Amendment 0002 -N0018926QD026 Q-A.pdf

N0018926QD026

Amendment 002

1.) Question: Will the Government please revise font requirements for charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics to allow smaller font for both the Step 1 and Step 2 submissions?

Answer: The solicitation is clear on its face.

2.) Question: How long is the proposal required to be valid for?

Answer: The Step-Two quote should be valid for a minimum 150 days from the date of submission.

3.) Question: What is the expected timeline from Step 1 submission to the notification of viable competitors to continue to Step 2?

Answer: Viable and non-viable vendors have been notified.

4.) Question: Will Competitors that are not deemed viable be notified? And will their notification follow the same timeline as those deemed viable?

Answer: Please see answer to question three.

5.) Question: Section B provides plug in numbers for both Travel and ODCs within O&M and RDT&E CLINS. Section L provides instructions to include material lists and costs, travel charges, and "other direct costs", along with a statement that "other direct costs" shall include an itemization of those costs and an explanation and justification of each cost so itemized. Please confirm that proposers should use the ODC plug numbers found in Section B (pages 7 to 10).

Answer: Quoters should use the plug-in numbers provided in Section B for Travel and ODC quoting purposes.

6.) Question: If a proposer’s Step Two submission contains CUI, will the government provide a DoD safe link upon request?

Answer: A DoD safe link can be requested.

7.) Question: Under a single award IDIQ where the Statement of Work is established at the first Task Order and the following Task Orders function as a method to provide additional funding from various customers for the first TO (similar to incremental funding) is it allowable to submit the task orders under a single PP as they are intrinsically tied under the single statement of work.

Answer: Please see revised Section L of the solicitation.

8.) Question: Section M states that non-cost factors graded less than “Acceptable” and past performance less than “Satisfactory” will not be eligible for award. No other grades or definition of grades is provided. Will the government provide the full grading structure and definitions, similar to the chart provided in other Seaport NxG RFPs?

Answer: Please see revised Sections L and M of the solicitation.

9. Question: As this is a competitive bid and Certified Cost or Pricing is not required from the prime, and as such will not be required of any subcontractors, can FAR 52.215- 12 be removed to avoid confusion?

Answer: FAR clause 52.215-12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data (DEVIATION 2022-O0001) has been removed from the RFQ and DFARS clause 252.215-7010 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data. (DEVIATION 2024-O0007) has been removed from the RFQ.

10.) Question: Can the government clarify that as a FFP or T&M subcontractor, supporting documentation is not required for direct labor and indirect rates?

Answer: If the quoter is proposing subcontracts on other than a CPFF basis, the quoter should submit information as to whether the rates for the subcontractors are fixed based on a firm bilateral agreement with the subcontractor or merely proposed. In addition, the quoter shall explain why it believes the subcontractor can perform at those rates.

11.) Question: Section B calls out pricing CLINS for O&M and CLINS for RDT&E. Will the government either revise the CLINS for Total Cost of all Labors as all Labor Hours are shown together in the Estimated Total Hours Table or Will the Government Provide an Estimated Total Hours Table for O&M LCATS and Table for RDT&E Hours to ensure that all contractors are making the correction assumption as to which LCATs are being proposed for Each CLIN. (O&M or RDT&E).

Answer: Yes. Please see updated table in Section B distinguishing O&M labor categories from

RDT&E.

12.) Question: Will the government remove the language from Section L about itemizing ODCs since the government already tells us in the Section B the predetermined amounts to use for the ODCs. As written, the requirement doesn’t allow for equal review of each company to request an itemized list and reasoning at the proposal level.

Answer: Yes

13.) Question: Will the Government add the ODC to Section L as with the Travel amounts posted on page 51.

Answer: Yes.

14.) Question: Will the Government allow an exception of 10pt TNR or 10 Arial Narrow for charts, graphs, tables, tables of contents, acronym lists, headers and footers?

Answer: The solicitation is clear on its face.

15.) Question: Section L.II.(5) instructs offerors to use a font with a point size of 12 or greater.

The instructions provide one exception to the font size for the "past performance information form" which may be completed with a point size of 10 or greater. Will the Government provide an additional exception so that all tables, figures, charts, and graphics in the proposal may be completed with a point size of 10 or greater?

Answer: the solicitation is clear on its face.

16.) Question: Offerors are instructed to provide task flow and interfaces for each scenario. Will the government provide a description or depiction (i.e., organization chart) of how the government personnel are organized to support the scenarios?

17.) Question: For the cost quotation, may the quoter deviate from the listed cost elements? For example, may ODCs be presented as a separate line item from travel, or should they be combined? Additionally, may the quoter add extra cost-element lines to align with the company’s burden structure below Subcontractor / Travel / ODC cost elements?

Answer: The solicitation is clear on its face.

18.) Question: Should subcontractors submit pricing data via email?

Answer: Subcontractor pricing can be submitted to matthew.f.pizzarelli.civ@us.navy.mil.

19.) Question: Will the Government please provide the complete set of adjectival and/or confidence rating definitions applicable to this solicitation, including any ratings above or below 'Acceptable' and 'Satisfactory Confidence,' and identify how each applies to the evaluation factors?

Answer: Please see revised Sections L and M of the solicitation.

20.) Question: Will the Government please clarify whether adjectival or confidence ratings will be assigned only at the evaluation factor level, or whether ratings will also be applied to individual elements within the Performance Approach?

Answer: Please see revised Sections L and M of the solicitation. The Performance Approach will result in a single adjectival rating in accordance with the solicitation.

21.) Question: Will the Government please clarify whether the three required sample tasks/scenarios are equally weighted or not? If not, what is the weighting for each of them when evaluated by the Government?

Answer: Please see response to Question 20. The Performance Approach factor will be evaluated holistically to arrive at a single adjectival rating. While the Government has not assigned specific weights or subfactors to the individual Sample Tasks or PWS Task Areas, the evaluation will consider the comprehensiveness and quality of the approach across all required elements identified in Section L.

22.) Question: Will the Government please clarify whether the PWS task areas identified in Section L - Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters; III Quote Content;

1.Volume I - Non-cost quote (i.e., 5.5 Joint Event Life-Cycle (JELC); 5.6 Design Stage; 5.7 Planning Stage; 5.8 Preparation Stage; 5.8.2 Modeling and Simulation (M&S), C4I and Intel Systems; 5.9 Execution Stage; and 5.11 Analysis, Evaluation, and Reports Stage) are weighted equally to each of the sample tasks/scenarios or not? If not, what is the weighting of the applicable PWS task areas compared to the sample task/scenarios?

Answer: Please see response to Question 21.

23.) Question: Will the Government please clarify what constitutes a higher rating, if applicable, under the Performance Approach factor? For evaluation purposes, will strengths or significant strengths be assigned for detailed task decomposition, labor-category alignment, integrated workflows, realistic scheduling, and low-risk execution methods across the required scenarios?

Answer: Please see revised Sections L and M of the solicitation.

24.) Question: Will the Government please clarify how performance risk will be incorporated into the evaluation of the Performance Approach, including whether risk will be assessed separately or integrated into the overall adjectival rating?

Answer: Please see revised Sections L and M of the solicitation.

25.) Question: Will the Government please provide the full Past Performance confidence assessment scale and definitions, and clarify how varying levels of relevance and performance quality will influence the assigned confidence rating?

Answer: Please see revised Sections L and M of the solicitation. The solicitation is clear on its face.

26.) Question: Will the Government provide a standardized pricing format, or otherwise specify the required structure and level of detail for the cost/price submission (e.g., labor category breakout, rate build-up elements, and summary tables), to ensure consistency and comparability across quotations?

Answer: There is no standard format that is provided by the Government.

27.) Question: In order for quoters' to be responsive to all Volume I, Non-Cost Quote requirements, will the Government raise the Page count to 30 pages? In addition, will the Government please allow size 10 font for charts, diagrams and graphics?

28.) Question: Will the Government please clarify the actual minimum rating for award eligibility and amend the solicitation for consistency?

29.) Question: Will the Government please confirm whether the three sample scenarios and the specifically identified PWS sections function as evaluated sub-elements within the Performance Approach factor, and whether the Government will assess the degree to which the quote demonstrates an integrated, executable, and low-risk method across those elements?

Answer: Please see response to Question 21.

30.) Question: Given the solicitation's emphasis on detailed scenario responses addressing task decomposition, labor-category utilization, task flow, schedule, risk mitigation, and the cited PWS stages and technical integration areas, will the Government place greater discriminating value on a mission-specific, low-risk, executable Performance Approach than on broader past performance references that are less directly aligned to the operational and technical complexity of this requirement?

31.) Question: Will the Government please clarify the methodology the Government intends to use if it elects to evaluate past performance references in the aggregate, including how relevance thresholds will be applied consistently across all quoters and how individual references deemed not relevant will be treated in that analysis?

32.) Question: Will the Government please clarify whether greater relevance will be based primarily on direct alignment to Elite Constellation campaign design, multi-CCMD synchronization, JECG architecture, globally distributed exercise support, and secure cross-domain operations, as compared to broader but more general joint training support experience?

33.) Question: Will the Government please confirm the intention to assign greater value under the Performance Approach factor to quotes that provide specific labor-to-task mapping, clear interface logic, realistic schedules, and concrete risk mitigation tied to the three scenarios, rather than to narrative approaches that generally describe understanding of the requirement?

Answer: Please see revised Sections L and M of the solicitation, and the response to Question

21. The solicitation is clear on its face.

34.) Question: Will the Government please clarify the difference between the cover and the cover sheet? Also, for each Volume, is a cover allowed in addition to the cover sheet? If both are allowed, which is included in the 1-page limitation for the Non-Cost Volume?

Answer: Please see revised Section L of the solicitation. The solicitation is clear on its face.

35.) Question: Since quoters are instructed to email the quote, will the Government please remove the requirement to identify which copy of the quote is the original?

Answer: Yes. Please see revised Section L of the solicitation.

36.) Question: Is a completed Section B required for submittal with quotes? If so, will the Government please clarify where Section B should be included in the quote?

Answer: The quoter is required to fill out the contract line items.

37.) Question: Can subcontractors get a DOD Safe Code in order to submit their unsanitized data?

Answer: Yes