Questions and Answers.pdf

Question # RFP Reference

Document Question / Request for Clarification

1 N0018923R0009

N0018923R0009 Section SF 1449 (p. 3) CLIN 0002 states Base Ordering Period – Travel has NTE $38,064.00; (p. 5) states the Delivery Date for CLIN 0002 is POP 01-MAY-2023 TO 30-APR-2028; (p. 16) tells Offerors to insert Government estimated travel plug numbers for Ordering Years 1 through 5 as $38,064.00 per year. Please confirm that the NTE on p. 3 for CLIN 0002 should be $190,320.00 since the Delivery Date POP encompasses all five Ordering Years.

ANSWER Yes, the NTE value for CLIN 0002 should reflect $190,320.00 as it covers all five ordering periods (01 May 2023 – 30 April 2028).

2 N0018923R0009 N0018923R0009 52.217-9 (p. 43) states, “The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 60 months.” N0018923R0009 (p.5) lists the Delivery Dates from 01-May-2023 TO 30-APR-2028 and 01-MAY-2028 TO 31-OCT-2028, which equals 66 total months. Can the government confirm that p. 43 should state 66 months?

ANSWER FAR 52.217-9 was included in error; clause has been removed from solicitation N0018923R0009.

Attachment 1 – Pricing

Spreadsheet.xlsx;

N0018923R0009

The Pricing Spreadsheet, column B, lists Required Clearances of both TS/SCI clearance and Secret. N0018923R0009 PWS Sec. 13 (p.75 of the solicitation) states, “A security clearance of TOP SECRET (TS)/SCI is required for all Contractor personnel in the performance of this effort, start date to end date.” Can the government please confirm that Attachment 1, column B, should list TS/SCI clearance for all labor categories in accordance with the PWS and the clearance level of this NAVIFOR support?

ANSWER No, PWS section 13 has been updated to reflect TS/SCI or Secret clearance is required as reflected on Attachment 1.

4 N0018923R0009 In the RFP, page 46 provides a mapping of labor categories to GS under section 52.222-42; however, many of what would be considered lower-skilled positions (Administrative Specialist, Technical Writer) have higher GS mapping than those of Program/Project Manager/System Engineering Specialist, etc. Is this mapping correct?

ANSWER

The information within FAR 52.222-42 has been updated; however, this is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as the government’s objective.

5 N0018923R0009 Is there an incumbent for the work in this solicitation?

ANSWER No, this is a new requirement and therefore does not have an incumbent contractor.

6 N0018923R0009

Can the government please provide an acronym list to ensure that offerors have all relevant acronyms, as some have several meanings?

[e.g., What does the acronym PMARS stand for? It is difficult to discern given the sentence context in paragraph 4.1.; What does the acronym ADCO stand for (para 4.1)? Is this a reference to “ADCON”? It is difficult to discern given the sentence context in paragraph 4.1.; Does “Operational Continuity Planning (CCOP)” refer to “Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP)” (para 4.6).]

ANSWER

Requested acronym sheet provided. The acronym CCOP was not valid in the PWS and has been removed. “Operational Continuity Planning” as used in the PWS is not synonymous with COOP.

7 N0018923R0009

As per section 17 within the PWS. Mandatory Contractor Training: The Contractor is responsible for its employees (and subcontractors) supporting this contract completing and staying up to date on all training required by NAVIFOR and supported activities for individuals working on Government installations. Some examples of required training and their requisite course numbers/references are listed below. The required training is subject to change throughout the life of this contract; however, the Contractor should assume at least a total of eight (8) hours for all required training courses annually per Contractor/Subcontract employee. The Contractor shall provide documentation (copies of training certificates) to the COR confirming that Contractor employees have completed the required training within five (5) days of the specific training due date.

Can you please provide a) the list of required training courses or the subjects, and b) when is the training due date and is this one time or annually?

ANSWER PWS Sec. 17 adjusted to reflect specific training requirements will be identified at the task order level.

Document Question / Request for Clarification

8 N0018923R0009

As per the page limitation of 10 pages for the Small Business Plan in Factor IV

The paragraph states:

Large business vendors shall also submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 19.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements.

Vendors are permitted to submit a master subcontracting plan so long as it is created in accordance with FAR 19.701 and FAR 19.704(b).

Typically, the Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR and as approved by the government are more than the length of the allowance for this proposal. Since small businesses are not required to include this document can this plan be provided in an attachment with “no page limit”?

ANSWER

The Small Business Participation Plan is required by all vendors to submit with a limit of 10 pages. The Subcontracting Plan required for large businesses has no page limit.

Instructions 1.

Volume 1: Factor

III: Past Performance, pg. 14

These requirements are in a dynamic field of expertise with a number of new contracts that provide more relevant capabilities. As such, will the government change the language of the RFP to reflect these programs by allowing, "Those contracts must also reflect at least six months of completed performance by the closing date of the solicitation."

ANSWER

No, due to the complexity and diverse AOR the government requires at least one year of past performance to ensure vendor’s past performance experience meets our requirements.

Instructions 1.

Volume 1: Factor

III: Past Performance, pg. 14

Given that this procurement is for a Single Award IDIQ, will the government permit more task orders for past performance to demonstrate the scope of the work and total magnitude. Some SA IDIQs and BPAs provide task orders in one-year increments that are highly constrained by this acquisition approach. We recommend changing the current language in Factor III: Past Performance to read, "Offerors may submit a combination of no more than four (4) delivery orders (DOs), task orders (TOs), technical direction letters (TDLs), and/or technical area tasks (TATs) placed under an ID/IQ or BPA as one of the three examples of past performance."

ANSWER No, the Government will keep the language as it is originally.

Instructions 1.

Volume 1: Factor

III: Past Performance, pg. 14

Some SA IDIQs and BPAs provide task orders in one-year increments that are highly constrained by this acquisition approach. We recommend changing the current language in Factor III: Past Performance to read, "Such a combination must also meet these requirements: each individual example in the combination must have been performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date and demonstrate at least one (1) year of completed performance under the ID/IQ or BPA by the closing date of the solicitation."

Otherwise, the current year work would be ineligible.

ANSWER Current year work will remain ineligible, the government will not change.

Instructions 1.

Volume 1: Factor

III: Past Performance, pg. 15

Given that this procurement is for a Single Award IDIQ, will the Government evaluate the overall spend on a Single Award IDIQ or BPA as part of the magnitude (dollar value) assessment?

ANSWER The government will be normalizing the magnitude used based on the pool of past performance references received.

Instructions 1.

Volume 1: Factor

III: Past Performance, pg. 15

Can offerors submit a CPARS report in lieu of completing the Past Performance Report Form (Attachment 5)?

ANSWER No, the government will not accept a CPARS report in lieu of completing the Past Performance Report Form.

Document Question / Request for Clarification

Instructions 1.

Volume 1: Non- Price Proposal -

Factor IV: Small Business

Participation Plan

Can the Government clarify if the Small Business Participation Plan (Factor IV) is required for a small business prime offeror?

ANSWER Yes, the Small Business Participation Plan is required for all businesses.

Instructions, Vol II:

Price Proposal, pg.

Can the Government provide labor category requirements for Attachment 1, Pricing Spreadsheet?

ANSWER Labor category requirements are reflected in PWS section 5.1.

Instructions, Vol II:

Price Proposal, pg.

The Pricing Spreadsheet appears to use 1,980 annual hours per FTE. Can the Government provide the basis for this figure, and can offerors adjust the FTE hours to be consistent with their accounting practices and/or SCA compliance?

ANSWER

The pricing spreadsheet has been revised to reflect 2080 annual hours per FTE. Yes, Offerors can adjust the FTE hours to be consistent with their accounting practices.

Instructions, Vol II:

Price Proposal, pg.

The MOC Personnel Technical Qualifications list the following positions that do not appear in Attachment 1 Pricing Spreadsheet:

MPT&E Program Analyst, Maintenance and Modernization Program Analyst, C3 Training Analyst, Readiness Analyst. Are these positions and the corresponding FTE counts listed in MOC Personnel Technical Qualifications to be inserted into the Pricing Spreadsheet in addition to the Pricing Spreadsheet labor categories, or can the Government please provide a crosswalk to correlate the Pricing Spreadsheet labor categories/FTE to the MOC Personnel Technical Qualifications labor categories/FTE?

ANSWER

PWS Sec 5.1 and Attachment 1 have been updated so that key personnel title descriptions correspond with labor categories on Attachment 1.

Instructions, Vol II:

Price Proposal, pg.

Does the Government want offerors to include the Travel Plug costs and associated indirect costs in the Attachment 1 Pricing Spreadsheet, and if so, where should that information be presented?

ANSWER

The contractor should input the travel plug costs and associated indirect costs in the respective CLINS (0002 & 1002), however if those costs have associated IDC the offeror shall provide sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate the associated

IDC.

Instructions, Vol II:

Price Proposal, pg.

Can the Government provide labor category performance locations for each labor category that must be priced in the Attachment 1, Pricing Spreadsheet? There are Wage Determinations for multiple Geographic locations attached to the RFP and offerors need to know which location each labor category resides. Additionally, for Non-SCA positions, offerors need to know the geographic location as salaries can vary across regions.

ANSWER PWS section 18 is updated to reflect NAVIFOR HQ as the sole primary performance location.

20 PWS 5.1, pgs. 71-73 PWS Sections 5.1.1 - 5.1.5 specify 1,960 annual hours per FTE. The Attachment 1, Pricing Spreadsheet appears to use 1,980 annual hours per FTE. Can the Government please clarify the annual hours per FTE?

ANSWER The pricing spreadsheet has been revised to reflect 2080 annual hours per FTE.

21 PWS Section 5.1 Can the Government specify security clearance required for MOC MPT&E Program Analyst, MOC Maintenance and Modernization Program Analyst, and MOC Requirements Analyst?

ANSWER

PWS and Attachment 1 have been updated to reflect required clearances; MPT&E Analyst is Secret, Maint/Mod and Rqts analysts are

TS/SCI.

Document Question / Request for Clarification

22 Attachment 3, pg. 2 Draft DD254, Section 11, Item I, “Receive, Store, or Generate Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)” is checked. It appears the labor for this work is onsite, and the offeror would not need to store CUI. Can you please clarify this requirement and update the Attachment 3 – Draft DD254 as needed?

ANSWER

No storage at CTR sites is required. DD254 updated accordingly. Blocks 11b and 11c have been de-selected, to indicate that the contractor will not be required to receive and store classified material at the contractor’s facility. Block 11L remains selected, while the work will be on-site at a government facility, documents related to the contract itself may be CUI.

23 If the Government issues an amendment, will the Government include page numbers on all solicitation pages for ease of reference?

ANSWER Yes, the Government will add page numbers for ease of reference.

24 Would the Government consider amending the solicitation to include Other Direct Cost (ODC) Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) with a Not-to-Exceed (NTE) plug number to support expenses other than the direct labor hours or travel? Examples where this CLIN may be used are conference expenses and supporting materials, reference materials/books, and/or software licenses, as well as Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance required for overseas travel per FAR 52.228-3 Workers’ Compensation Insurance.

ANSWER No.

25 Vol I – Factor I:

Facilities Clearance and Volume I – Factor IV Small

Business Participation Plan

Many of the substantiating documents required (e.g., Facilities Clearance, Master Subcontracting Plan) are often in the form of pre-formatted documents such as signed letters and formal submissions. We are unable to alter the font (type and/or size) of these pre-formatted substantiating documents. Will the Government confirm that the inclusion of these types of documents are not subject to the formatting requirements outlined in the Requirements for Style on PDF Page 12, Paragraph (2)?

ANSWER Yes, we will accept pre-formatted documents that do not comply with the formatted style on page 12.

26 Volume I – Factor I:

Facilities Clearance and Volume I – Factor IV Small

Business Participation Plan

Will the Government permit submission of the Facilities Clearance and Master Subcontracting Plan as Adobe PDF files in our submission? If so, will the Government omit these two submissions from the proposal response instructions (PDF Page 13, Paragraph

2) due to the predetermined standard and verified formatting?

ANSWER

We believe you are referencing PDF Page 12 paragraph 2 where it discusses formatting. The government will accept PDF files for the Facilities Clearance and Subcontracting Plan.

27 Vol I – Factor III:

Past Performance

The RFP requires offerors to complete Attachment 4, “Past Performance Information Form” for each reference submitted. The format of the Past Performance Information Form is in 10-point font. Will the Government confirm that offerors responses in the Past Performance Information Form and within the PP volume can be submitted in 10-point font?

ANSWER The government has updated the form to 12-point font.

28 Instruction to

Offerors, Vol I:

Factor III – Past

Performance

The solicitation provides a 12-page limit, which appears to include the Past Performance Information Form. Given the PWS focuses on two different areas (MOC TYCOM Support and IW Requirements and Programs) with an expansive scope across PWS tasks, will the Government increase the page limit allocation for Past Performance to 15 pages? Alternatively, will the Government clarify the requirement that the Past Performance Information Form does not count as one of the 12 pages?

ANSWER No, the government will not increase the page limit and the Past Performance Information Form counts towards the 12-page limit.

29 Evaluation Criteria, pgs. 17-92 The Government details the Evaluation criteria: “Factor II is more important than Factors III and IV. Factors II, and III, IV and their sub-factors are significantly more important than Price.” Will the Government confirm that Factors II-IV are listed in descending order of performance, such that Factor II (Technical Approach) is more important than Factor III (Past Performance) and Factor III (Past Performance) is more important than Factor IV (Small Business Participation Plan). Will the government update the solicitation to clarify the descending order of importance and the relationship of factors to one another in evaluation?

ANSWER Yes, the government has updated this section to reflect descending order of importance.

Document Question / Request for Clarification

30 PWS sections 4.7 and 4.8

PWS sections 4.7 and 4.8 are titled Integrated Fires Requirements Support and Battlespace Awareness and Cyber Requirements, respectively. However, the detailed task descriptions for these tasks do not align to the titles of the tasks, which appears to be typographical error. For example, PWS 4.7 references Information Warfare Enterprise (IWE) support, which is more encompassing that Integrated Fires. For PWS 4.8, the tasking relates to IT Service Management support, which is not congruent with Battlespace Awareness and Cyber requirements. Will the Government update the title of PWS 4.7 to read “Information Warfare Enterprise (IWE) Support” and PWS 4.8 to read “IT Service management Support” so the PWS tasks reflect the work to be performed?

ANSWER PWS sections 4.7 through 4.10 have been updated.

R0018923R0009,

pg. 21

Pg. 21 of the PDF solicitation states within “evaluation of travel” that “Offerors responding to this solicitation are advised that, prior to award, the government may request offerors to submit information/data to support price reasonableness such as copies of paid invoices for the same or similar items, sales history for the same or similar items, price list with effective date and/or copies of catalog pages along with any applicable discounts. Failure to submit the requested information may result in disqualification of the submitted proposal.” The Government provides a “plug number” for travel and does not include a Material / ODC CLIN outside of the CLIN designated for Travel. Will the Government remove this paragraph from the solicitation?

ANSWER Yes, the government has removed.

32 PWS Section 14.1

PWS 14.1 Monthly Status Financial Report reflects requirements required for a cost reimbursable construct and not a FFP requirement.

Will the Government modify the requirement to reflect a Monthly Status Report? For example, on a recent FFP IDIQ solicitation, Fleet Logistics Center included the following requirements for a Monthly Status Report. “A monthly status report must be submitted to the COR via email for each task order no later than the 10th of each month. The contractor shall provide trip reports NLT 10 days after return to the COR via email. Each monthly status report must contain: Current status and progress to include tasks that were performed, issues and concerns, and future work planned; Deliverable(s) that were made and those that are planned for next reporting period; Overall status of validation and evaluation progress and resource expenditures in a timeline format; Problem area identification.”

ANSWER Yes, PWS has been revised to reflect Monthly Status Reports.

PWS Sections 4.1 –

4.10

Given the expansive nature of the scope of work which includes PWS 4.1-4.5 for MOC TYCOM Support and PWS 4.6-4.10 for IW Requirements and Programs, which are often included in different contracts, will the Government clarify that Past Performance references will be evaluated in the aggregate?

ANSWER No, the government is not evaluating in the aggregate.

The Government states Phase II, Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated based on Table 5, which specifies, “…approach and understanding of the small business objectives.” However, the solicitation does not quantify overall small business goals, nor any participation objectives of socio-economic small business concerns. Will the Government update the solicitation to include small business participation goals as well as any specific socio-economic objectives?

ANSWER No, the contractor should provide the government with their small business goals.

Document Question / Request for Clarification

In the Past Performance instructions, the solicitation states, “For purposes of this solicitation, a contract is defined as a single contract or a single task order placed under an ID/IQ contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), or a Federal Supply Schedule.

Offerors may submit a combination of no more than three (3) delivery orders (DOs), task orders (TOs), technical direction letters (TDLs), and/or technical area tasks (TATs) placed under an ID/IQ or BPA as one of the three past performance references.”

Limiting offerors to submitting only three (3) task orders, delivery orders, or TDLs under a Multiple Award ID/IQ or a large BPA appropriately limits offerors from using excessively large contracts (e.g., Seaport) across many different buying customers that are not organizationally aligned. However, Single Award IDIQ contracts are distinct in that they are usually issued for a more discrete scope, with a focused corporate management team, and for work in which the buying customers are organizationally aligned. Our experience with Single Award IDIQs is that they comprise a large quantity of Task Orders (20+) of varying duration and size in support of the same scope, as the Government has the discretion to easily and quickly issue task orders, as needed. Limiting Single Award ID/IQ contracts to 3 task orders restricts offerors from demonstrating relevant past performance as offerors do not control the size and construct of task orders issued under a Single Award ID/IQ contract. Because this solicitation is a Single Award ID/IQ contract, will the Government allow offerors to submit a Single Award ID/IQ contract as a single contract with more than 3 task orders? Will the Government revise the instructions to state, “For purposes of this solicitation, a contract is defined as a single contract, to include a Single Award ID/IQ, or a single task order placed under a Multiple Award ID/IQ contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), or a Federal Supply Schedule. Offerors may submit a combination of no more than three (3) delivery orders (DOs), task orders (TOs), technical direction letters (TDLs), and/or technical area tasks (TATs) placed under a Multiple Award ID/IQ or BPA as one of the three past performance references.”

ANSWER No, a single award IDIQ does not reflect actual performance for evaluations as an IDIQ is only a potential performance requirement.

The proposal instructions and evaluation criteria emphasize the importance of providing qualified personnel, to include offeror’s ability to identify, prepare, train, and retain qualified personnel. Will the Government validate that the level of effort of 51 FTEs / 100,980 hours annually as reflected in the pricing spreadsheet is correct, given the published contract ceiling value of $49M as stated on RFP Page 91 and the PoP of 5.5 years (including the 6-month option) as required in the pricing spreadsheet? Using the RFP plug amounts for ODCs and travel for the 5-year PoP and option period leaves a ceiling of $48,790,648 for burdened labor on the contract. While offerors have differing indirect rates (which incorporates employee benefits) and fee objectives, this would result in an average burdened rate of ~$87.84, far below the current market average for the type of talent required for successful performance and as reflected in the solicitation. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that industry offerors will be able to provide, recruit, or retain this required level of qualified staff at these unrealistically low rates, creating risk to the Government’s mission in execution. PWS 5 further details Technical Qualifications requirements for 18 FTEs in terms of education, clearance, and specialized experience. Of the labor categories and FTEs/hours listed in the pricing spreadsheet, 35 (69%) of the FTEs require TS/SCI clearances. There are 11 Program Managers, 5 Project Managers, 15 Systems Engineers and 8 Data Scientists totaling 76% of the FTEs – all of which have specialized skills and expertise.

QUESTION: To resolve the incongruence between the technical requirements, labor requirements, and pricing requirements:

- Will the Government update the FTEs/hours in the pricing spreadsheet to align within the contract ceiling or increase the published contract ceiling to align with labor requirements?

In the alternative, will the Government explicitly state in an RFP amendment that all offerors should provide fully burdened rates for the labor categories and places of performance without regard to stated contract ceiling?

ANSWER

The total FTE count on Attachment 1 is not reflective of level of the effort for the life of the contract. Vendors should use their burdened rates.

Document Question / Request for Clarification

The bottom of Page 45 of 92 and top of Page 46 of 92 of the PDF solicitation includes “52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires (May 2014) and states “…this clause identifies the classes of service employees expected to be employed under the contract and states the wages and fringe benefits payable to each if they were employed by the contracting agency….” The 8 LCATs listed align to the Pricing Spreadsheet LCATs. There are several material issues with this information. While stated this is not a wage determination, the current construct and details of this information are misleading indicators of the type of skills required for performance. From our engagements in industry, we know that often, companies and especially small businesses, misinterpret the intent of this information and believe these are the target rates for performance. This places the contractor and the Government investment at risk. As stated in the solicitation “nothing stated in the TO, in a quote, or in discussions thereto, can modify the basic contract terms or regulations governing this contract.” Moreover, the information appears to be factually incorrect. For example:

a. The Government details two GS-7, three GS-8 and three GS-9. The scope of work, if performed by Government employees, would require much more senior government personnel than GS 7-9, as evidenced by those GS employees that are actively performing similar work across the Navy for similar missions for other Type Commands and evidenced by the industry teams supporting similar requirements on awarded task orders. The criticality of the work within scope are more reflective of GS 12-15, which can be verified by market research and review of other task orders / contracts solicited and awarded for similar scope.

b. The Program Manager and Project Manager are aligned as GS-7s, the most junior of the levels provided. Federalpay.org describes GS-7 are entry-level positions who are “starting directly out of a university or who otherwise have limited relevant experience.”

This does not align to the most basic definition of Program or Project Manager, nor does it seem feasible these positions would be more junior to all other positions listed.

c. The Administrative Specialist and the Technical Writer are listed with the highest wage-fringe benefits, which is not congruent with industry descriptions for these positions, nor their position as the highest wages of all LCATs.

d. None of the wage-fringe benefits are congruent with the qualifications detailed in name or description in the RFP and all are orders of magnitude different than the cost of the talent needed for successful performance. For example, personnel with TS/SCI clearances regardless of skillset command higher salaries.

QUESTION:

- Will the Govt. update this clause to more accurately reflect the appropriate grade and salary data for which is determined to be an equivalent rate for a Federal Hire?

- Alternatively, will the Govt. clarify its intent is not for industry to price and deliver a workforce of GS-7, GS-8, and GS-9 equivalent personnel for this critical Government requirement?

ANSWER

The information within FAR 52.222-42 has been updated; however, this is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as the government’s objective.

Document Question / Request for Clarification

Page 92 of 92 of the PDF solicitation file states, in para e, “Pricing. All labor categories and rates used to price task orders shall be in accordance with the Pricing Spreadsheet, Attachment 1, to the contract.” However, the proposal instructions for pricing, beginning on page 16 of the PDF solicitation, does not reference the pricing spreadsheet or provide any detailed instructions regarding its use during performance. Other similar solicitations recently released by FLC (e.g., N0018923RR001) included detailed instructions regarding the pricing spreadsheet. For example, in the N0018923RR001 solicitation, the instructions for pricing state:

a. “Attachment 4 –Pricing Spreadsheet completed by the offeror (see below for additional instructions). Attachment 4 provides a template for offerors to use in the preparation of their price proposal. The intent is not to restrict the offerors in the manner in which they develop their pricing information but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in the format of the responses for evaluation purposes. NOTE: Completing Attachment 4 does not alleviate offerors from providing any additional information required by the RFP. It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure all formulas are accurate and correct. Offerors shall ensure the required information is provided for each year within the ordering period.

i. The Firm-Fixed Price rates submitted in this Attachment will be incorporated into the resultant contract as the ceiling labor rates and shall be utilized by the offeror in the preparation of FFP pricing at the Task Order level. A firm-fixed-price is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract.

ii. Offerors shall use the hours as listed in the spreadsheet for uniformity. The proposed fully burdened Firm Fixed Price hourly labor rates shall be provided by the offeror in Attachment 4 of the solicitation and will be incorporated into the resultant contract as the ceiling rates for each labor category. All proposed labor rates shall be expressed as a value and be rounded to two decimal places (no formulas). Failure to include a fully burdened hourly rate for all of the provided labor categories within Attachment 4 may deem an offeror to be nonresponsive.

iii. The prices or labor rates that are in effect on the date any task order is issued by the Government shall apply for the full period of performance for the base period of the task order. If the Task Order also includes option periods, the rates that are in effect on the date the option period is exercisable shall apply for the full period of performance of the option period.”

QUESTION:

- Given the evaluation criteria does not stipulate the requirement that the future awardee is to be bound by the FFP rates it proposes in the pricing spreadsheet either, will the Government provide clarity to industry, so all parties understand the full intent of the pricing spreadsheet?

- Will the Government amend the solicitation to include more detailed instructions regarding the pricing spreadsheet?

ANSWER FAR 52.212-1 & FAR 52.212-2 have been revised to include more detailed instructions regarding the pricing spreadsheet.

Per section 13 on Page 75, “A security clearance of TOP SECRET (TS)//SCI is required for Contractor personnel in the performance of this effort, start date to end date” and a “TS/SCI Clearance is a requirement for employment and must be active at the time of hire/employment on this contract.” However, the “Attachment 1 – Pricing Spreadsheet” includes three LCATs with a “Required Clearance” at the “Secret” level. Would the Government please correct the PWS to reflect the security clearance requirements in the pricing spreadsheet?

ANSWER PWS section 13 has been updated to reflect TS/SCI or Secret clearances as reflected on Attachment 1.

In Section 5.1 MOC Personnel Technical Qualifications (PDF Page 71), the Government identifies five (5) Key Personnel Labor Categories across 18 FTEs in PWS 5.1.1 through PWS 5.1.5. Within each corresponding header section, the Government provides the estimated Level of Effort, which ranges from 1 to 7 FTE and prescribes 1,960 hours for each FTE. However, the “Attachment 1 – Pricing Spreadsheet” lists out different LCATs with FTE and hours calculated at 1,980 hours. Will the Government reconcile the solicitation hours with the “Attachment 1 – Pricing Spreadsheet” hours and amend the solicitation accordingly?

ANSWER Pricing sheet and PWS updated to reflect 2080 hrs per FTE.

Document Question / Request for Clarification

The Pricing Spreadsheet includes 8 different Labor Categories with corresponding hours. However, the Government does not provide Labor Category definitions for these requirements. The Labor Category names, without corresponding definitions, make the requirement ambiguous. Moreover, the lack of qualifications for these Labor Categories will invariably lead to different interpretations of the requirement and post-award issues. Will the Government amend the solicitation to include Labor Category qualifications for each Labor Category listed in the pricing spreadsheet?

ANSWER

PWS Sec 5.1 and Attachment 1 have been updated so that key personnel title descriptions correspond with labor categories on Attachment 1.

PWS 5.1 lists Personnel Technical Qualifications for 18 FTEs, comprising over 35% of the FTEs to include MOC MPT&E Program Analyst (1 FTE), MOC Maintenance and Modernization Program Analyst (3 FTEs), MOC C3 Training Analyst (5 FTE), MOC Readiness Analyst (7 FTEs) and MOC Requirements Analyst (2 FTEs). These LCATs are not listed in the pricing spreadsheet.

Moreover, these LCATs cannot be cross-walked to the LCATs in the pricing spreadsheet because the requirements for each vary and the LOE does not align. Will the Government update the pricing spreadsheet to include each of these positions and corresponding hours so these requirements are priced into the contract pricing spreadsheet?

ANSWER

PWS Sec 5.1 and Attachment 1 have been updated so that key personnel title descriptions correspond with labor categories on Attachment 1.

As this is a FFP requirement, requirements must be reasonably definite. The pricing spreadsheet serves a “rate card” with ceiling rates that must be used at the task order level for pricing IAW the task order procedures on Page 92 of the solicitation. As price is evaluation factor, offerors need reasonably definite labor requirements to avoid ambiguity or different interpretations of the requirement pre- and post-award. The labor category requirements for PWS 5.1 Personnel Technical Qualifications, accounts for 16 FTEs comprising over 30% of the FTEs, however, the requirements are not reasonably definite. For example:

a. Many of the requirements are “desired” vs “required” experiences and “required” vs “preferred” qualifications. There is a substantive difference in labor cost between the required qualifications and the desired + required qualifications.

b. Many of the qualifications are listed with “one of the following” qualifications with multiple choices for qualification, which vary in their costs.

c. There are many experience qualifications that are not quantified.

Based on our analysis, the desired qualifications are essential for successful performance. However, the “desired” qualifications, especially as they pertain to the years of experience and years of specialized experience, result in significant variation in pricing for the labor range. There lacks mechanism to account for cost differences between requirements and desired qualifications either in cost proposals or post award. In a cost reimbursable construct, the actual cost varies with the degree of qualification.

QUESTION: Will the Government update the verbiage to include "required” instead of “desired”? This will ensure offerors have a uniform interpretation of the requirement.

ANSWER

Section 5.1 qualification requirements have been updated to be more consistent, but still contain some experience levels that are a minimum requirement, with additional experience desired.

PWS 5.1 MOC Personnel Technical Qualifications list five (5) different personnel positions. The Key Personnel requirements have inconsistencies in classifying educational, expertise and experience relevant to the PWS. For example, some Key Personnel have degree requirements when others do not, some require TS/SCI clearance level when others do not specify any clearance requirements, and some require analytical problem-solving skills while others do not.

QUESTION: Would the Government reconcile personnel requirements to ensure each includes all required experience, education, clearance, and specialized experience?

ANSWER

Section 5.1 qualification requirements have been updated to be more consistent, but they are not identical for all key personnel. If a degree is specified, then it is required. All key personnel security clearance requirements are identified.

Document Question / Request for Clarification

The pricing spreadsheet does not designate places of performance for each Labor Category nor does the Government include distinction between Government site and Contractor Site. As the pricing for each location and site is different, will the Government update the Pricing Spreadsheet to distinguish between places of performance and government/contractor site?

ANSWER

PWS section 18 is updated to reflect NAVIFOR HQ as the sole primary performance location; therefore, the revised pricing spreadsheet is correct.

PWS 5.1 includes five different Key Personnel requirements in 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, and 5.1.5. However, there are varying numbers of FTEs aligned to each of these positions. Will the Government confirm that all FTEs aligned to these positions are Key?

ANSWER Yes, all positions and FTEs identified in section 5.1 are key.

Attachment 1, Pricing Spreadsheet lists eight (8) LCATs, to include 11 FTE Program Managers and 5 FTE Project Managers.

However, there does not appear to be a Key Personnel requirement in PWS 5.1 for the contract Program Manager. Will the Government update PWS 5.0 Technical Qualifications to include a Program Manager as Key Personnel along with education, experience, clearance, and specialized experience requirements?

ANSWER

PWS Sec 5.1 and Attachment 1 have been updated so that key personnel title descriptions correspond with labor categories on Attachment 1.

The Personnel Requirements in PWS 5.1 appear to align to PWS 4.1 – 4.5 MOC TYCOM requirements. Will the Government confirm that the Section 5.1. MOC Personnel Technical Qualifications (Page 71 of the PDF) are intended to support Performance Work Statement (PWS) Tasks 4.1 – 4.5 (Beginning on Page 69 of the PDF)?

ANSWER Yes, the personnel requirements in section 5.1 align to MOC TYCOM tasks per section 4.1 through 4.5.

We respectfully request a two-week extension to the proposal due date from 24 February 2023 to 10 March 2023 due to numerous questions regarding labor categories, personnel qualification requirements and pricing spreadsheet questions. The answers to these questions have a substantive impact on technical and cost proposals. Given the FFP nature of this requirement, the additional time will ensure offerors can develop technical and cost proposals based on the answers to questions and any subsequent modifications. We appreciate the Government’s consideration of this request.

ANSWER The government will extend the proposal due date, due to the length of time needed to respond to the questions asked.

In the solicitation, the proposal instructions contains Factor II: Technical Approach with two Sub-Factors: Sub-Factor 1 – Staffing Approach; and Sub-Factor II – Performance and Management Approach. The Evaluation criteria states that “Within Factor II, the two

(2) sub-factors are weighted equally.” The Government also specifies in the “Requirements for Style” that an “Each offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly and concisely describes and defines the contractor’s response to the requirements contained in the RFP.

The proposal shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion of the same information. When necessary, the offeror shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within the submitted proposal.” Given the Staffing Approach and requirements support the performance and management approach proposed, we believe the proposal will be much more clear and concise if Factor II begins with the Performance and Management approach Sub-Factor, followed by the Staffing Approach Sub-factor.

a. Will the Government simply re-order these two Sub-Factors such that the Subfactor for Performance and Management Approach precedes the Subfactor for Staffing?

b. In the alternative, Given these two Sub-Factors are within the same factor and they are equally graded, will the Government allow offerors to simply sequence their proposal such that Subfactor II is ordered before Subfactor I, if desired? For example the Government could include in the RFP a simple statement that “Offerors may order the Subfactors within the Factor II in the manner that most clearly and concisely defines the contractor’s response to the RFP provided each Subfactor is clearly identified.”

ANSWER No, the government will not make any changes to the instruction or evaluation based off questions a and b above.