N00189-18-R-Z031_Amendment_00003.docx

N0018918RZ031

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:

P00003

PART I

The following changes have been made:

1. Section L, Submission of Proposals I. General, Volume II has been updated.

2. Section L.II.(5) has been updated.

3. Section C.5.2 has been updated.

4. Section G, Security Administration clause has been corrected.

5. Attachments to this RFP have been corrected.

6. Section L, Paragraph III, Proposal Content, Paragraph (1)(a) has been corrected.

7. Section C, Paragraph 5.4 Level of Effort has been updated

8. Section L, (2) Volume II – Cost has been updated.

9. Section C, PWS Section 4.7.6.1 has been updated.

10. Section C, PWS Section 7 has been updated.

11. Section C, PWS Section 5.5, Specialist II has been updated.

12. Section C, PWS Section 2.0 has been updated.

PART II

This amendment provides a list of questions and comments received in response to the solicitation. The questions and comments are provided for all potential offerors to review. Note that questions may have been edited for clarity and duplicative questions may have been combined or deleted. All available, necessary information and any necessary changes to the solicitation resulting from consideration of the below questions and comments have been incorporated into the solicitation in PART I of this Amendment. As a result of this amendment, the solicitation is considered to be clear.

The following questions have been answered:

Q1. PWS section 4.7.6.1, Page 20. Is acceptance of applications into the Data Center architecture also in scope or just IA support?

A1: See Part I.

Q2. PWS section 4.7.6.4, Page 20. Is this requirement to create and update the SEPs in collaboration with the development / O&M teams, to provide oversight of the development teams to make sure the SEPs are delivered and store them in a common location, or other? Please clarify.

A2: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q3. PWS section 4.9, Page 21-22. Is hardware maintenance and development required across all sites listed in Section 5.3 Place of Performance? If not, please specify which sites require this type of support.

A3: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q4. PWS section 5.3, Page 23. When contractor site work is required, will it be acceptable, on any Task Order, to provide support from a contractor site outside the areas listed?

A4: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q5. PWS section 5.5, Page 25. Does the CEA certification apply to any specific certification authority? If so, please provide the name(s) of the acceptable certifying organization(s). Is any specific level of CEA required?

A5: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q6. PWS section 5.7, Page 26. What other levels of security will be required for this requirement? And what percent of staff members are anticipated to require each level of security? This will help us optimize the staffing mix.

A6: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q7. PWS section 5.9, Page 26. Is there a specific amount we should include for ODCs?

A7: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q8. PWS section 7, Page 28. There are 2 tables of performance standards. Does the 1st represent sample standards at the contract level and the 2nd represent sample standards at the Task Order level? If not, please clarify how performance standards are expected to be applied.

A8: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q9. PWS section 7, Page 29. System Downtime Target … 99.9% uptime Does this performance standard typically relate to management of the infrastructure that hosts the systems named in Section 2, O&M of the systems themselves, or other? Please explain.

A9: See Part I.

Q10. PWS section 7, Page 29. Severity 1 Initial Response Time … 60 minutes or less each instance Are there typically hours of operation specified or this expected to be a 24x7x365 requirement?

A10: See Part I.

Q11: PWS 5.2, Page 23 and 33. The base period of performance for this requirement is 1 July 2018 - 30 June 2021; CLIN 0001 Delivery Date 13-SEP-2018 to 12-SEP-2021. Can you please clarify the dates for the base period of performance?

A11: See Part I.

Q12. Task order procedures under MACs (b) Ordering Procedures, Page 44. At the discretion of the contracting officer, Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) or Firm Fixed Price (FFP) task orders may be issued. In determination of contract type, CPFF or FFP, do the core functional areas come into consideration? Does the government anticipate certain core functional areas to be FFP and others to be CPFF?

A12: Question is not relevant for purposes of submission of proposal.

Q13. Task order procedures under MACs (b) Ordering Procedures, 2. Source Selection Process, Page 44. CPFF Quotations:….breakdown which provides the labor categories proposed, the number of hours per category, the direct labor ate proposed for each category. How does the labor category rates proposed in award of the MAC come into play related to the task order competitions? Will the labor rates proposed for the MAC be a ceiling for each rate that can be proposed at the task order level?

A13: Question is not relevant for purposes of submission of proposal.

Q14: Personnel Qualifications (b), Page 50. (b) The government will review resumes of contractor personnel to be assigned. At the task order competition level will 100% of resumes be required in each task order proposal in order to comply with this requirement?

A14: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q15. Submission of Proposals I. General, Volume II, Page 72. **Submission of proposal on a DVD or CD shall be in Microsoft Excel Format. For the documents other than the pricing files such as the Small Business subcontracting plan, solicitation cover sheet etc. Should these documents be included as searchable PDF?

A15: See Part I.

Q16. Submission of Proposals I. General, Page 73. A certificate to this effect shall be included in the proposal. Where should these certifications be included in the proposal? And are they subject to the page count limitations?

A16: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q17. Submission of Proposals (5) Page Limitations, Page 73. Is Times New Roman the only acceptable font? Or can another font 12 point size allowable?

A17: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q18. Submission of Proposals (5) Page Limitations, Page 73. Can graphics use a smaller size font such as 9 point or larger?

A18: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q19. (1) Volume I – Non-cost Proposal, (b) Corporate Experience, Page 75. Past Performance/Corporate Experience will be considered sufficiently similar in magnitude if the aggregate past performance totals 75% of the estimated annual level of effort. What is the Government estimating the annual level of effort to be?

A19: See Part I

Q20. (1) Volume I – Non-cost Proposal, (b) Corporate Experience, Page 75. The forms will count toward the Volume I page limit described above. For additional information regarding a particular reference beyond that which will fit on the form, the offeror may continue onto additional sheets of paper. Such continuation sheet(s) for submitted references will count toward the Volume I page limit. Will the government consider removing the "Corporate Experience and Past Performance Information Form" from the Volume I page count?

A20: The solicitation is clear on its face

Q21. Section L.II.(5), Page 73. In order to facilitate review of the proposals, we recommend the government increase the page allocation for the Table of Contents from 1 to 2 pages.

A21: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q22. Section L.II.(5), Page 73. In order to facilitate review of the proposals, we recommend the government allow for the inclusion of a List of Figures and a List of Acronyms that do not count toward the page limit.

A22: See Part I.

Q23. Section A, Page 2. Commercial carriers do not recognize the provided delivery address provided: 700 Robbins Ave, Bldg. 2B; Philadelphia, PA 19111-5083. Should the address be "Robbins Street"?

A23: The solicitation is clear on its face

Q24. Section C.5.2 & F, Page 23 & 33. Please clarify period of performance: Page 23 shows a start date of 1 July 2018 and page 33 shows a start date of 13 Sep 2018.

A24: See Part I.

Q25. Section C.2, Page 10-15. Only systems listed seem to be those identified in the MPTE Strategic Transformation Plan. The list includes only 11 of 28 Systems currently supported. Does this contract include the other 17 systems (not listed) or are those systems out of scope?

A25: Question is not relevant for purposes of submission of proposal.

Q26. Section C.5.4, Page 24. Are the LOE totals for the 3 year period or per year for the 3 year period?

A26: See Part I.

Q27. Section C.5.5, Page 25. What is the significance of the DEERS system being called out under paragraph 5.5 (page 25 ), "Specialist II"? Why is DEERS the only specific system/POR mentioned in this section? Additionally it is not mentioned in the list of systems discussed in paragraph 2 (page 10).

A27: See Part I.

Q28. Section C 4.6, C.5.7 & G, Pages 19, 26 &38. Section C.4.6 and C.5.7. The highest level of security required for this requirement is "Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI)". Section G under Local Clauses SECURITY ADMINISTRATION requires "Secret". Please clarify.

A28: See Part I.

Q29. Section L.III.(b) & (c), Page 75. Clarification: Can we assume that a past performance and corporate experience must be from the same reference?

A29: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q30. Section L.III.(b) & (c), Page 75. Clarification: Are the criteria for recency, scope and magnitude the same for both prime and subcontractor references?

A30: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q31. CEPP Form. Should L.III.(b) & (c) both be captured in the CEPP form as a single section of the non-cost proposal?

A31: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q32. Section M, Page 80. Can the government clarify the ratings other than "Acceptable" for non-cost evaluation factors and the ratings other than "Satisfactory Confidence" for the past performance evaluation factor.

A32: Question is not relevant for purposes of submission of proposal.

Q33. Section M, Page 80. Can the government clarify how it will evaluate the Corporate Experience and Past Performance factors "in aggregate". For example, does a single reference that scores a hypothetical "100" for an aggregate of "100" outweigh the submission of two references that score "100" and "99" for an aggregate of "99.5"?

A33: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q34. Does the Government wish for bidders to list additional labor categories and rates for management and administrative labor costs which are a direct cost based on the offeror's accounting system?

A34: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q35: Page 9 of 82, 2.0 Background. Will the Government define the term “optimized IS construct”?

A35: See Part I.

Q36: Page 9, 2. Background, 1st paragraph, Page 10, 2. Background, top of page. Will the Government clarify the role of this contract has on sustaining these systems?

A36: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q37: Page 10, 2. Background. Will the Government identify custom developed applications associated with this proposal?

A37: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q38. Page 15, 3. Scope, 2nd paragraph. Will the Government clarify the requirement to “analyze and refine the legacy IS sustainment”?

A38: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q39. Page 15, 3. Scope, 2nd paragraph. Will the Government clarify the requirement to sustain the optimized IS construct?

A39: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q40. Page 60 Section J and Actual Attachments. Will the Government clarify if the Offeror should use information from both of these two combined attachments or if only the corrected version is applicable to this proposal?

A40: See Part I.

Q41. Pg. 73, paragraph (5) and “corporate experience and past performance information form.” In order to maximize the offeror’s response, may the offeror change the 12-point font instructions to 10-point Times New Roman?

A41: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q42. Pg. 75, paragraph, (b) Note. Where does the Government want the offeror to address “how well the offeror has performed”?

A42: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q43. Page 75 paragraph, (c) Past Performance. Will the Government confirm if the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be an attachment to Volume II? If not, will the Government advise if it should be a separate volume?

A43: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q44. Page74, Performance Approach, last paragraph And Pages 22-30, 5. Other Pertinent Information Thru 7. Performance Standards. Does the Government intend for offerors to address the items (5. through 7.) on pages 22-30 of the RFP within the 30-page limitation for Volume I, or can offerors address these additional items in Volume II?

A44: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q45. Page 23, Section C, paragraph 5.3. In order to standardize the pricing, would the Government please provide a distribution of labor categories by geographical location that offerors shall use to price the Level of Effort for proposal purposes?

A45: **TO BE ANSWERED IN FORTHCOMING AMENDMENT**

Q46. Page 23, Section C, paragraph 5.4. The table providing the Labor category projected hours per ordering period provides the hours in groups of three years. Are these hours to be evenly distributed to each of the three years for the purposes of the proposal costing?

A46: See Part I.

Q47. Page 26, Section C, paragraph 5.8. This paragraph indicates the ceiling for travel per ordering period is $225,000. For pricing purposes, should this travel be evenly distributed to each of the three performance years in the ordering period?

A47: See Part I.

Q48. Page 26, Section C, paragraph 5.9. This paragraph indicates the ceiling for other direct costs per ordering period is $150,000. For pricing purposes, should this travel be evenly distributed to each of the three performance years in the ordering period?

A48: See Part I.

Q49. Page 75, Section L, Corporate Experience. The guidance states “Past Performance/Corporate Experience will be considered sufficiently similar in magnitude if the aggregate past performance totals 75% of the estimated annual level of effort”. If a citation has not performed for 5 years, how will magnitude calculation work?

A49: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q50. Section C, Page 24, Paragraph 5.5, Minimum Qualifications. Most of the labor categories list a Bachelor's degree in business as one of the areas meeting the degree requirement. However, the Program Manager and Project Manager labor categories do not. Will the Government consider adding a bachelor's degree in business or a business/management related discipline such as business administration, accounting, finance, economics, or management information systems to the list of acceptable degrees for Program Manager and Project Manager?

A50: **TO BE ANSWERED IN FORTHCOMING AMENDMENT**

Q51. Section H, Page 39, Local Clauses, Organizational Conflict of Interest and RFP Section L, Page 71, Local Provisions, Notice of Inclusion of an Organizational Conflict of Interest Clause reflect the Government’s concern about potential conflicts, particularly those related to the Navy MPTE and MPTE IT Transformation. Is it the Government’s expectation or intent that an offeror bidding on this TSS solicitation (and/or the related BMSS solicitation) is precluded from bidding on the future Navy Personnel and Pay (NP2) Modernization IDIQ expected to be issued from PMW 240 and vice versa? If so, does the Government desire an explicit declaration of intent from bidders to address this potential conflict?

A51: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q52. Section L, Page 71, Clarification of Disclosure Requirement, Local Clause, Notification of Inclusion of Organizational Conflict of Interest Clause: This clause asks offerors “to furnish with their proposals, information pertaining to any existing contract between the offeror and the companies engaged in furnishing to the United States Government any services or supplies pertaining to the support identified in the PWS of this solicitation or listed below, if any, which may have a bearing on any existing or potential conflict of interest within the meaning of the clause in the Schedule.” Given that no services or supplies are listed in the solicitation and that this contract is a multi-award IDIQ with a very broad scope of work, will the Government either identify the specific contracts to be disclosed against, or modify this disclosure requirement to require disclosure of relevant contracts at the task order level?

A52: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q53. Section L, Page 74, Paragraph III, Proposal Content, Paragraph (1)(a) states, "To that end, the performance approach shall address each of the ten major functional areas of the PWS:…(8) Software Development…" Will the Government confirm this should state Software Analysis?

A53: See Part I.

Q54. Section L, Page 75, Proposal Content: Paragraph III, (1), (b) states, “To demonstrate its corporate experience, the offeror shall identify up to 5 of its most relevant contracts or efforts within the past five (5) years. The offeror should complete a “Corporate Experience and Past Performance Information Form for each reference submitted.” The Corporate Experience and Past Performance Information Form requires a field for Contract Number, Order Number, or Identifier. Please confirm that “efforts” include those engagements where work is continued using the same/essentially the same PWS under a separate contract number (e.g., a sole-source follow-on bridge contract), allowing offerors to list more than one contract number in this field.

A54: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q55. Section L, para III.(2) (d) and (e) , page 76. The requirements for submitting supporting documentation by subcontractors for Direct Labor rates and indirect costs for cost realism states that this supporting documentation is only required for subcontractors managed on a CPFF basis. Will the Government confirm that if subcontractors are awarded subcontracts by a prime with fixed hourly rates (i.e., T&M) to support the contract, supporting documentation for direct labor and indirect costs are not required?

A55: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q56. Section L, para III.(2) (d), page 76. This paragraph required Professional Compensation Plans for both the prime contractor and tier 1 subcontractors. However, the header to this paragraph states that supporting documentation is only required for subcontractors managed on a CPFF basis. Will the Government clarify if Professional Compensation Plans are required for tier 1 subcontractors if managed on a fixed hourly rate (T&M) basis?

A56: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q57. Section H., (a), p. 50. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS (MINIMUM) (a) If the offeror does not identify the labor categories listed below by the same specific title, then a cross-reference list should be provided in the offeror's proposal identifying the difference. Is this cross-reference list to be provided in Volume II? Or if it is in Volume I, then would it be excluded from page limits?

A57: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q58. Section I., Clauses Incorporated by Reference, p. 51 52.204-4 Printed or Copied Double-Sided on Postconsumer Fiber Content Paper MAY 2011. Does the Government permit that original copies of proposals be printed single-sided for ease of reading and navigation with tab indexing? The instructions do not mention this requirement other than in the text of this clause which is incorporated by reference.

A58: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q60. Performance-Based Work Statement, 5.7 Security Requirements, page 26. The highest level of security required for this requirement is Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI). Will the Government clarity if the location of personnel is an indication of level of security clearance required (for example, does Gov’t site require TS/SCI and contractor site require Secret)?

A60: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q61. List of Deliverables, page 27 and Section L (k), page 79. In addition to the overall cost proposal, an offeror shall include a FFP quote for the following deliverables. Will the Government clarify Section L guidance for submission of quote for deliverable on page 27? What detail do we need to include with the quote? Is there an attachment to submit the quote?

A61: The solicitation is clear on its face.

A62: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q63. 5.4 Level of Effort, page 23, Level of Effort. Will the government confirm that the estimated hours indicated are based on a 1920 hour FTE man year?

A63: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q64. III - Proposal Content, (2) Volume II – Cost, page 77/82. The provisions of FAR 52.222-46 emphasize specific employees working under a contract, re-competition of service contracts, and a clear definition and understanding of the specific work to be performed. The TSS solicitation however reflects pricing requirements to establish an IDIQ where task and labor specificity most applicable to the provisions of FAR 52.222-46 are as unknown at this time. Accordingly, will the Government consider revising the RFP to reflect the applicability of FAR 52.222-46 to Task Order Proposals only, when specific employees and specific requirements will be contemplated and proposed?

A64: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q65. III - Proposal Content, (2) Volume II – Cost, Page 77. FAR 22.1103 states that FAR 52.222-46 shall be used “in solicitations for negotiated contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed $700,000 and services are to be provided which will require meaningful numbers of professional employees.” FAR 22.1102 defines Professional Employee as “means any person meeting the definition of “employee employed in a bona fide . . . professional capacity” given in 29 CFR 541. The term embraces members of those professions having a recognized status based upon acquiring professional knowledge through prolonged study. Examples of these professions include accountancy, actuarial computation, architecture, dentistry, engineering, law, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, the sciences (such as biology, chemistry, and physics, and teaching). To be a professional employee, a person must not only be a professional but must be involved essentially in discharging professional duties.” 29 CFR 541 defines Professional Employees as any employee: (2) Whose primary duty is the performance of work: (i) Requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction; or (ii) Requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor. A review of the TSS labor categories fails to identify which align to the definitions of Professional Employees per the FAR and CFR. 1. Please confirm that the compensation plan is required only for Professional Employees, per the FAR. 2. Can the Government please clarify which of the TSS labor categories meets the definition of Professional Employees relative to the offeror’s response to FAR 52.222-46?

A65: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q66. Section C, PWS, Page 27. The provided Section B does not include a CLIN for these costs and the provided CDRLs CLIN is NSP. Since these are task order defined deliverables, please confirm that Offerors are not required to price these deliverables as part of the proposal.

A66: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q67. Section C, PWS, Page 27. Please confirm that the FFP quote will not be included in the offerors’ total evaluated price for purposes of determining the IDIQ awardees.

A67: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q68. Section C, PWS, Page 24. In the pricing table, hours are listed per three year ordering period. Please confirm for pricing purposes that Offerors shall divide the total hours by three and price those hours per year. For example, the solicitation lists Program Manager as having 23,040 hours for the first ordering period. Therefore, Program Manager would be priced as 7,680 hours per each year of the three year ordering period?

A68: See Part I.

Q69. Section C, PWS, Page 24. In support of cost realism, please confirm that Offerors shall follow their disclosed practices with regard to applying these work-site percentage splits for pricing purposes.

A69: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q70. Volume I - Non-Cost Proposal (d) Socio-Economic Plan, Pages 75-84. For the Socio-Economic Plan, it requires the small business percentage goals shall be expressed on total contract value. Is it the Governments intent as part of the evaluation that an offeror should meet and/or exceed the small business goals of SB: 23%, WOSB: 5%, SDB: 5%, SDVOSB: 3%, VOSB: 3% and HUBZone: 3% of the Total Contract Value?

A70: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q71. Volume I - Non-Cost Proposal (d) Socio-Economic Plan, Pages 75-84. With the percentage goals within the Small Business Subcontracting Plan calculated on subcontracting percentages versus total contract value, will the Government confirm the percentage goals within the Socio-Economic Plan are not required to meet any specified small business percentage requirements.

A71: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q72. Pg 38. Does only the Prime contractor require TS Facility Clearance or do all entities (e.g. subcontractors) require TS FCL?

A72: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q73. It is requested that the header and footer are not subject to the font restrictions (i.e. size 12)?

A73: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q74. Who are the incumbent contractor(s)?

A74: Question not relevant for the submission of proposal.

Q75. Pg 27. Are cost volumes required from only the prime or from proposed subcontractors as well?

A75: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q76. Pg 79. Does only the prime need a DCAA approved accounting system or do all entities require this (i.e. prime and subcontractors)?

A76: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q77. Does the scope of work for this MAC encompass all IT support for the current NETC ITSS contract #N0018910DZ038?

A77: Question not relevant for the submission of proposals.

Q78. Pg 18 Sec 4.4. Does the scope of this MAC provide the day-to-day operational support to the NETC systems, servers and applications?

A78: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q79. Pg 18 Sec 4.4. Does the scope of this MAC provide application development, testing and sustainment (break/fix/updates) for current NETC applications?

A79. The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q80. Pg 18 Sec 4.4. Does the scope of this MAC provide the operational support to NETC schoolhouses IT systems?

A80: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q81. Pg 19 Sec 4.5. Does the scope of this MAC provide operational support to the networks providing services to NETC schoolhouses, and legacy networks supporting NEN, NNPI and SIPRNET, NMCI VLANs?

A81: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q82. Pg 19 Sec 4.6. Does the scope of this contract provide for weekly scans, patching and vulnerability updates to servers, software, workstations, and networks (NEN, NNPI, SIPRNET, TRANET, development, test, production) supporting NETC enterprise?

A82: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q83. Pg 29, Sec 7. Entire list on page 29) Most production systems/applications are hosted within an NEDC. If there is a system down the corrective action may be just reporting the outage to the NEDC which will affect the quality levels. If the failure is within the NEDC and they own the corrective action how will this quality level be measured?

A83: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q84. Pg.39, Section H, para B OCI. Without the explicit contract numbers of all current contract efforts included in the scope of this MAC and all task orders related to all current or future N1 contracts supporting MPTE and MPTE IT transformation it appears the intent of this clause to only allow a prime or subcontractor to bid/work on one MPTE MAC contract. Is this the intent of this clause?

A84: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q85. "Reference the Personnel Qualification clause on page 50 of the RFP. The placement of this clause outside of Section L and the use of both "offeror" and "contractor" creates ambiguity regarding its applicability pre- or post-award. Are the resumes in question to be provided post-award as part of the task order proposal process?"

A85: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q86. The RFP states that offerors shall submit separate cost and pricing information for each time period specified in the Solicitation B – Supplies or Services and Prices. The RFP has a Performance Period of a 3-year Base Period with one 3-year Option Period. Is the Government expecting the same proposed rate by labor category for the entire 3-year period escalating at each option or may offeror escalate rates in accordance with their accounting procedures?

A86: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q87. If an offeror proposes subcontracts on other than CPFF basis, are subcontractors required to provide a sealed submission including direct labor and indirect costs supporting details?

A87: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q88. If an offeror proposes subcontracts on other than CPFF basis, are subcontractors required to submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed?

A88: The solicitation is clear on its face.

Q89. This section states for both corporate experience and past performance relevance, “If subcontractor past performance is provided as part of the 5 of its most relevant contracts or efforts, the subcontractor past performance will be given weight proportional to the scope, magnitude and complexity of the aspects of the work under the solicitation for which the subcontractor is proposed.” Can the Government please confirm that this does not mean that a subcontractor’s past performance counts less toward determining the rating for the Past Performance evaluation factor, but rather that a subcontractor’s past performance relevance will be determined according to the areas and magnitude at which it is expected to participate, i.e. a subcontractor’s past performance does not need to match the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the entire contemplated N1 TSS effort to be evaluated as relevant?

A89: The solicitation is clear on its face.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Performance-Based Work Statement for Technical Services Support (TSS) Contract for The Manpower Personnel Training and Education (MPTE) Enterprise 10 January 2018

1. Introduction

The Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the MPT&E enterprise (OPNAV N16) is responsible for executing the development and sustainment of all information technology (IT) capabilities supporting OPNAV N1. Responsibilities of the CIO include oversight of Deputy CIOs at the Echelon II/III level for BUPERS/NPC, CNRC, and NETC commands. The CIO ensures the IT architecture, solutions, data and operational performance efficiently meet the evolving mission and business needs across the entire MPT&E enterprise.

The Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) Manpower, Personnel, Training, & Education (MPT&E, N1) Division is located in Arlington, VA. N1’s mission is to anticipate Navy warfighting needs, identify associated personnel capabilities, and recruit, develop, manage, and deploy those capabilities in an agile, cost-effective manner. N1 is the Echelon I command.

The Bureau of Naval Personnel (BUPERS) as the parent to Navy Personnel Command (NPC), located in Millington, TN, is a subordinate command to N1 that serves as the Human Resources (HR) division for the Navy. BUPERS/NPC is an Echelon II command.

The Naval Education and Training Command (NETC) is a subordinate command to N1 that is responsible for training, education and professional development of the Navy's 400,000 active duty and reserve Sailors through accession, continuing education, and advancement training. NETC is located in Pensacola, Florida. NETC is an Echelon II command.

Commander, Navy Recruiting Command (CNRC) is a subordinate command to N1 and is located in Millington, TN. CNRC’s mission is to recruit both officer and enlisted, active and reserve sailors to meet all manning needs for the US Navy. CNRC is an Echelon III command.

To serve the 21st century sailor, N1 (and subordinate commands) deploys over fifty Information Systems (IS) that serve various functions, including personnel records management, recruiting, training, and logistics. The IS requires lifecycle support that includes production, sustainment, maintenance, and assurance.

2. Background

The N16 CIO is charged with ensuring that the IT architecture, solutions, data and operational performance efficiently meet the evolving mission and business needs of the MPTE enterprise and the implementation of the Information System (IS) transformation across the MPT&E enterprise in coordination with the Deputy CIOs at BUPERS/NPC, CNRC, and NETC. These Echelon II/III elements are responsible to develop and sustain legacy IT capabilities while implementing organizational transformation from legacy to the optimized IS construct. The MPTE Chief Data Steward is tasked with incorporating processes, policies, guidelines and responsibilities for the administration of data, information and Application Programming Interface (APIs) in order to acquire, control, protect, deliver, and enhance the value of data and information across the MPTE enterprise. Optimized Information System (IS) refers to the system which is implemented under transformation from legacy system (as-is state) to the future MPT&E enterprise optimized IS construct.

To accomplish its mission, OPNAV N1 has developed, and is operating, numerous Information Management and Information Technology (IM/IT) systems. N1 also acts as the Navy-wide functional sponsor for MPTE IM/IT resources. N1 seeks to transform and enhance the Navy personnel system from "hire to retire" for active, reserve, retirees, and dependent personnel by eliminating redundancies and streamlining the IS. The streamlining process will require ongoing sustainment and program support services for legacy IS as well as acquiring the agile support necessary to implement the new IS for the proposed end-state. The contractor may be required to sustain the following existing legacy systems, as well as sustain systems within optimized IS construct. It should be noted that the systems within the optimized IS construct may have different names than the legacy systems listed below.