N00421-14-R-0004_Industry_Questions_and_Answers_06-04-14.pdf

Industry Questions and Answers

RFP: N00421-14-R-0004

Industry Question 1. RFP page 77, 3.0 Volume 4: Past Performance, 3.1 General, “The Past

Performance Information Reporting System (PPIRS) will be used to evaluate Past Performance.

For contracts that have CPARS Reports or similar reports that are more than six months old, e.g., the completion date is more than six months before the due date for this Past Performance

Volume, the Offeror will forward a copy of the CPARS Update Questionnaire (Attachment P5) to that contract customer's Program Manager. For all contracts identified which do not have

CPARS Reports, the Offeror will forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire

(Attachment (P5 )) to that contract customer's PCO, Administrative Contracting Officer, and

Program Manager. Attachment P5 is the Past Performance Questionnaire.” Is there a different

CPARS Update Questionnaire that is missing?

Government Response: The referenced section of the RFP will be revised in a subsequent amendment. Reference to “CPARS update Questionnaire” will be changed to read as “Past

Performance Questionnaires”.

Industry Question 2. RFP page 77, 3.0 Volume 4: Past Performance, 3.1 General, “The Past

Performance Information Reporting System (PPIRS) will be used to evaluate Past Performance.

For contracts that have CPARS Reports or similar reports that are more than six months old, e.g., the completion date is more than six months before the due date for this Past Performance

Volume, the Offeror will forward a copy of the CPARS Update Questionnaire (Attachment P5) to that contract customer's Program Manager. For all contracts identified which do not have

CPARS Reports, the Offeror will forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire

(Attachment (P5 )) to that contract customer's PCO, Administrative Contracting Officer, and

Program Manager.” If a Past Performance citation is a Subcontract, there will not be an

Administrative Contracting Officer, to submit a Questionnaire to. Will it be acceptable under a

Subcontract to only have a PCO and Program Manager submittal?

Government Response: Past Performance Questionnaires for members of an offeror’s subcontractor team may be submitted to the Government Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) or

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for the particular contract being cited as a reference.

Industry Question 3. Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3.1, page 77-78 - Past Performance Matrix

· The instructions for the Past Performance Matrix state:

“Provide all the information identified below separately for each contract. Additionally, provide this information electronically as a separate file on CD-ROM, which contains Offeror's Past

Performance proposal in a Word Table in the format depicted below appear to conflict with the matrix itself.”

Does this matrix need to be included in the hard and electronic copies of the Past Performance volume, or is it a separate file that does not count toward page count?

· Both Solicitation Attachment P4 and the table on page 78 are labeled Past Performance

Matrix.

Are both matrixes required within the Past Performance volume?

Government Response: The matrix needs to be included in both the hard and electronic copies of Past Performance Volume and will apply to page count.

Industry Question 4: The Past Performance volume currently is limited to 10 pages. At this time, the volume includes, at a minimum:

3 tables

Data for at least 5 contracts (a minimum of 10 contracts if using a critical subcontracts and possibly more if additional subcontractors are included)

Consent letters for all subcontractors

Past Performance Information for each cited contract (1) meeting technical requirements, i.e., the quality of technical performance, e.g., performing analysis, design, testing, etc.,

2) meeting schedule requirements, i.e., schedule performance, e.g., on time or late delivery, modification of original schedules and reasons for any changes, etc., 3) controlling contract cost, i.e., cost performance, e.g., on time or late delivery, modification of original schedules and reasons for any changes, etc., and 4) managing the contracted effort, i.e., program management, e.g., cooperation with customer, subcontract management)

Demonstrated Systemic improvement Information for each cited contract

Award fee information for each cited contract

In order to allow room for each of these elements to be sufficiently addressed, we respectfully request the Government increase the page limit on this volume to 30 pp.

Government Response: The Past Performance Volume page count will be revised to 25 pages in a subsequent amendment.

Industry Question 5: Statement of Work’, Para.11.1.2 Labor Category Qualifications. Labor

Category descriptions. Many of the Labor Category Qualifications have the Education requirement, “…i.e., two (2) years of any combination of undergraduate/study/experience in the required areas equals one (1) year of academic proficiency.” Should “proficiency” be replaced with “deficiency”?

Government Response: No. The word “proficiency” should not be replaced with “deficiency”.

Industry Question 6: Statement of Work’, Para.11.1.2 Labor Category Qualifications, Senior

Analyst, Education. ‘BS or BA degree’. The entire labor category description is different from the current contract. The current contract has the following Education requirement – Requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university in engineering or related disciplines, such as physics or mathematics, or other related scientific or technical discipline or the equivalent experience, i.e., any combination of undergraduate/graduate study/experience where two (2) years of experience in the required areas equals one (1) year of academic deficiency, and each year of graduate study equals one (1) year of relevant experience.

Will the Government allow the same Education requirement / substitution this time since current incumbent personnel supporting the customer may become disqualified without the substitution?

Government Response: No, the Government will not allow substitution for this position.

Industry Question 7: Statement of Work’, Para.11.1.2 Labor Category Qualifications, Project

Manager, Education. ‘BS or BA degree. SUBSTITUTION: an AS or AA degree’. Will the

Government allow a Substitution of two (2) or more years of college in lieu of the formal AS or

AA degree requirement for Project Manager?

Government Response: The Government will not allow substitution of AS or AA degree.

Industry Question 8: Attachment 2 – Applicable Specifications and Standards’. Reference to

MIL-HDBK-28001. Since MIL-PRF-28001 isn’t cited, why is there a reference to MIL-HDBK-

28001?

Government Response: MIL-PRF-28001 is cited as a reference in MIL-HDBK-28001and was validated in Notice 2 to the MIL-HDBK-28001.

Industry Question 9: Attachment 2 – Applicable Specifications and Standards’. Reference to

MIL-STD-1840. Notice 1 to the Standard dated 22 April 2010 states, “MIL-STD-1840C, dated

26 Jun 1997 is inactive for new design and shall no longer be used as a guidance reference for new designs.” Is there a reason this standard is cited in this attachment?

Government Response: MIL-STD-1840 is referenced to support maintenance and/or conversion of legacy data.

Industry Question 10:

Attachment_P5_Past_Performance_Questionnaire_Package_for_Services’. Two different versions, one on FBO and the other on the NAVAIR website. Conflicting guidance on page 77 of the RFP which states “The Offeror shall include instructions for the customers to send completed questionnaires within two weeks of its receipt via e-mail to J. Larry Mattingly PCO, at Email Joseph.mattingly@navy.mil or via fax number 301-757-9046, thereby allowing the customer approximately two weeks to complete their response. This submittal information is provided at the top of the questionnaires to facilitate the Offeror's effort in meeting these instructions.” Submittal instructions on Attachment P5 on FBO are different from the

Attachment P5 posted on the NAVAIR website, and both contradict the above paragraph. Will you please clarify what is the correct procedure and timeframe for submitting Attachment P5

Past Performance Questionnaire Package for Services?

Government Response:The Government will provide updated Attachment P5 in a subsequent amendment to RFP. The due date for submission of Past Performance Questionnaires will coincide with the due date for submission of proposals.

Industry Question 11:

Attachment_P6_CLIN_Breakout_spreadsheet_V7z____11_Oct_2012_with_CIC

Instructions Spreadsheet, The instructions tab lists steps for the government to complete. The steps have not been completed. Will the government provide an updated form?

Government Response: The Government will provide an updated Attachment P6 with the tab list completed in a subsequent amendment to RFP.

Industry Question 12:

Attachment_P6_CLIN_Breakout_spreadsheet_V7z____11_Oct_2012_with_CIC, Spreadsheet, The name of this file contains (CIC) Capacity Increase CLIN. Is this applicable to this proposal?

Government Response: The Government will provide an updated Attachment P6 in a subsequent amendment to RFP which eliminates the row for (CIC) Capacity Increase CLIN as it is not applicable to this RFP.

Industry Question 13: Solicitation, Page 84 -88 of 97, 4.6.2 Labor Hours Table, There are 44 rows where the totals do not equate. Starting in year 2, the row totals are off when adding the hours across. In total over the 4 years the hours are only off 1 hour, but each individual year is off by more. This will cause an issue when completing the P6 because the total hours will not match in years 2, 3, 4 and in total. Will corrected pages be distributed? How shall we proceed?

Government Response: The Government will provide an updated and corrected Labor Hours table in a subsequent amendment to RFP.

Industry Question 14: Solicitation, Page 83 of 97, 4.6.1 ODCs/NMCI Table, Are the totals for CLIN 0002 (Travel, Material) $446,644.11 and CLIN 0003 (NMCI) $60,906.02 estimates for each year or all years combined?

Government Response: The estimates cited in Section L paragraph 4.6.1 ODCs/NMCI Table are intended to cover the entire 4 year ordering period of the resultant contract. The table will be updated in a subsequent amendment to RFP to allot the ODC estimate per each of the four years of basic contract.

Industry Question 15: Solicitation, Page 81 of 97, Paragraph (c) second to last sentence, The proposed subcontractors are required to submit their DCAA information and payroll verification under their prime contractor. There are no directions for subcontractor on how they are to submit their sealed bid package directly to the government. How shall we proceed?

Government Response: A subcontractor can submit such information along with the prime’s proposal in a separate sealed package, or instead deliver it separately to the contracts office prior to the prescribed RFP closing date and time.

Industry Question 16: Solicitation, Page 81 of 97, Paragraph (h), If a subcontractor of the

Offeror utilizes fully burdened rates in its proposal to the Offeror, the subcontractor shall provide its own CLIN Breakout Spreadsheet (Attachment P6), There are no directions for subcontractor on how they are to submit their sealed bid package directly to the government. How shall we proceed?

Government Response: A subcontractor can submit their cost proposal inclusive of CLIN

Breakout Spreadsheet (Attachment P6) along with the prime’s proposal submission in a separate sealed package, or instead deliver it separately to the contracts office prior to the prescribed RFP closing date and time.

Industry Question 17: RFP Pg. 68-69, 5252.209-9513 OCI, the attachment is not identified.

Please provide the attachment. Which volume shall we place our OCI answer – Volume I?

Government Response: The Government will provide an answer at later date.

Industry Question 18: Reference: Section B, Attachment P6, RFP (L.B.4.6.1, L.B.4.6.2), In

L.4.6.1 of the RFP, the government asks the contractor to provide pricing for the CLINs in

Section B. In L.B.4.6.2, the government requires the contractor to price the hours as shown in the tables for the years of the contract. The tables are broken out by labor category and location, but not by CLIN. What is the breakout of the required hours between CLIN 0001 (CPFF) and

CLIN 0005 (FFP)?

Government Response: The Section L paragraph 4.6.2 Labor hour table only provides the allocation of hours by labor category for each year of the resultant contract, and applies only to

CLIN 0001 (cost plus fixed fee) labor. These costs shall be proposed in the P6 Attachment. The

Government is not specifying required hours for CLIN 0005. Offerors shall use the Exhibit B worksheet provided in Section J to enter a firm fixed price per page for each of the various items listed on those sheets. This worksheet contains a separate tab for each year of the resultant contract, and the total costs from these four tabs would be transferred into Section B, CLIN 0005 price/cost. Per Section L, offerors shall provide backup documentation of some form(eg.

Worksheet) which contains the build-up of its firm fixed prices for each of the various items cited in Exhibit B.

Industry Question 19: Reference: RFPL.B.4.3(c), The RFP asks the contractor and subs to submit several pieces of documentation, including information about subcontractors indirect rates. Most subcontractors would consider this information to be proprietary, and would require a sealed bid submission to the government. Would the government allow the subcontract to submit their required information in a sealed package?

Government Response: A subcontractor can submit its cost proposal to the government in a sealed package prior to the prescribed closing date and time.

Industry Question 20: Reference: Attachment P6, It appears as though the Government instructions in rows 6 through 10 of the “Instructions” tab were not completed. The tabs required to be filled out by the contractor do not include labor categories in Column A. We would also request guidance to where the show the breakout for the different locations and accompanying location rates as requested in L.4.6.2.

Government Response: The Government will provide an updated and corrected Attachment P6 in a subsequent amendment to RFP. The updates will include the Government’s completion of fill-ins as required by the instructions, and column headings for the various location.sites. Pricing breakdown for CLIN 0001 shall be provided in the offeror’s Attachment P6 submission.

Industry Question 22: Pg. 57 of 97 RFP, FAR 52.222-42, would the government clarify the mapping of SCA codes to the labor categories? It appears the codes may be off. For example, the Data Entry Operator I indicates a code of 14103 instead of 01050.

Government Response: The Government will provide an updated SCA codes in a subsequent amendment to RFP to address this discrepancy.

Industry Question 23: RFP pg. 79, 8A Small Business Utilization - this is an 8a competitive solicitation, large business cannot bid, please remove this from the past performance section.

Government Response: The reference to “Small Business Utilization” will be removed from this Section of the RFP given this a competition restricted to eligible 8(a) firms.

Industry Question 24: RFP pg. 76, (2) “Section L-3, paragraph 2.1 does not exist, please clarify.

Government Response: The reference to Section L-3 paragraph 2.1 on page 76 of the RFP is incorrect. Correct reference should have been Section L paragraph 4.6.2. This correction will be addressed in a subsequent amendment to the RFP.

Industry Question 25: RFP PG. 27 and 28 Technical Writer II and III – experience appears to be unbalanced, a II with 2-4 years and a III with 3 years. Please clarify Technical Writer II and

III experience.

Government Response: The Government will provide updated minimum experience qualifications for the labor category of “Technical Writer II” in a subsequent amendment to RFP.

Technical Writer II experience will be corrected to read as “a minimum of 2 years”.

Industry Question 26:Pg. 79, (e) “SB utilization strategy goals in the Technical Volume” SB strategy per section L is not requested in the technical volume. Please clarify as this is 8a competitive the prime is a small business.

Government Response: A Small Business Utilization Strategy is not required as part of an offeror’s proposal in response to this RFP.

Industry Question 27: Level of effort, Sample Task 1, conversation of pages does not equate easily to labor categories and associated hours, how would the government like to see the level of effort detailed for data conversion?

Government Response: The response should be broken down into tasks, steps, associated labor categories and hours. Utilize a generic scenario where the pages include text, graphics, tables, etc.

Industry Question 28: Attachment 4, and Exhibit B, conversion of graphics is list as per page, industry standard is per graphic, please clarify if you mean per graphic, and please update

Exhibit B and Attachment 4 if per graphic.

Government Response: The unit of work delivered to the contractor for conversion will be in page format. The graphics contained in the page is considered 1 graphic.

Industry Question 29: Attachment P6, FFP sheet does not include a row for CLIN 5 pricing conversion of pages or graphics, other than labor categories. Please add a row for pages and a row for graphic conversion.

Government Response: The offeror shall provide pricing conversion of pages in Exhibit B.

Industry Question 30: Attachment 4 “(e) When a manual contains the same illustration, except for minor differences on various pages, the illustration shall only be priced once. Embedded graphics requiring minor changes shall be priced and ordered under CLIN 001 pages. Update of standalone graphics, new graphics, and/or graphics requiring significant work (i.e., 60% or more of the graphic is impacted), are considered graphics pages/CLINs as defined under CLIN 004.”

Does the government mean CLIN 005?

Government Response: Yes. The Government intended to state that update of standalone graphics, new graphics, and/or graphics requiring significant work are defined under CLIN 0005.

This correction will be addressed in an upcoming amendment to Attachment 4 of the RFP.

Industry Question 31: Attachment P6, Row 2 CPFF and FFP sheets CLINS do not match the

CLIN structure in the B Table. Please clarify.

Government Response: Yes. The Government will provide an updated Attachment P6 in a subsequent amendment to RFP.

Industry Question 32 When is the Past Performance Volume due to the Government?

Government Response: The due date for submission of Past performance volume will coincide with the due date for submission of proposals.

Industry Question 33 When is the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) due to the

Government?

Government Response: Be advised the Government will provide an updated PPQ form in a subsequent amendment to RFP. The due date for submission of Past Performance

Questionnaires will coincide with the due date for submission of proposals.

Industry Question 34: Who is the Government Contracting Office Point of Contact for receipt of the Attachment P5 - Past Performance Questionnaire?

Government Response: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) should be sent to the attention of Ms. May Dimitrov (may.dimitrov@navy.mil) and Mr. J. Larry Mattingly

(joseph.mattingly@navy.mil). An upcoming amendment to the RFP will address the addition of

Ms. Dimitrov as a receipt person for the PPQs.

Industry Question 35: Please provide the definition of 'Past Performance information' (Ref.

RFP Para. L. Part A(3.1)(b))?

Government Response: “Past Performance information” is an offeror’s brief description of its performance under submitted past performance references in each of four designated areas as mentioned in the RFP reference alluded to by this question.

Industry Question 36: Ref. SOW Para 11.1.2 Labor Category Qualifications, pgs. 17-28.

Many of the qualifications indicate ‘academic proficiency’. Will the Government please define proficiency as it relates to education within the labor category qualifications?

Government Response: “Academic Proficiency” as used within the labor category qualifications is alluding to a candidate’s meeting the baseline educational requirement for the particular position.

Industry Question 37: The Senior Analyst requires a BS or BA degree, however the current requirement under the incumbent contract allows for a combination of education and experience.

Will the Government please consider modifying the requirement to the same education requirement/substitution since the current incumbent personnel supporting the customer may become disqualified without the substitution?

Government Response: The Government will not modify education and experience for Senior.

Analyst.

Industry Question 38: The Project Manager position requires a BS or BA degree. Will the

Government please consider modifying the requirement and remove the formal AS or AA degree and replace with additional years of experience?

mailto:may.dimitrov@navy.mil mailto:joseph.mattingly@navy.mil

Government Response: The Government will not allow substitution of AS or AA degree.

Ref. RFP B, CLIN 0004, pg. 3.

Industry Question 39: Will the Government please clarify how Offeror’s are to respond to

CLIN 0004?

Government Response: CLIN 0004 identifies the “Not Separately Priced” data deliverables for this support effort which are included in the DD Form 1423 Contract Data Requirements List

(see Exhibit A).

Industry Question 40: Ref. RFP Attachment P6. CLIN Breakout Spreadsheet.

Will the Government be providing Offeror’s with Attachment P6 which has been pre-populated per the Instructions Tab to include those that were the Government’s responsibility to complete?

Government Response: The Government will provide an updated Attachment P6 (pre-populated with information as directed per the instructions tab) in a subsequent amendment to the RFP.

Industry Question 41: Will the Government please clarify if Cost Type and CPFF pricing should be included on the same spreadsheet?

Government Response: Yes, both CPFF and Cost type pricing should be entered in the P6 attachment.

Industry Question 42: Ref. RFP L.B.4.6.1, pg. 83. ODCs/NMCI. ‘The values provided above are the Government estimates. The Offeror shall propose costs/prices for the ODC CLINs in accordance with these estimates.’

Will the Government please clarify if the ODC/NMCI values are per year, or one-time amounts?

Government Response: ODCs /NMCI estimates are intended to cover such costs over the entire

4 year ordering period of the resultant contract. Given need to present a separate tab in

Attachment P6, the Government will provide a breakdown of the ODCs/NMCI estimated costs per year in a subsequent amendment to the RFP.

Ref. RFP L.B.4.6.2, pgs. 83-88. Labor Hours

Industry Question 43: Will the Government please clarify the LOE hours which Offeror’s are to propose? Should the Offeror calculate the hours based on the hours shown on the ‘Annual

Level of Effort BY SITE’ tables, or use 1920 hours?

Government Response: The offeror’s compilation of total proposed labor costs to be entered in

CLIN 0001 should be based on the hours listed at the “Annual Level of Effort by Site” table

Section L-4.6.2. Attachment P6 will be modified in a subsequent amendment to include columns within for each of the performance sites identified in the RFP

Industry Question 44: There appears to be a discrepancy with the totals provided on the

‘Annual Level of Effort BY SITE’ tables. Will the Government be providing updated tables with accurate totals so the Offeror’s may price this effort appropriately?

Government Response: The Government will provide an updated and corrected Annual Level

Effort by Site tables in a subsequent amendment to RFP.

Industry Question 45: It appears in Year 3 and 4 of the ‘Annual Level of Effort BY SITE’ tables the Labor Category Computer Programmer II from Year 1 and 2 has been replaced with

Labor Category Computer Operator I. Will the Government please provide the correct Labor

Category for Years 1 -4?

Government Response: The Government will provide an updated Labor Hours table in a subsequent amendment to RFP to correct this error.

Industry Question 46: Ref. SOW Para. 2.0, pg. 5. Background. ‘The libraries, repositories and

Data Control Centers are government owned in government spaces.’ Will the Government please clarify how the Contractor will be provided access to the information?

Government Response: Details regarding access to the Government work spaces containing such information will be provided in the individual task orders to be awarded under the resultant contract.

Industry Question 47: Ref. RFP L.A.3, pg. 71, and L.B.3, pg. 77.

The page limitation is set at 10 pages. However, The Past Performance Instructions (Section L) require five past performances for the Prime Contractor in addition to five additional for Critical

Team Members and two for each Principal Subcontractor. For teams with subcontractor teammates, the page limitation is not sufficient to allow the required information and completion of the required matrices. The ability for Offerors to convey depth of past performance technical relevancy will be difficult for the number of contract citations required. Will the Government consider increasing the page limit for Volume 3 to 30 pages maximum?

Government Response: The Government will increase page count for Volume 3 Past

Performance to 25 pages. This change will be noted in a subsequent amendment to the RFP.

Industry Question 48: Ref. RFP L.A.3, pg. 71.

The table indicates ‘suggested page limit’ for Volumes 1 – 5 of the proposal. Will the

Government please clarify if the page limits identified are restrictions, or suggestions? Will the

Government consider deviations from the page limits identified?

Government Response: The page limits identified are suggestions.

Industry Question 49: Ref. RFP L.A.3.1 pg. 71. ‘When possible, the Past Performance Matrix should include at least five of the most relevant contracts for the prime contractor…’

Will the Government please clarify the evaluation process regarding an Offeror whose team has significant past performance; however the Prime lacks five relevant and recent contracts?

Government Response: The evaluation of past performance will follow the criteria as cited in section M of the RFP.

Industry Question 50: Ref. RFP M.C.2, pg. 95.

The Management Plan does not require a discussion on Risk Management or Quality Assurance.

Will the Government please consider increasing page limits in the Volume 2 to accommodate relevant discussions?

Government Response: Sub-elements (b) and (d) of the transition plan require an offeror to address “Quality Assurance” and “Risk Mitigation Strategies” respectively. The page count for

Volume (2) will however be increased to 50 pages.

Industry Question 51: Ref. RFP L.B.2.A, pgs. 74. Sample Task 1

The task requires conversion of” legacy tech manuals” and updating of “an IETM” stored as

SSDB. The IETM is stipulated to be in support of a fielded carrier based weapon system. Will the Government please clarify the intent that the effort required is to support a single IETM

(developed based on multiple technical manuals)? Note: This has a direct impact on the labor categories and level of effort required.

Government Response: The conversion is to a single IETM that could be from a single comprehensive legacy technical manual or multiple legacy technical manuals. Please describe the approach to both scenarios.

Ref. RFP L.B.2.A, pgs. 74. Sample Task 2

This sample task requires support of a TDP for an unspecified system or systems focusing on the use of CAD (2-D and 3-D) to provide and/or update drawings, models, and the like. Will the

Government please clarify this sample task is focused on a generic requirement, the offeror’s capabilities, and the technologies to be used as opposed to a specific requirement as with Sample

Task 1?

Government Response: The focus is on general capabilities to convert, modify or generate TDP products. It is not intended to identify a specific software product or capability.

Industry Question 52: Ref. RFP L.B.2.A, pgs. 75. Sample Task 3

The requirement for this sample task appears to focus on technical manuals (based on curricula, training aids, and training support) as well as the support of XML based publications as opposed to instructional system analysis, design, and development efforts. However, the required approach focuses on the ISD related issues not the publications. Will the Government please clarify that the focus is on describing the training issues not the publications that may result from that process?

Government Response: This sample task is to describe the offers’ ISD capabilities to support development and delivery of training and training support IRT the development and sustainment of XML based publications.

Industry Question 53: Ref. RFP L.B.2.A, pgs. 74-5. Sample Tasks 1-3. ‘With respect to the

Understanding of the Work subfactor, the offeror is forewarned that the sole purpose of evaluating responses to this subfactor is to test an offeror’s understanding of the technical requirements of the resultant task order. The Government does not intend to disclose weaknesses or deficiencies assesses with the evaluation of the responses to this Subfactor during discussions

(if conducted), or allow for the correction of such weaknesses or deficiencies as part of a Final

Proposal Revision.’

Will the Government please verify that weaknesses and deficiencies will not be allowed during discussions or allow for correction of such weaknesses or deficiencies as part of the Final

Proposal Revision?

Government Response: The Government does not intend to address either weaknesses or deficiencies during discussions. Be advised this section of the RFP applicable to the evaluation of Sample Task responses will be slightly modified in a subsequent amendment to RFP.

Industry Question 54: Will the Government please provide Instructions on Offeror

Subcontractor Price Proposal information submittal to the Government?

Government Response: Subcontractor price proposal information can be provided either along with the prime’s proposal in a sealed package of some sort, or delivered separately prior to the prescribed closing date and time for this RFP.

Industry Question 55: Given the inconsistencies between the solicitation documents posted to the FBO and NAVAIR Business Opportunities websites, in addition to other solicitation documents from a different acquisition effort being provided under the N00421-14-R-0004 solicitation package, and sufficient response for industry to enact upon Q&A release, will the

Government please consider an extension of the proposal due date to 1700 EDT 30 June 2014?

Government Response: The Government intends to extend the proposal due date to 3:00pm

EST on 25 June 2014. This extension will be formally addressed in a subsequent amendment to the RFP.

Industry Question 56: Reference: Volume 1 - Executive Summary (L-[1], Part A, 3.0), (L-[1], Part B, 1.0, i-vii)

Discussion: 5 Page Limitation for Executive Summary

Does the five page limit exclude the SF33, SF1449, Amendment Acknowledgements, Reps and

Certs, Exceptions, Deviations, and Acknowledgements, Proposal Validity, and Consent Letters?

If not, would the Government please consider substantially increasing the page limitation to accommodate all of these inclusions?

Government Response: The page count excludes the cited documents.

Industry Question 57: Reference: RFP, Page 76 Para (2), Staffing Plan

Discussion: Reference to “Section L-2, Paragraph 2.1”

Section L-2, Paragraph 2.1 does not seem to exist within the RFP. Please clarify which section and paragraph was intended.

Government Response: The reference to Section L-2, Paragraph 2.1 on RFP page 76 Para (2)

Staffing Plan will be corrected to read as ‘Section L paragraph 4.6.2” in a subsequent amendment to the RFP.

Industry Question 58: Reference: RFP, Page 89 Section 5.0

Discussion: The reference states: “If there are no exceptions, deviations or waivers, the Offeror shall provide a one-page Volume 6 in the Executive Summary stating so.”

Should the reference to Volume 6 be changed to Volume 5? Also, does the Volume 5 information that may be included in the Executive Summary, apply toward the Executive

Summary page limitation of only 5 pages?

Government Response: The reference should be changed from “Volume 6” to “Volume 5”.

There is no specified page count applicable to Volume 5.

Industry Question 59: Reference: RFP, Page 71 and other

Discussion: MicroSoft Word and MicroSoft Excel Version

Question: Please confirm that 2010 Microsoft Office Products are acceptable for all Volumes of the Proposal.

Government Response: Mircosoft office 2000 or higher Products are acceptable for all

Volumes of the Proposal.

Industry Question 60: Reference: RFP, Page 71, Section 3.0, 1st Paragraph

Discussion:“…title and table of contents pages do not count towards page limit”

Please confirm that the acronym list, tabs, dividers, lists of tables, list of figures, and cross reference matrices are excluded from the page limitations as well.

Government Response: The items cited in this question (acronym list; tabs, dividers; lists of tables; lists of figures; and cross reference materials are excluded from the page count.

Industry Question 61: Reference: RFP, Page 73, Section 1.0, vi

Discussion:“Guarantee the length of proposal validity (for at least [fill in] days after proposal submission)”

Please provide the length of proposal validity.

Government Response: Initial proposals should be valid for a period of 120 days.

Industry Question 62: Reference: RFP, Page 75, Section B. (1)

Discussion:“If the “key” employee is a contingent hire, the offeror shall submit a corresponding letter of intent submitted in Volume 4”

In what Section of the Price/Cost Volume 4 shall the offeror include these continent hire letters of intent?

Government Response: Contingent hires letters shall be included and properly tabbed in

Volume 4 (Price/Cost) of the proposal submission.

Industry Question 63: Reference: RFP, Page 76, Section 3.0

Discussion:“3.0 Volume 4: Past Performance

Question: Please confirm that the Past Performance Volume is Volume 3.

Government Response: The Past Performance Volume should be referred to as “Volume 3”.

Industry Question 64: Reference: Past Performance Matrices and Tables

Discussion: Attachment P4

Please confirm that the Offeror is to complete the Past Performance Matrix (Attachment P4) as well as the Matrix at the top of page 78 and the table in Section 3.2., as some of this information in repetitive.

If so, will the Government consider increasing the page count of the Past Performance Volume?

Government Response: Offerors will only be required to complete the Matrix included at page

78 and the table in Section 3.2. Attachment P4 will be deleted in a subsequent amendment to the

RFP. The page count for the Past Performance Volume will be increased to 25 pages.

Industry Question 65: Reference:RFP, Section M, Page 91, 2nd Paragraph and RFP, Section L, Page 77 1st Paragraph

Discussion: “When proposals are received from entities (e.g., teams, joint ventures) specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member's relevant past performance.” This statement indicates that every “team member” should submit past performance. However, Section L, Page

77, 1st Paragraph states “When possible, the Past Performance Matrix should include at least five of the most relevant contracts for the prime contractor, five of the most relevant contracts for each critical team member, and two of the most relevant contracts for each principal subcontractor.”

There is no requirement for submitting past performance information for every “team member”.

Please confirm that past performances are only required for the Prime, Critical Team Members, and Principle Subcontractors.

Government Response: Past performance references are required for the Prime, Critical Team

Members, and Principle Subcontractors.

Industry Question 66: Reference: RFP, Page 91, Section 1.0, 4th Paragraph

Discussion: “The Government will evaluate all key and other proposed personnel and the supporting information to determine how well the Offeror is suited to perform the tasks under the

SOW. The Workforce Qualification Spreadsheet (Attachment (P1) will be reviewed to determine how suited the Offeror's assignment of labor categories is to the SOW requirements.”

Please confirm Offerors are not required to include all personnel on the Attachment P1 form, but only Key Personnel.

Government Response: The offerors are only required to include “Key Personnel” on the

Attachment P1 form.

Industry Question 67: Reference: Section C.11.1.2 and Volume 4 – Price/Cost (L-[1] Part B, 4.6.2)

Discussion: The following labor categories need additional levels to allow for advancement of personnel and accurate mapping of skill sets.

Computer Operator

Computer Programmer

Computer Systems Analyst

Data Entry Operator

Drafter/CAD Operator

Illustrator

Question: Would the government please add additional levels to Section C and allocate hours to these labor categories in Section L?

Government Response: The labor categories listed in the RFP represent a mix the Government believes is necessary to perform tasking for this technical data management support requirement.

Additional Labor categories will not be added to the RFP.

Industry Question 68: Reference: Entire RFP

Discussion: In some areas of the RFP, the terms Subcontractor and Team Member have been used interchangeably, but in other areas, the terms appear to be different. For example, in the

Executive Summary chart on page 73, subcontractor and team members are referred to as separate entities. However in Volume 4-Price/Cost, there is no mention of Team Members.

On page 70, the government defined Principal Subcontractor, Team Member, and Critical Team

Member, but did not define Subcontractor. We assume Subcontractor is defined as a business that contracts with the Offeror to provide some service necessary for the performance of this contract.

Please confirm for this effort that a Subcontractor and Team Member are both defined as a business that contracts with the Offeror to provide some service necessary for the performance of this contract and therefore these terms are used interchangeably throughout the RFP.

Government Response: The terms subcontractor and team member are interchangeable.

Industry Question 69: Reference: Volume 4 – Price/Cost (L-[1] Part B, 4.3(c)), page 81

Discussion: Payroll verification is required to substantiate the rates proposed.

Please confirm this requirement is for Key Personnel and for any personnel proposed by name?

Government Response: Payroll verification is required for all “current hires” (both key personnel; and non-key proposed by name) being proposed by an offeror and its subcontractors to perform this effort.

Industry Question 70: Reference: Volume 4 – Price/Cost (L-[1] Part B, 4.3(c)), page 81

The Government states “all subcontractors shall provide the last three (3) years of actual indirect information.”

Would the government consider limiting this requirement to Principal Subcontractors only? If so, since this information is proprietary, will Principal Subcontractors be allowed to submit this information directly to the Government?

Government Response: All subcontractors shall provide the last 3 years of actual indirect cost rates information. Such information can be submitted in a separate sealed package along with the prime’s proposal, or directly to the Government prior to the prescribed closing date and time for this RFP.

Industry Question 71: Reference: Volume 4 – Price/Cost (L-[1] Part B, 4.3(h)), page 81

Discussion: The Government states “the subcontractor shall provide its own CLIN Breakout

Spreadsheet” if the subcontractor utilizes fully burdened rates in its proposal to the Offeror.

Would the Government consider limiting this requirement to Principal Subcontractors only? If so, since this information is proprietary, will Principal Subcontractors be allowed to submit this information directly to the Government?

Government Response: All subcontractors shall submit a separate CLIN Breakout Spreadsheet.

Such information can be submitted in a separate sealed package along with the prime’s proposal, or directly to the Government prior to the prescribed closing date and time for this RFP.

Industry Question 72: Reference: Volume 5 – Exceptions, Deviations, and Waivers (L-[1] Part

B, 5.0), page 89

Discussion: “” shown three times in Section 5.0

Would the Government please clarify the three “” in this section?

Government Response: Section L Part B para 5.0 has been updated.

Industry Question 73: Reference: Section M, Part B, 3.0, page 94; Attachment 4, page 3, Unit

Descriptions

Discussion: “UNIT DESCRIPTIONS. The unit descriptions below specifically applies to the three year ordering period described in Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs of the

RFP.”

Would the Government change the references to three year ordering periods to four year ordering periods?

Government Response: The references will be changed to four year ordering periods.

Industry Question 74: Reference: Attachment 2 – Applicable Specifications and Standards

Discussion: Reference to MIL-STD-1840

Notice 1 to the Standard dated 22 April 2010 states, “MIL-STD-1840C, dated 26 Jun 1997 is inactive for new design and shall no longer be used as a guidance reference for new designs.”

Will the Government confirm that this standard is still applicable?

Government Response: MIL-STD-1840 is referenced to support maintenance and/or conversion of legacy data.

Industry Question 75: Reference: Attachment 2 – Applicable Specifications and Standards

Discussion : Reference to MIL-HDBK-28001

MIL-PRF-28001 is not cited. Please confirm the reference to MIL-HDBK-28001.

Government Response: MIL-PRF-28001 is cited as a reference in MIL-HDBK-28001 and was validated in Notice 2 to the MIL-HDBK-28001.

Industry Question 76: Reference: File ‘N00421-14-R-0004, Statement of Work’

Discussion: Para.11.1.2 Labor Category Qualifications, Senior Analyst, Education. ‘BS or BA degree’

Will the Government consider equivalent experience, i.e., any combination of undergraduate/graduate study/experience where two (2) years of experience in the required areas equals one (1) year of academic deficiency, and each year of graduate study equals one (1) year of relevant experience in lieu of a BS or BA degree?

Government Response: The educational requirement as currently stated in the RFP for position of Senior Analyst remains unchanged.

Industry Question 77: Reference: Section L; Part B: 1.0 Volume 1: Executive Summary; item iv.

Discussion: Signed Representations and Certifications

Item iv. calls for the signed Representations Certifications and Acknowledgements or OnLine

Representations and Certifications (ORCA) reference in the Executive Summary. As the government has done away with ORCA and Representations and Certifications are now part of

System for Award Management would the Government include FAR Clause 52.204-7 System for Award Management JULY 2013 to Section I by reference in order to allow for selection of

(d) within Section K?

Government Response: FAR 52.204-7 System for Award Mangement July 2013 has been added to section I by reference.

Industry Question 78: Reference: 5252.201-9502; 5252.215-9512; 5252.245-9500; 5252.509-

9511; 5252.222-9501

Discussion: Applicable Fill-Ins.

Does the Government intend for the proposal response to include the respondent’s completion of the applicable fill-in information?

Government Response: Yes, the offeror needs to include applicable fill-ins information in the proposal.

Industry Question 79: Reference: Volume 4 – Price/Cost (L-[1] Part B, 4.6.2), page 83-88

In the Level of Effort charts, the government has annotated Key Personnel for five different labor categories. Based on the number of hours indicated for those categories and a work-year being defined as 1,920 hours, the government has identified 16 Key Personnel in Year 1 of the contract.

Does the government intend for there to be 16 Key Personnel on this contract?

Government Response: The Government has identified 16 Key Personnel Positions for this effort.

Industry Question 80: Reference: Volume 4 – Price/Cost (L-[1] Part B, 4.6.2), page 83-88

Discussion: The Government appears to have used a formula to calculate Years 2-4 of the Level of Effort chart, as the numbers shown on the chart do not sum across to equal the Totals column.

Question: To prevent rounding issues with all bidders, would the government please round the formulas to zero, one, or two decimals and show the desired number of decimals in the chart?

Government Response: The Level of Effort chart will be updated in a subsequent amendment to the RFP to correct the figures.

Industry Question 81: Reference: Attachment 4 - Technical Manuals, items f. and g., page 4;

Exhibit B – FFP Form

Discussion: Attachment 4 contains two Unit Description items, f. and g., that are not included on the pricing spreadsheet on Exhibit B. Additionally, items f. and g. in Attachment 4 refer to

“(Unit) Data Module” instead of “(Unit-Page) Page” as all other FFP items are listed in Exhibit

B. Entire module changes to existing TMs or module creation for existing items could open an

Offeror to great risk, depending on the size of such module.

Would the government provide inclusion or exclusion of the referenced items in the appropriate section?

Government Response: Exhibit B has been updated to include pricing for Data Module creation and updating.

Industry Question 82: Reference: Attachment 4 – Technical Manuals, items aa., ab., and ac.;

Exhibit B – FFP form

Discussion: The referenced Unit Descriptions are silent to the type of data media to be compared

(i.e.Framemaker, SGML/XML, etc.). Additionally, Exhibit B includes only two lines (0124 and

0125) for the three items in Attachment 4.

Please clarify the requirement in these two sections.

Government Response: Type of digital media may be PDF, MS Word, or other legacy digital media. Specific media types will be described in the TMCR/Task Order. Exhibit B has been updated to add hardcopy comparison.

Industry Question 83: Reference: Attachment P6 – CLIN Breakout, Instructions B & C, page 1

Discussion: CLIN numbers and Section B of the RFP

Does the government want the CLIN numbers entered in cells I2, K2, M2, etc. to be “0001” to correspond to Section B of the RFP? Should the CLIN description entered in cells I4, K4, M4, etc. be the Locations listed on the Annual LOE chart in Section 4.6.2 on page 83?

Government Response: The Government will provide an updated Attachment P6 in a subsequent amendment to RFP.

Industry Question 84: Reference: Attachment P6 – CLIN Breakout, Instruction 10, page 2

Discussion: The instructions provide an example “if the offeror proposes four Senior Analysts, then the labor category Senior Analyst shall be listed four times along with their applicable rates and information.” This requirement seems redundant when the model will accommodate hours at each location for each labor category. For example, the Computer Programmer II (Contractor

Site) listed in the LOE chart on page 83 has 3,200 hours at North Island. Following the directions for Attachment P6, the Offeror would enter a Computer Programmer II on two separate lines – one for 1,920 hours and the other for the remaining 1,280 hours. The model would accommodate the full 3,200 hours at North Island in column H, J, L, etc.

Would the government please clarify this requirement in the cost model?

Government Response: Yes, if the offeror proposes four Senior Analysts, then the labor category Senior Analyst shall be listed four times along with their applicable rates and information.

Industry Question 85: Reference: Attachment P6 – CLIN Breakout, Instruction 15(b), page 2

Discussion: Multiple Fringe Rates

Question: If the Offeror has multiple fringe rates, is an offeror allowed to add additional fringe rates to the model (in the area of line 46-47) to accommodate our burden rate structure?

Government Response: Yes, but be advised the offeror assumes responsibility for ensuring that changes to the worksheet do not impact the integrity and accuracy of the cost data within

Attachment P6.

Industry Question 86: Reference: Attachments 12 – 18, Wage Determinations

Discussion: The Government has used a combination of odd and even numbered Wage

Determinations for this RFP, each of which requires a different application of fringe benefits for workers.

Did the government intend to use both types of WDs in the RFP?

Government Response: The Government will use odd numbered Wage Determination for this

RFP. The even numbered Wage Determination Reports (Attachment 12,13,14) will be replaced with odd numbered report in a subsequent amendment to RFP.

Industry Question 87: Reference: Section I, 52.222-42-Statement of Equivalent Rates for

Federal Hires, Page 57

Discussion: The SCA Code and GS-Equivalent columns on this chart appear to be off by one row. For example, the Data Entry Operator I has an SCA Code of 14103, which is a Computer

Systems Analyst III on the WD. The Drafter/CAD Operator I on the line below has an SCA

Code of 01051, which is a Data Entry Operator I.

Would the government please verify the SCA Codes and GS-Equivalent columns on page 57?

Government Response: The Government will correct the data within this chart in a subsequent amendment to the RFP.

Industry Question 88: Reference: RFP SOW, Pages 9 and 12-14, Sections 6.2 and 6.8

Discussion: Preparation, Conversion and Publishing Support that contained 12 tasks (CPFF and

FFP) in the pre-solicitation SOW have now been split into two sections, four tasks in Section 6.2

(CPFF) and eight tasks in Section 6.8 (FFP).

Would the Government provide rationale for splitting up Preparation, Conversion and Publishing

Support into Sections 6.2…