Final_Questions_and_Answers-3-9-16.pdf

RFP Section Industry Question Government Response

General

The Solicitation requests a very specific showing regarding understanding of the work and requirements, in terms of both the tasks and specific systems, which unduly favors the incumbent already performing such specific tasks on the specific systems. Will the Agency consider amending the

Solicitation to permit other offerors a fair opportunity to compete by evaluating instead each competitor’s ability to work with comparable systems to execute comparable tasks?

As always, it is the Government’s intent to issue a competitive solicitation that accurately reflects the requiring activity’s requirements and evaluation criteria that represent key areas of importance and support a meaningful comparison of and discrimination between and among competing proposals . It is also the Government’s intent to promote and provide for full and open competition. Under the subject solicitation, the

Government requires warfare analysis, modeling and simulation (M&S), software development, architecture builds and assessments, acquisition analysis and support, and analytic support for NAVAIR’s 4.0M Warfare Analysis Department. When formulating the evaluation criteria, the

Government determined that the Technical subfactor Understanding of the Work narrative and sample task requirements are appropriately tailored to this competition, especially when considering the importance of warfare analysis efforts within the Navy and the criticality of a proper understanding of the tasking. The overwhelming majority of service solicitations issued by NAVAIR/ NAWCAD-2.5.1 Contracts have a technical requirement for the offeror’s understanding of the work required in the solicitation. Without an understanding of the Government’s requirement, there would be risk that an offeror would not be able to successfully perform the effort during execution. The solicitation does not require that prospective offerors have specific experience supporting the NAVAIR 4.0M department or have used all of the systems and software models described in the solicitation. The Government does not intend to unduly restrict competition, but rather it intends that the Understanding of Work evaluation criteria act as a necessary discriminator within the Technical evaluation factor.

B

5252.211-9503 Level of Effort clause on pages 9&10 states: "It shall not include efforts such as work performed in transit to or from an employee's usual workplace, work during lunchtime activities, or effort performed at other non-work locations." Would the Government consider adding a telework provision to the final solicitation?

Telework is performed at an "alternate work location," therefore, the prohibition on efforts performed at other "non-work locations" does not prohibit telework. NAVAIR Clause 5252.211-9503 is a standard clause that will apply to level of effort Task Orders under the resultant contract.

Telework opportunities may be considered on a case by case basis on individual Task Orders.

C

1.2 Scope: The section states “The following is a representative list of M&S and o4ther commonly used applications, additional applications and/or information systems may be identified during the execution of this effort:” Since this is a “representative” list, and non-incumbent contractors have substantial experience supporting the same type of M&S systems that the Agency employs, would the

Agency consider revising the Solicitation to permit greater competition by providing for evaluation of offeror capabilities and experience with systems comparable to those in use by the Agency, rather than limiting the evaluation only to experience with the Agency’s specific systems? Will the agency update all Factors accordingly?

The solicitation includes three evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance and Cost; corporate experience is not an evaluation factor in this solicitation. The Agency intends to issue a solicitation that provides a fair opportunity for industry to compete. The list of M&S and other commonly used applications, additional applications and/or information systems on page 13 lists the current models/systems that are used by the 4.0M warfare analysis department. That list was provided as general information to all prospective offerors; the solicitation does not require offerors to have previous experience using each of the listed applications and systems. The list provided was intended to provide offerors with insight into the applications and systems that are commonly utilized by the requiring agency. Paragraph 1.2 has been revised to add clarification.

C

The Government lists two sets of models, one on page 13 and another on page 16. Can the

Government provide a prioritized list of models and clarity which models are most often relied upon during day-to-day M&S execution? Also, which models are simply used and which are modified?

Finally, if modified are the changes coordinated with the appropriate model managers and user communities?

The Government has revised paragraph 1.2 on page 13 to provide clarification. Paragraph 2.4 on page 16 is a list of models which the contractor will be expected to use and modify. Because the models to be used and modified varies dependent on annual customer requirements, at this time, the

Government is unable to prioritize the models listed. Changes are coordinated with model managers and user communities.

C

Paragraph 1.3 Data Handling states that the NDAs shall be provided to the COR 30 days after receipt

(CDRL A00L). Will the Government confirm that the requirement for CDRL A00L will be at the task order level and are not required within 30 days after receipt of the IDIQ Master Agreement.

The Government has revised paragraph 1.3 and CDRL A00L to add clarity. Individual NDAs are required prior to contractor personnel beginning work under issued Task Orders.

C

Paragraph 1.3 Data Handling: The Government references CDRLs A00L, Non-Disclosure Agreements-

Individual which will be required within 30 days after receipt. Exhibit A_CDRLs – CDRL A00L states the

NDA will be due within 15 days after the individual begins work under the contract. Will the

Government clarify that the CDRL is correct and update the information in Section C?

The Government has revised paragraph 1.3 and CDRL A00L. Individual NDA agreements are required prior to contractor personnel beginning work under issued Task Orders.

C

Paragraph 2.2 states that “The Contractor shall develop DoD Architectural Framework (DODAF) version 2.02 compliant products”. In order to allow flexibility and decrease cost to the Government, can the government validate that DoDAF artifacts are to be developed in vendor furnished software?

The Government requires that all architectural products developed under this solicitation be compliant with DODAF version 2.02. Due to security considerations and the need to integrate new products with existing architectures, the Government anticipates that this work will be done in

Government facilities using government furnished software. However, off-site tasking may be considered on individual Task Orders if determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Specific requirements, including place of performance and the software format for deliverables will be negotiated at the task order level.

C

Paragraph 2.3.6 states “Design and implement configuration management and quality assurance processes and procedures to support M&S based analysis including management support for the accreditation of models, application, data and scenarios.” Would the Government consider moving this requirement to Modeling & Simulation paragraph 2.4, vice the Acquisition and Analysis Support paragraph 2.3?

Paragraph 2.3.6 accurately represents the Navy’s Government’s requirements.

C

Paragraph 2.3.7 states “Recommend standards for processes and employment of M&S in capabilities-based acquisition programs.” Would the Government consider moving this requirement to Modeling

& Simulation paragraph 2.4, vice the Acquisition and Analysis paragraph 2.3?

Paragraph 2.3.7 accurately represents the Navy’s Government’s requirements.

C

Paragraph 2.6.3 states that “The Contractor shall have the ability to develop and present Naval

Aviation Missions and Capabilities (NAMC) training seminar material.” Additionally, paragraph 2.7.5 also on page 18 states “Provide technical training for which the application of specialized MS&A skills are required.” Will the Government please clarify the planned scope and modality of the training?

Does the government expect instructional design as well as delivery of instruction? Is it primarily

Instructor-led and does the Government expect specific deliverables as part of the training (e.g., reference manuals)? Additionally, what is the anticipated number of personnel / target audience for the training?

Paragraph 2.6.3 provides specific training requirements as they pertain to the fleet support. Paragraph 2.7.5 provides for general training support that will be task order dependent. Historically, task orders have included required course development and/or instructor lead training, with the majority of instructional training being around 8 -12 individuals. The scope, modality, deliverables, and type of training required have varied by task order.

C

Section 2.8 of the SOW states that the Contractor shall perform software development efforts to update, enhance, and/or develop M&S applications or code. Additionally, Appendix A to PBSOW, Information Assurance – Clinger Cohen, Sec 7.C/D requires that a Software Development Plan (SDP) serve during contract performance as the benchmark for the contractor’s development effort. Given the complexity and criticality of the 4.0M M&S applications and tools, will the Agency: a. Amend the solicitation to require a comprehensive SDP, to include SDP rationale, software development experience and software development process experience, with corresponding page limit to 75-100 pages so offerors can respond to the requirement IAW stated standards and IAW the PWS?

b. Expand the Technical evaluation criteria to reflect the importance of software development experience and process in this solicitation?

Upon coordinating with the applicable departments within NAVAIR, the Clinger Cohen language has been removed from Appendix A. This Appendix will contain what is required by the 4.0M customer for the required warfare analysis effort. The Software Process information portion of the

Appendix has been revised. The final RFP will include the software development requirements for the Government. Given the totality of the 4.0M warfare analysis requirements, the Government believes the Technical evaluation criteria is appropriate and accurate as stated.

C

In order to allow offerors to adequately address the government’s needs related to ITIL/ITSM, will the

Government provide additional information in paragraph 2.10, related to the current state of the NAE

WAD Laboratory. Specifically:

a. Is the Government working under any mandate, directive, and policy or plans to move to a cloud service?

b. Does the Government anticipate any major software upgrades o hardware refreshes in the next year?

a. At this time the Government is not under any mandate or policy to move to a cloud service.

b. Yes, the Government anticipates major software/hardware upgrades as it continuously maintains and upgrades the WAD lab capability with software and hardware refreshes.

C

Based on the requirements in Statement of Work Paragraph 2.10, would the Government consider adding one or more labor categories to specifically support the skill sets for an Information Technology

Infrastructure Library (ITIL) Integrator?

After consideration, the Government has concluded that the all tasking in the Statement of Work (to include SOW paragraph 2.10 tasking) can be accomplished with the NAVAIR standard labor categories provided in the solicitation.

C

The Security Clearance Table in Paragraph 2.12.1 states that "All other labor Categories" are required to have a Secret clearance; however, on Page 89, 2.11(b) states "All positions require a Secret clearance with the exception of the Administrative labor category." Should this statement on page 89 be deleted based the page 25 requirements for both Secret and Top Secret? Also, should there be an exception to the security clearance requirement on Page 25 addressing the Administrative Assistant labor category?

The Government has revised paragraph 2.3.4(b) in Section L on page 89 to more accurately reflect the Government’s requirements.

C

This section requires offerors to submit an OPSEC Plan to AIR-7.4.4 for approval. Will the Government please confirm this is a post-award requirement that does not need to be addressed in the technical proposal? If offerors are to address this in the technical proposal, will the Government please provide the intended location?

Based on the schedule outlined in block 16 of the OPSEC CDRL (A00P), the OPSEC Plan is a post-award requirement and is not required to be submitted with the offeror’s proposal.

C

Paragraph 4.0 provides a "Senior Program Manager" labor category, but there are references to the

"Program Manager" labor category throughout the solicitation (pages 25, 95 and 96). Are the

Program Manager and Senior Program Manager the same labor category and should the labor category title on page 28 be changed from Senior Program Manager to Program Manager?

Yes, the Program Manager and Sr. Program Manager are the same labor category . The solicitation has been updated to ensure consistency. The correct labor category title is Sr. Program Manager

C

Senior Tactical Systems Analyst and Tactical Systems Analyst labor categories require “graduate of the

Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) or Marine Aviation Weapons Training Squadron-1 (MAWTS-

1) Weapons Tactics Instructor (WTII).” In order to increase the pool of qualified candidates

(competition), thereby decreasing cost, would the Government consider a substitution of “TOPGUN graduate” for demonstrated prior experience performing Mission Integration, CONOPS development, Systems Engineering and/or Tactical Analysis for specific NAVAIR Advanced Development or I&I

Activities and consider equivalent aviation tactical employment schools offered by Naval Strike and Air

Warfare Center or other US Services?

The Government intends to keep the requirements of this labor category as is. This labor category has very specific requirements due to the nature of the work that will be required under some task orders

C

Paragraph 4.0 provides that the Mission Integrator is a non-key labor category. Section L, Page 95, paragraph 3.9.2, Estimated CPFF Labor Hours and Section M, Page 107, paragraph 3.4 provides

Mission Integrator as a key labor category. Please confirm that the Mission Integrator is a non-key labor category

The Mission Integrator is a key labor category. The solicitation has been updated to reflect this in all sections.

C

Page 41 Bullet a) under “Mandatory elements of the SPII policy language are…” states that “…The requirement that Offerors submit a proposed Software Development Plan (SDP) with their proposals….” However, the 3.0 header under Section L does not suggest a separate SDP. Can the

Government clarify if SDP should be submitted as a separate document or has to be embedded within an existing volume? Additionally, will be SDP be counted against the page count of a volume?

Upon coordinating with the applicable departments with NAVAIR, the Clinger Cohen language has been removed from Appendix A. This Appendix now contains what is required by the 4.0M customer for the required warfare analysis effort. The final RFP will include the software development requirements for the Government. Section L will state what is required to be submitted by the offerors.

F

5252.247-9521 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE provides that 2.5% of the services shall be provided in

Arlington, VA. Which labor categories are anticipated to support the tasking in this location?

Historically, Senior Warfare Analyst, Warfare Analyst, and Sr. Operations Analyst labor categories have been used at the Arlington, VA location. This is subject to change based on annual requirements.

F

5252.247-9521 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE provides that 2.0% of the services shall be provided in China

Lake, CA. Other than the one full time requirement for one Senior Computer Scientist in China Lake

(page 96, para 3.9.4), which labor categories are anticipated to support the tasking in this location?

Historically, there have been as many as one (1) to two (2) Senior Computer Scientists at this the China Lake, CA location. Currently, there is only one. However, this is subject to change in the future based on annual requirements.

L

Clause 52.204-8(a) provides NAICS Code 541330 for “Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military

Weapons” with a small business size standard of $15.0M. The NAICS Code appears to be correct, since this Statement of Work provides for Engineering Services to the military. But the small business size standard for this NAICS Code should be $38.5M. Will the Government provide a correction to the small business size standard in the final solicitation?

Yes, the business size standard in FAR clause 52.204-8 in Section K has been revised to the $38.5M in the final solicitation.

L

The third paragraph on page 81 states that recency “is defined as performance within five (5) years” of submission. The instructions for the Contract Data table defines recency as efforts that have been

“performed within the last three years.” Will the Government please clarify its definition of “recency”?

The third paragraph on the first page of Section L has been revised to define “Recency” as “performance within three (3) years” of the date of this proposal.

L Does the government intend to require a compliance matrix as part of the submission and, if so, under which section and will it be omitted from the page count?

No, the Government does not require a compliance matrix as part of the submission.

L Will the Government allow offerors to use 8 point or 10 point type in tables and graphics, as well as in any graphs?

The requirement remains unchanged that “graphs shall be presented in no smaller than a 10–pt font…”.

L

Workforce Qualifications Spreadsheet - Because this spreadsheet will be populated only with information on Key Personnel and offerors are required to submit resumes for Key Personnel, would the Government consider eliminating this response element as it contains redundant information being provided in the resumes? If not, will the Government please eliminate the 3-page limitation on the spreadsheet?

Both the Workforce Qualification Spreadsheet and resumes are required under Workforce in the Technical Volume. The table under paragraph 3.0

(Proposal Content and Volumes) will be revised to show “no page limit” for the Workforce Qualifications Spreadsheet.

L

Will the Government please confirm that the page limitations on the Executive Summary apply to only the abstract and Offeror Summary table, and that all other required information is outside the page limitations?

The page limitations that apply to the Executive Summary Volume apply to every item described in Section L, Paragraph 1.0 (VOLUME I – Executive

Summary) except for the SF33 or Section K (certifications and representations) which are subparagraphs (iii), (iv) and (v). All other documentation required under this paragraph is required to be within the 8 page proposal limitation for Volume I.

L

The instructions for the Business Systems Status Table state that offerors are to submit “relevant

DCAA/DCMA reports, audits and determinations in Annex E . . .” Will the Government please clarify what information, if any, is to be provided in Annexes A, B, C and D, or should said information be provided in Annex A?

The reference to Annex E will be revised to Annex A in the final solicitation.

L

Is every person named in a key labor category considered "key personnel" and is a resume required for each person? If not, will the Government please specify the number of resumes required for key personnel? Key personnel?

Yes, every person named in a key labor category is considered a key personnel and a resume is required for each person. It is up to the contractor to determine how many key personnel per labor category and provide a resume for each key personnel submitted.

L

This section states that letters of intent are required for “contingent hire” key employees, and further defines “letter of intent” as “a separate written agreement signed by the potential employee(s) assigned to work for the offeror effective at contract award.” However, the subsequent sentence then states, “Key personnel employed by subcontractors and team members shall provide letters of intent separately or included in the prime contractor’s submission of this document.”

(a) Will the Government please clarify that letters of intent are only required for “contingent hire” key personnel and are not required for “employed” key personnel?

(b) Will the Government please clarify the “document” in which the letters of intent for current employees, if required, should be submitted?

(a) In the Technical Volume, for the Workforce Qualifications Spreadsheet, Letters of Intent are only required for proposed Key Personnel that are considered “contingent” as defined in the solicitation. These LOIs are to be submitted in the Cost Volume of the proposal. However a requirement is being added to the Cost section of Section L that offerors shall provide an LOI for any individual being proposed as "contingent" whether they be key or non-key. The LOIs shall include the direct hourly rate or salary agreed to by the contingent employee and the company making the offer to the employee to assist the Government with cost realism analysis.

(b) “Letters of Intent are not required for “current employees”, they are only required for contingent personnel being proposed under a Key labor category (Technical requirement). However, LOI's are also now required for all employees being proposed as "contingent" as a cost proposal requirement as described above. Letters of Intent for “contingent” personnel shall be submitted in Volume III (Cost Volume). The paragraph in the solicitation will be updated to reflect this.

This section requires offerors to describe how they integrate teaming partners into the management approach “in the following areas . . .” Will the Government please confirm the areas are technical leadership, quality assurance and process improvement?

Yes, this is correct.

L

Section 3.7 of the RFP requests that the contractor utilize Attachment P-8 to provide labor categories and the number of hours per category being proposed by the prime offeror and all proposed subcontractors by year. Attachment P-8 itself requests that the contractor provide fully burdened labor rates by labor category and it draws a comparison to the Government Tripwire rates. Will the

Government please clarify what information is required for Attachment P-8?

The Attachment P-8 (Labor Hour Verification Matrix) has been updated to accurately reflect what is required/described in paragraph 3.7 in Section L of the solicitation.

L

Given that the ordering period is 5 years, will the government consider updating the solicitation paragraph 3.9.2 to reflect the sum of the LOE estimates for entire the ordering period rather than breaking Labor Category Hours down by year?

The Government has broken the labor category hours by year for evaluation purposes . As stated in paragraph 3.9.2., For purposes of evaluation, Offerors shall propose the labor hours for each labor category per year as shown in the tables below.

L

Paragraph 3.9.2 instructs the offeror to “propose the labor hours for each labor category per year as shown in the tables below,” so the Government can “formulate the Offeror's proposed price for the

CPFF labor CLINs in Section B of the solicitation.” For purposes of submitting resumes for Key

Personnel, can the offerors assume that the availability requirement for key personnel is at task order award rather than contract award, since the resultant contract will be an IDIQ contract?

Yes, key personnel would be required to be available at the time a task order requiring those key personnel is issued under the IDIQ contract. Based on the nature of the IDIQ contract, it is unknown exactly when task orders will be issued and when each key personnel will be required. However, it is likely that some key personnel will be required by day one of the ordering period (30 days after contract award) when the first task orders are issued. As a result, the key personnel proposed by the Offeror must be ready to perform by the start of the ordering period.

L

The Estimated CPFF Labor Hours chart provides estimated hours by labor category. Is the basis of one

FTE/man year = 1920 hours? If so, where the estimated LOE is very close to a full FTE should we assume the Government requires 1 FTE? (acceptable rounding) No, the hours for all labor categories are not always divisible by 1920 to equal 1 FTE. Some Task Orders have a Period of Performance of less than 12 months so the hours for each labor category contained in the table in Section L are not always Full Time Equivalents (e.g. divisible by 1920). There are contractor personnel currently support the contract that are only required on a part time basis. Therefore, the labor hours represented in the table in parapgraph 3.9.2 in Section L are based on full time and part time personnel.

L The Estimated CPFF Labor Hours chart provides estimated hours by labor category. Some years show a variance of hours to minimal hours across years. Is this intentional?

Yes, this is intentional. The variance of hours across years is due to rounding. Please propose in accordance with the hours in the CPFF Labor Hour

Chart as seen in the solicitation.

L

The Estimated CPFF Labor Hours chart provides a total 57,570 hours for the Mission Integrator labor category. This is not consistent with the stated 5 years of 11,550 hours per year, which would be

57,750 hours. Please confirm the estimated labor hours for the Mission Integrator labor category This is an error and it will be corrected in the final solicitation.

L

Para 4.1 (Past Performance, General) states that offerors should include "at least three (3) of the most relevant contracts for the prime contractor, three of the most relevant contracts for each critical team member, and two of the most relevant contracts for each principal subcontractor." To avoid creating a volume with a large number of contracts, would the Government agree to reduce the number of critical subcontractor contracts to "at least one (1) contract, but not more than three (3)?"

Paragraph 4.1 has been revised to reduce the number of contracts required for critical team members and principal subcontractors.

L

Para 4.1 (Past Performance, General) states that offerors should include "at least three (3) of the most relevant contracts for the prime contractor, three of the most relevant contracts for each critical team member, and two of the most relevant contracts for each principal subcontractor." To allow a team to highlight all its capabilities, would the Government allow offerors to provide a single contract from teammates that are not critical and not principal?

The Past Performance requirement will remain unchanged requiring past performance data from the prime offeror and any principal or critical subcontractors. It is up to the offeror as to whether a subcontractor meets the definition of “critical subcontractor”.

Will the Government please clarify the information to be provided in the matrix? For example, in the

"reference" column, are offerors to provide the contact information for the contracting officer? What are the definitions for the acronyms “CCT” and “CCC”? What is an “N” answer? What are offerors to confirm?

The P-3 Attachment (Past Performance matrix) has been updated to include instructions that define CCT, CCC, and N.

L

The draft RFP identifies cost performance as “on time or late delivery, modification of original schedules and reasons for any changes.” This language is identical to the description of schedule requirements. Will the Government please clarify?

Verbiage such as “on time or late delivery, modification of original schedules and reasons for any changes” is meant to be examples and not necessarily the definition of the “meeting schedule requirements” or the “cost performance” areas. Proposal information under the “meeting schedule requirements” should pertain to schedule while proposal inforamtion under the “Cost performance” area should pertain to cost.

L

Paragraph 525.215-9503 states that “the anticipated award date for this requirement is 18 November

2016.” This anticipated award date is after the end date of the current period of performance of the existing task under N00421-13-D-0002, which was granted a no cost extension to 30 September 2016.

Additionally, page 45 indicates a PoP of 19 Dec 2016 to 18 Dec 2021. Finally, Page 90, paragraph 2.3.4 requires a 30 day transition period after award. Does the Government anticipate an additional no cost extension to N00421-13-D-0002 to 18 Jan 2017 to cover the anticipated award date and subsequent transition period?

Administration of the current Warfare Analysis contract is not pertinent to the solicitation for the follow on requirement. The anticipated award date and date associated with the start of the ordering period is provided to inform offerors of the procurement schedule and so offeror’s can accurately project their proposed rates in the Cost Proposal.

L

Paragraph 3.4 provides the “Admin” Functional Area for the Administrative Assistant Solicitation Labor

Category with an Hourly Tripwire of $55.00 and Annualized Rate of $105,600.00. Recent NAVAIR solicitations have assigned the Administrative Assistant to the “Other” Functional Area with an Hourly

Tripwire of $75.00 and Annualized Rate of $144,000.00. Does the Government plan to revise the

Functional Area for the Administrative Assistant labor category to “Other” with the final solicitation release?

The Government has revised the tripwire amount for Administrative Assistant to reflect an Hourly Tripwire of $75.00.

M

The 4 Jan 2016 Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy – Acquisition and Procurement (DASN AP) memo restates the prescription in FAR 22.1103 to include FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, in solicitations. Section L of the solicitation contains the clause. The memo also states that contracting officers shall ensure that the Source Selection Plans along with Sections L and M of the competitive solicitations accurately reflect consideration of this provision.

While there are references in Section M, 3.0 Cost/Price to cost realism for the work to be performed and evaluation of offerors’ compensation plans against FAR 52.222-46, the language in the draft solicitation doesn’t reflect consideration of specific elements in the DASN AP memo including “As stated in FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in a reasonable relationship to the various job categories, may impair the Contractor's ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, and as such, should be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements. Therefore, this provision cautions offerors that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work and availability of required competent professional service employees. Further it advises that failure to comply with this provision is grounds for rejection of the proposal.”

It is understood by this potential offeror that the timeline of the memo release and the draft solicitation release may not have afforded the Government the opportunity to include the language in

Section M. Is it the Government’s intention to update Section M to accurately reflect consideration of this provision in the final solicitation?

Section L of the solicitation includes FAR provision 52.222-46 (Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees) in full text and also subparagraph (I) under 3.8.1 in Section L requires offerors to provide a “Professional employee compensation plan in accordance with 22.1103”. In

Section M of the solicitation under the Cost section, it states “The Offeror’s professional employee compensation plan will be evaluated against the criteria outlined in FAR provision 52.222-46.”. It is the opinion of the Government that these references within the solicitation fulfill the requirements of the 4 Jan 2016 Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy – Acquisition and Procurement (DASN AP) memo