposal

Organization), VOLUME I – TECHNICAL (FACTOR 1), Sub-factor 2: Facility Security Clearance/Personnel

Resources

Comment: Section 7.2.2 provides: “Specific security clearance requirements will be specified on a DoD Contract

Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) per individual task order. Unclassified task orders do not require a facility clearance issued by the Defense Security Service nor a DD Form 254. Personnel performing on individual task order may be required to have a clearance up to the Secret (compartmented and collateral) level. The contractor shall be required to safeguard information at the level specified in the DD Form 254 in this contract and/or the task order. Collection and use of unclassified, unclassified but limited distribution, and classified (foreign and domestic) information in the performance of this Statement of Objectives is authorized as long as all security regulations and restrictions are adhered to.” (emphasis added)

The instructions for Sub-factor 2: Facility Security Clearance/Personnel Resources provides: “A security clearance is required for Contractor personnel working under this contract. The required security clearance level for each labor category is provided in Table 1. Interim clearances are not acceptable. Personnel security clearances must be verified by the Offeror in the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS).”

Table 1 appears at RFP page 100 et seq. and specifies a SECRET clearance for all identified labor categories.

13a. QUESTION

Please clarify whether all task orders issued under the IDIQ will require that all assigned employees have an active

SECRET clearance.

13a. RESPONSE

The Government anticipates that task/delivery orders issued under this contract will require SECRET clearance.

13b. QUESTION

Would the Government permit a use of non-cleared personnel performing unclassified analysis in support of a classified task in full compliance with all safeguarding and need to know requirements?

13b. REPONSE

A security clearance is required for all Contractor personnel working under this contract. Clearance levels required for specific labor categories in Table 1 are indicated (SECRET). Unclassified information may be generated by the individual orders but must be handled by cleared personnel in accordance with DD Form 254 and all security regulations.

14. QUESTION

Reference: RFP page 92 IHD 195 - SECTION L PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2000) NAVSEA/IHD), Page 103 HQ M-2-0001 BASIS OF AWARD (NAVSEA) (SEP 1990)

Comment: The Government appears to have inadvertently comingled solicitation provisions designed to evaluate an individual task order or contract award with those designed to evaluate a multiple-award IDIQ contract.

For example, language requiring the identification of key personnel for each of the 9 functional areas (“Offeror’s should identify at least one key person for each functional area in which they are claiming capability.”) and requiring that those key personnel be available upon award of the IDIQ is inconsistent with the fact that upon award of the IDIQ the successful offeror has nothing more than the right to compete for future task orders and a minimum guarantee of $10,000. Similarly, the requirement to identify “non-key personnel” for all of the hours in the labor table with the requirement that the non-key personnel be available within 30 days of award. (See Instructions for

Sub-factor 2: Facility Security Clearance/Personnel Resources at RFP Page 97: “The Offeror shall certify that all proposed Key Personnel shall be available at the time of contract award, and non-key personnel and contingent hires within 30 days of contract award.”)

The Government indicates in Section B that “The contractor shall provide a broad spectrum of capabilities by including access to performers that may include, but not be limited to, private industry, academia, and not-for-profit/specially chartered corporations” and provides six representative task types that could be applied across 9 functional areas (or a combination thereof). The Statement of Work provides: “The Contractor, in response to task orders issued under this contract by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Explosive Ordinance Disposal

Technology Division (NSWC IHEODTD), shall provide RDT&E services that may potentially span the entire spectrum of mission areas under the purview of the JNLWD. Additionally, RDT&E support may be provided to other Department of Defense (DoD), non-DoD, or Joint agencies for work that is integrally related to the identified functional areas and mission.” In contrast to the this necessarily broad definition of the required support (it is after all an IDIQ that covers 5 years), the Government provides a table of labor categories and hours that are constant year to year in both hours and labor mix.

Similarly, language related to the period of performance of the contract does not consistently make the appropriate distinctions between the IDIQ “ordering period(s)” and the periods of performance for the individual task orders.

(See Clause IHEODTD 62 - PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (NAVSEA/NSWC IHEODTD) (OCT 2013) at RFP

Pages 28-29: “The Basic effort to be performed under this contract, including delivery of data, shall be completed within a period of 60 months beginning with the effective date of this contract. The total contract duration is 60 months which includes a 12 month base period and four (4) 12 month option periods.”)

Recommendation: We respectfully recommend that the Government carefully examine the solicitation and harmonize/adjust all requirements such that they are responsive to the multiple award IDIQ nature of the solicitation.

The Government could either withdraw the current solicitation or inform prospective offers that changes to address, inter alia, the IDIQ nature of the solicitation will be forthcoming. We offer for the Government’s consideration the following suggestions:

a. Identify specific key personnel for the IDIQ contract (versus the task orders). This could include a Program

Manager and an overall Project Lead.

b. Require offerors to provide representative personnel against the 9 functional areas as evidence of their

“capability and expertise as it pertains to each of the [SOW paragraphs and performance areas].”

c. Establish a contract ceiling based on the expected volume of work to be ordered under the IDIQ, e.g., $50 to $70M.

d. Award contracts to the 5 “Highest Technically Rated, Fair and Reasonable Priced” offerors to achieve the objective of awarding contracts to Offerors of varying core expertise across at least 7 of the 9 functional areas with the variety of professional services disciplines and expertise to meet the Government’s requirements under the IDIQ.

Note: this was the approach used by GSA on the

e. Perform a cost realism and reasonableness analysis on rates provided by the prime and proposed subcontractors similar to that which was performed by the General Services Administration in conducting the source selection for the OASIS professional services multiple-award IDIQ family of contracts. In sum, GSA looked at whether the indirect rates and escalation were supported by and consistent with DCAA disclosures and whether the direct labor rates fell within certain percentiles for the mapped Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB)

Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) maintains compensation data, i.e., between the 50th (realism) and 90th (reasonableness) percentiles. These rates would be binding on offerors for task orders awarded without fair opportunity competition. See https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=df05de3d9c9caf1e7943d278094eefb1&tab=core&_cvi ew=1 and Attachment 1 to these Questions.

f. Consider including either priced sample or awardable tasks to evaluate cost and price (in conjunction with the realism analysis discussed above) if cost and price competition is desired at the IDIQ level. Note: the most effective cost price competition occurs at the task order level when the requirements are clearly defined and multiple awardees are competing for the work.

g. Apply the substitution of key personnel provision at the IDIQ to only the Program Manager and the overall

Project Manager and at the task order level to those positions proposed as key by the offeror as part of the task order fair opportunity competition.

h. Require offerors to propose a small business subcontracting plan that allocates dollars based on the identified Government ceiling (versus requiring an arbitrary allocation of hours from among the approximately

414,000 now included in Table 1 given that it is impossible to assign hours from that table given the uncertainties associated with the IDIQ).

i. Include a Management sub-factor where offerors are required to detail the approach, experience, tools and capabilities to effectively manage an IDIQ contract of this scope and complexity, including rapidly responding to task order RFPs RDT&E for services that may potentially span the entire spectrum of mission areas under the purview of the JNLWD and may require drawing upon private industry, academia, and not-for-profit/specially chartered corporations to deliver highly-specialized expertise and solutions.

14. RESPONSE

Contract proposals are aimed at a general labor mix and are not required to anticipate all needs for labor.

Task/Delivery orders would contain specific labor categories, personnel, and hours and may require evaluation of

Section L clause 195 para 1.1.1 has been changed to read…Once the Government makes contractual awards individual delivery orders will be competed and awarded based on any one or a combination of source selection

15. QUESTION

Reference: RFP Page 15, Section C - Descriptions and Specifications, Paragraph 4, PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

AND REPORTING; RFP page 96 IHD 195 - SECTION L PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2000)

NAVSEA/IHD), Section 5.0 (Proposal Organization), VOLUME I – TECHNICAL (FACTOR 1), Sub-factor 1:

Technical Approach

Comment: This solicitation is for new, stand-alone, multiple-award IDIQ contracts which will require successful offerors to apply a proven, successful program management and technical approaches. However, the RFP does not require offerors to address how they will comply with Paragraph 4 of the Statement of Work or require any management discussion at all.

Question:

15a. Please clarify how the Government intends to assess the ability of the offeror to meet the management requirements of this complex, multi-functional multiple-award IDIQ task order contract.

15b. Does the Government expect that the Prime’s past performance citations address Paragraph 4 of the

Statement of Work?

Recommendation: We respectfully recommend that the Government include an additional Technical subfactor within technical to address the management aspects of this complex effort.

15. RESPONSE

“SOW Requirements in SOW Section 4 will be considered in determining technical acceptability of an offeror’s proposal. Technical information or Past Performance information contained in the proposal should address the

SOW Section 4 requirements.”

16. QUESTION

Reference: RFP Page 22, IHEODTD 17 - PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS (MINIMUM) NAVSEA/NSWC

IHEODTD (OCT 2013); RFP page 97 IHD 195 - SECTION L PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2000)

NAVSEA/IHD), Section 5.0 (Proposal Organization), VOLUME I – TECHNICAL (FACTOR 1), Sub-factor 2:

Facility Security Clearance/Personnel Resources; RFP Page 100, TABLE 1 Labor Categories and Estimated Labor

Hours

Comment: The RFP only provides labor category descriptions for the two identified “key” labor categories. Table 1 has 2400 and 16800 hours per year for the Program Manager and Project Manager labor categories. The RFP provides: “Offeror’s should identify at least one key person for each functional area in which they are claiming capability.”

Recommendation: Please clarify the language throughout the RFP related to key personnel, required staff availability for this IDIQ task order contract, and related requirements related to a cross-reference matrix of proposed staff. Note that it appears that much of the language is not directly relevant to a multiple-award IDIQ task order contract.

Question(s):

16a. Are offerors permitted to apply their own labor category descriptions to the non-key personnel?

16a. RESPONSE:

Yes. The Government will review the information as identified in your proposal submission.

16b. Table 1 includes 2400 hours for the Program Manager position while the RFP identifies 1920 hours as the direct productive manyear. Is it the Government’s expectation that different personnel may serve in the Program

Manager labor category for each individual task order issued under the contract?

16b. RESPONSE:

Yes

16c. The RFP requires offerors to identify at least one key person for each functional area in which they are claiming capability. Is it correct to assume that these key personnel must be from the Program Manager and Project

Manager labor categories as they are the key positions identified in the contract?

16c. RESPONSE:

16d. The 16800 hours provided for the Project Manager key labor category are not sufficient to assign a full-time person to each of the functional areas. Is it the Government’s expectation that offerors can assign such personnel on less than a full-time basis in fulfilling this requirement?

16d. RESPONSE:

17. QUESTION

Reference: RFP page 105 HQ M-2-0001 BASIS OF AWARD (NAVSEA) (SEP 1990), VOLUME I – TECHNICAL

(FACTOR 1), Sub-factor 2: Facility Security Clearance/Personnel Resources

Comment: The RFP indicates: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstration that its proposed personnel possess the technical knowledge and capability necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS and the

Personnel Qualifications attachment. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s individual personnel qualifications and training of personnel they intend to fulfill the Government’s requirements. The Government will evaluate whether each candidate is presently employed with the Offeror, or whether they are proposed under a letter of intent, considering that Offerors who propose a majority of personnel as contingent hires will be evaluated as a higher risk, and this will be considered as a weakness in the Offeror’s proposal.

17a. Are offerors required to identify current or contingent personnel for all 82,800 hours?

17a RESPONSE:

17b. Is pricing intended to be tied to only current or contingent personnel?

17b RESPONSE:

Your proposal should identify categories and hours for personnel in which you are intending to utilize.

17c. What is the rationale for requiring offerors to identify personnel for all labor categories and hours when the

Government has not identified with specificity the specific tasks to be competed under this effort?

17c. RESPONSE

The Government technical team has identified the types of personnel for all labor categories and hours based on their estimated technical needs to be identified in task orders which will be issued in the future.

18. QUESTION

Reference: RFP page 96 IHD 195 - SECTION L PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2000) NAVSEA/IHD), Section 5.0 (Proposal Organization), VOLUME I – TECHNICAL (FACTOR 1), Sub-factor 1: Technical Approach

Comment: This solicitation requires offerors to address 6 areas across 9 functional areas within 30 pages.

18a. In order to permit offerors to adequately present information to enable the Government to evaluate capability and expertise across the 9 functional areas, would the Government consider increasing the page count from 30 to 45 pages?

18a. RESPONSE:

Section L clause IHD 195 page count has been increased from 30 pages to 45 pages.

19. QUESTION

Reference: RFP Page 59 of 108 DFARS Clause 252.204-7012 (Dev) Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting OCT 2015

Comment: On December 30, 2015, the DoD issued updates to the above clauses to provide a grace period for implementation of the NIST 800-171 security requirements and to require contractors to notify the DoD CIO of any security requirements not implemented at the time of award and any alternative security measures proposed.

Is it the Government’s intent to utilize the October 2015 version of this clause in the Solicitation?

Recommendation: We respectfully request that NSWC Indian Head incorporate the Dec 2015 versions of the above clauses into the solicitation/contract.

19. RESPONSE:

At the time of this solicitation development the Oct 2015 was and still remains the only clause version available as our contract writing system, Standard Procurement System (SPS) database has not been updated to reflect the Dec

2015 clause. We will pursue having the Dec 2015 version added to the database.

20. QUESTION

Can a small company bid independently for a single Functional Area such as 3.2.7 High Power Radio

Frequency/Microwaves (RF/HPM), or we must be part of a broader proposal headed by a big prime?

20. RESPONSE

An acceptable offer would be one that adequately addresses at least seven of the nine functional areas identified in the SOW. As part of Technical Evaluation; Sub-Factor 1 (p105) “To qualify for a contract award an Offeror must be qualified in a minimum of seven (7) of the nine (9) functional areas identified in sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.9.

Offerors determined to be qualified in 6 functional areas or less will not be considered for a contract award.”

21. QUESTION

What is the anticipated maximum value for task orders issued under N00174-16-R-0003? Any information you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

21. RESPONSE

See response to previous question.

22. QUESTION

22a. The solicitation specifies that the offeror shall possess a SECRET facility clearance. Can this requirement be met by teaming with a partner who possesses the clearance as long as all tasking at the uncleared facility is done at the UNCLASSIFIED level?

22a. RESPONSE

As it pertains to the contract award and the offeror’s proposal; the offeror shall possess a facility suitable for

SECRET work, not that all work must be performed at such a facility. All contractor personnel working on the

Contract must have valid security clearance to the level specified for the labor category.

As it pertains to delivery/task order awards, the security requirements would be referenced to the contract or specified anew.

22b. Is there a current list of interested vendors? Could you please provide the list or instructions for accessing it on the site?

22b. RESPONSE

The Government does not have a current list of interested vendors. FedBizOpps has an “interested vendors” options and the Government will try to enable this feature upon issuance of Amendment 0001.

23. QUESTION

RFP Section(s): Section L

RFP Page(s): Page 22, 95

Question: It mentions that “The Government will review resumes of Contractor personnel proposed to be assigned” and that resumes are not counted against page. However, in the staffing plan info on page 97, it says the information included in the matrix suffices as a resume and there are no instructions on where to include resumes within this proposal (clause IHEODTD 17).

23-1. Where is this clause?

23-1. RESPONSE. IHEODTD 17 Clause is found on Page 22 of the solicitation.

23-2. Does this mean that resumes are not needed or does the Government want resumes of Key personnel?

23-2. RESPONSE. Resumes are a required part of the proposal for key personnel.

23-3. If it is intended for contractors to submit Key resumes, may these be placed into an Appendix at the end of

Volume 1?

23-3. RESPONSE. Yes, they may be attached as an appendix.

23-4. Can the resumes be 3 pages each, if they are required?

23-4. RESPONSE. There is no page count requirement for resumes.

24. QUESTION

RFP Section(s): Direct Labor, Table 1

RFP Page(s): 100-101

Question: Will the government please provide labor category descriptions for the non-key labor categories?

24. RESPONSE: Information for labor categories technician and senior technician will be added to Table 1.

25. QUESTION

RFP Section(s): Direct Labor, Table 1

RFP Page(s): 100-101

Question: Can the government please confirm the accuracy of the labor hour estimates in Table 1? Using the basis of 1920 hours per work-year, does the government desire us to price 1.25 Program Mangers, 0.625 Technical

Writers, etc.?

25. RESPONSE. Yes.

26. QUESTION.

RFP Page(s): 100-101

Question: If we propose a full time PM and an additional quarter time PM (2400/ 1920 = 1.25), does the government desire resumes for both candidates?

26. RESPONSE. Yes, for key personnel labor categories.

27. QUESTION

RFP Section(s): 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires

RFP Page(s): 65

Question: This chart lists two labor categories not included in Table 1 (page 100-101): Technician and Senior

Technician. Does the government wish to evaluate contractor rates for these labor categories? Will the government provide labor category descriptions?

27. RESPONSE. Addressed in previous responses.

28. QUESTION.

RFP Section(s): Section B

RFP Page(s): 2

Question: The CLINs for ODCs shows that fixed fee is applicable yet page 101 states that all ODCs are non-fee bearing. Please clarify.

28. RESPONSE. The ODCs are NTE amounts may be inclusive of G&A and are subject to fee.

29. QUESTION.

RFP Section(s): Section L, Table 1

RFP Page(s): 100

Question: Please clarify the column headings site for Option One. Are all hours for each option year to be proposed as Contractor Site?

29. RESPONSE. Column headings have been changed to reflect - Option 1 columns should be Government Site and Contractor Site.

30. QUESTION.

RFP Section(s): Section L, 3.0 Instructions

RFP Page(s): 93

Question: It states that the Government wants 2 copies of the Past Performance Volume, to include the questionnaires. It is our understanding that the questionnaires would be completed by our customers and sent directly to you therefore we would not be able to provide hard copies of the questionnaires in our submission. Please provide clarification around this language as we will not have copies the questionnaires to submit with our response.

30. RESPONSE. The need for two copies applies to the prime and sub-contractor lists of seven relevant contracts.

If Past Performance Questionnaires are required due to lack of PPIRS information, then only a single copy of the

PPQ sent to NSWC IHEODTD is necessary.

31. QUESTION.

RFP Page(s): 100-101

Question: Does the government anticipate that some task orders or parts of task orders will be unclassified? Our team includes a subcontractor (university) without cleared personnel. Can we include them?

31. RESPONSE. Yes, some task orders could be wholly or partially unclassified work. Unclassified personnel could be included in the proposal except for the key personnel labor categories.

32. QUESTION.

RFP Section(s): Section L

RFP Page(s): Page 89 Section HQ L-2-0005 (b)

32-1: The solicitation states that “If a potential conflict of interest exists at any tier, each potential prime offeror is requested to notify the Contracting Officer within 14 days of the date of this solicitation. With a solicitation release date of 28 April 2016, please confirm the suspense date for providing notification is the 12th of May 2016.

32-1. RESPONSE. 12 May 2016 is the suspense date for OCI submissions.

32-2: Please confirm the method of providing this notification is by email.

32-2. RESPONSE. An email with the required information notifying the contracting officer of an OCI is acceptable

32-3: Please clarify the difference between “a copy of the requirement” (b.2)and “the statement of work (or technical instruction) from the existing contract”(b.3).

32-3. RESPONSE. “a copy of the requirement” could be met by providing a copy of Section B of the conflicting contract and a copy of Section C would provide the “statement of work.” ??Joyce, is that correct??

33. QUESTION

33-1. What has the Agency done to encourage small business participation as prime contractors in accordance with

FAR 19.200-1?

33-2. Did the Agency provide a copy of their proposed acquisition package to the SBA procurement center representative, SBA and Navy Office of Small Business Program representative in accordance with FAR 19.202-

1(e)(iii)?

33-3. As required by FAR 19.202-1(e)(2)((iii) and (v), did the Agency contracting officer provide a statement that the proposed acquisition cannot be structured so as to make it likely that small business can compete for the prime contract and that bundling is necessary and justified?

33-4. Is it possible for the Agency consider amending the solicitation, including Sections L and M, to increase the potential number of awards to obtain the best technological solution under each functional area and to allow an offeror to submit a proposal that covers just one functional area? Doing so would potentially improve technical and price competition at the task order level, broaden the defense and national industrial bases and allow the Agency to obtain best value solution(s) for each of JNLWD's functional areas.

By the Agency's own admission in the Solicitation, it is possible that not all task orders will require a facility security clearance and personnel security clearances. However, the Agency's insistence on an offeror holding a

SECRET facility and personnel clearances to be eligible for award of a contract therefore would seem to unnecessarily restrict competition from otherwise qualified offerors that want to propose commercial solutions based upon unclassified technology and open sources.

33-5. Will the Agency consider amending the solicitation to allow prospective offerors that do not hold the required

SECRET security clearances to submit alternative proposals based upon unclassified technology and open sources?

Doing so would enhance technical and price competition at the task order level, help ensure JNLWD has access to the best technological solutions, remove a potential barrier to small business participation and broaden the defense and national industrial bases.

33-1: RESPONSE: The NSWC IHEODTD Deputy for Small Business was involved in the review of this requirement

33-2: RESPONSE: The NSWC IHEODTD Deputy for Small Business was involved in the review of this requirement

33-3: RESPONSE: The contracting officer worked with the Deputy for Small business during the review of this requirement

33-4: RESPONSE: The customer for this requirement identified the number of contract awards to be issued under this multiple award requirement.

33-5: RESPONSE: Facility and key personnel require SECRET clearances as identified in the solicitation.

34. QUESTION

34-1: Section L 4.1 General, page 94 of 108

In the solicitation, it states that the proposal should be delivered in Microsoft Office 2010. Will the Government allow offeror’s to deliver the text portion of our proposal using PDF format. This provides a more stable platform across multiple computers and ensures formatting is maintained.

34-1: RESPONSE: Yes.

34-2: Section L 4.1 General, page 94 of 108

The solicitations states " The offeror shall also submit a CD version along with the hard copy submission." is it the

Government's intent that a single CD containing all volumes be delivered or a CD for each volume.

34-2: RESPONSE: A single CD with all volumes for each distribution copy is desired.

34-3: Section K, Clause 52.219-1, page 78 of 108

The solicitation states that the NAICS code for this effort is 541712 with a size standard of 500 employees, using the

October 2014 definition. In February 2016, the size standard was increased from 500 employees to 1000. Will the government amend the solicitation to utilize the February 2016 definition.

34-3: RESPONSE: Section K clause 52.219-1 Alt 1 has been will be updated to reflect 1,000 employees

34-4: Section K, Clause 52.222-46, page 87 of 108

This clause states "As part of their proposals, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract." However, there are no requirements listed in Section L or criteria for Award in section M associated with the TCP. in what volume would the government like to have this information.

34-4: RESPONSE: The information can be submitted as an Appendix.

34-5: Section L, Clause 52.222-46, page 87 of 108 This clause states that we must provide a total compensation plan; however, section L does not address which Volume this plan needs to be a part of. Is the government expecting a total compensation plan? If so, which Volume should we include the plan in?

34-5: RESPONSE: The total compensation plan can be included as an Appendix.

34-6: Section I, Clause 52.222-42, page 65 of 108 "The table provides the equivalent GS level for some of the government requested labor categories. However, the table does not address the following labor categories:

Engineer

Senior Engineer

Instead the table provides information for two labor categories that are not in the solicitation (Technician and Senior

Technician). Will the government provide the GS equivalents for both the Engineer and Senior Engineer labor categories?"

34-6: RESPONSE: The Government has added information for Engineer and SR Engineer categories.

34-7: Section F, Clause IHEODTD 62 - Period Of Performance (NAVSEA/NSWC IHEODTD) (OCT 2013)

This clause states that the Basic effort to be performed under this contract shall be completed within…60 months. …The total contract duration is 60 months…” However, under FAR 52.216-22(d), Indefinite Quantity, it states “the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after 365 days after the expiration of the contract.” The former implies that “performance” must be completed within 60 months of contract award; whereas the latter indicates that delivery (eg performance) could extend another 365 days after the end of the contract. Please reconcile. We assume that since orders can be issued on or before the last day of the contract, performance could extend 365 days after the end of the contract’s ordering period.

34-7: RESPONSE: The actual period of performances will be identified in each task order upon issuance.

35. QUESTION

Reference: RFP Page 87, Section L - 52.222-46 EVALUATION OF COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL

EMPLOYEES (FEB 1993)

Comment: This paragraph indicates that “As part of their proposals, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract.”

This appears to be the only mention of the total compensation plan in the RFP, with no subsequent reference to it in either Sections L or M.

a. Given that the requirement is not referenced in the IHD 195 – SECTION L PROPOSAL

REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2000) NAVSEA/IHD), Section 4.0 Proposal Format,…