QAs_related_to_final_RFP_(28_Apr_16).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AIR-4. 0M Mission Engineering and Analysis Department Support Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N00421-15-R-0014
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 26
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet 1
| No. | RFP Section | Description | Page No. | Question | Answers |
| 1 | SF33 | Date Issued | Box 3 | The SF33 is dated 16 March 2016; the final RFP was released on 22 March 2016. Will the Government please issue a corrected SF33 as the release date drives certain elements of the offerors' proposals? | The Government has updated the release date of the solicitation to 22 March 2016 as seen in Amendment 0001. |
| 2 | Section F and Clause 5252.215-9503 (Section L) | Start Date for Proposed Costs | 42 and 98 | Section F reflects a Period of Performance Start Date of 19 December 2016, and Section L reflects an Award Date of 18 November 2016. Will the Government confirm the anticipated date to be used as a basis for schedules and burden mid-point calculations? | The award date in Section L is the anticipated date of award of the contract. The Period of Performance dates in Section F speaks to the anticipated ordering period of the IDIQ contract, which will begin approximately 30 days after contract award to allow for a 30 day transition period. These dates will be updated in the next amendment. For purposes of pricing, performance would begin when task orders are issued under the IDIQ contract. It is anticipated that multiple task orders will be issued as soon as the ordering period begins. |
| 3 | Section L.B.1.0 | Executive Summary | 81 | This section indicates that this volume shall not contain any reference to cost or price aspects of the offer. Paragraph 1.0(i) indicates that offerors are to provide an abstract of each evaluation criteria, which would seem to include cost/price. Will the Government please clarify? | To clarify, Offerors shall not provide any actual proposed cost or price information in this volume (actual proposed numbers/dollars). The requirement in this section is for a "concise abstract of the Offeror's strategy for each of the evaluation factors....". The strategy for the Cost Volume does not need to include the final proposed costs/prices. |
| 4 | Section L.B.1.0(vii) | Executive Summary | 82 | Will the Government please confirm that "Annex A" should be included and labeled as an Attachment to the Executive Summary, and that the Attachment is excluded from the 8-page limitation? | Yes, Annex A (relevant DCAA/DCMA reports, audits and determinations) should be included and labeled as an Attachment to the Executive Summary and will be excluded from the 8-page limitation. Please see the updated Table in Paragraph 3.0, Section L and the language added to the Business Systems Table in the next amendment to the solicitation. |
| 5 | Section L.3.0 and Section L.B.1.0 | Proposal Format Table and Volume 1 Requirements | 79 and 82 | In Questions & Answers to the Draft RFP, the Government stated that Section L.B.1.0(v) was excluded from the page count. The Proposal Format Table in the Final RFP (Section L.3.0) only excludes the SF33 and Section K from page count limitations. Will the Government please confirm that Offeror Representatives and Information (Section L.B.1.0(v)) is also excluded from the page count limitation? | Yes, the Offeror Representatives and Information (Section L.B.1.0(v)) is excluded from the page count limitation. The table in Paragraph 3.0 in Section L will be revised in the next amendment to the solicitation. |
| 6 | Section L.B.1.0 | Volume 1 Requirements | 82 | As Government Agency Information and System Compliances are considered an Offeror's Representations and Certifications, will the Government please confirm that Section L.B.1.0 Paragraphs (vi) and (vii) are also excluded from the Volume 1 page count limitation? | No, Section L.B.1.0 Paragraphs (vi) and (vii) are not excluded from the Volume 1 page count limitation for the Executive Summary. |
| 7 | Section L.B.2.2.1 | Workforce | 84 | Requirement states, "Offerors are obligated to advise the Government of changes in proposed key personnel staffing, even after submissions of proposals." Will the Government please clarify how Offerors are to advise the Government (e.g., email, timing of notifications), and any other expectations? | Yes, the Offerors are required to notify the Government of any changes in proposed key personnel staffing after submissions of proposals. The Offerors shall provide this information through email to the contract specialist promptly upon discovery of change. Please see Section L, Para. 2.2.1 in the next amendment to the solicitation. |
| 7 | Section L.B.2.2.5 | Facility Clearance | 85 | Will the Government please confirm that proof of Facility Clearance does not count toward any page count limitations in the Workforce section? | The proof of Facility Clearance does not count toward the page count limitations in the Workforce Section of the Technical Volume. The table in Paragraph 3.0 in Section L which includes page limits for proposal volumes will be updated in the next amendment to the solicitation. |
| 8 | Section L.B.3.8.2(b) and Section M.B.3.5.1 | Subcontracting Plan | 89 and 104 | This requirement states that Large Business Concerns shall demonstrate that at least 30% of the total proposed contract costs represents subcontract awards to Small Business Concerns; this same 30% of total proposed contract costs requirement is also reflected in Section M. Further in Section L.B.3.8.2(b), it states that the table shall break out costs and clearly show percentage of total proposed price being allocated. Will the Government please confirm that the table should show actual percentages of the total proposed costs being allocated to small businesses, and not price? | Yes, the table required under Section L B 3.8.2 (b) will be amended to reflect the actual percentages of the "total proposed costs" being allocated to small business in lieu of "total proposed price". |
| 9 | Section L.B.3.9.2 and Section L.B.3.9.4 | Labor Hours and Place of Performance | 91-92 | Reference: "Currently, approximately 33% of contractor personnel performing under the Task Orders for this requirement work in Government provided spaces." |
Preface to Question: While informative with respect to current operating practice, this statement does not preclude an Offeror from bidding all personnel except the Program Manager at government-site rates.
| Question: Given that the Government does have limitations of facility space available for contractor personnel, will the Government amend the Solicitation and Section L.B.3.9.2 to mandate by labor category the split between government-site and contractor-site based hours as a basis for providing a fair and comparable approach to evaluating Total Program Bid Prices across Offerors for the IDIQ Contract bid? | For evaluation purposes, Offerors shall propose the following labor categories as being seated in government spaces: 2 Warfare Analysts, 1 Computer Scientist, 1 Senior Systems Administrator, 5 Junior Systems Administrators, 2 Senior Tactical Systems Analysts, 1 Tactical Systems Analyst, 3 Program Analysts, 3 Technical Writer III, 3 Administrative Assistants, and 2 Mission Integrators. This will be reflected in Section L, Para. 3.9.4 in the next amendment to the solicitation. | |||||
| 10 | Section L.3.0 and Section L.B.4.0 | Proposal Format Table and Volume 4 Requirements | 80 and 92 | The description of the Past Performance Volume in the Table references only the Past Performance Matrix as being part of Volume 4, and the identified no page limit applies only to the Matrix. Will the Government please revise the Proposal Format Table in Section L.3.0 to outline the placement of required elements of 4.1 and 4.2 (L.B.4.0), identify the Matrix as an attachment, and confirm that Volume 4 has no page limitations? | There are no page limitations for Volume 4, Past Performance including proposal data required under paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2. Please see the table in Section L, Paragraph 3.0 in the next amendment to the solicitation. | |
| 11 | Section L.B.4.0 | Volume 4 | 92-95 | Will the Government please confirm that while the hard copies of the Past Performance Volume will be submitted in a single binder, the CD-ROM must contain 3 separate files: the Past Performance Matrix and all associated data, the Contract Data Table and the Past Performance Data Requirements Table? | In accordance with Section L, Part A, para. 2.0, the solicitation requires that one complete copy of the proposal be submitted as electronic files on a CD-ROM. Submitting three separate files for the Past Performance Volume meets that proposal submission requirement. Section L, Part A, Paragraph 2.0 has been amended to provide further clarification. This will be reflected in the next amendment to the solicitation. | |
| 12 | Section L.4.0 and Section L.B.4.1 | Volume 4 Due Date | 80 and 93 | Section L.4.0 requests that Volume 4 be submitted ten days prior to the Proposal Due Date on the SF33, falling on Saturday, 16 April 2016. Section L.B.4.1 requires Questionnaires be submitted two weeks from RFP release date, with a requested completion date of two weeks of receipt. The Questionnaire requirement leads to a date of no earlier than 19 April 2016. Given these dependencies, will the Government please change the due date for Volume 4 to 19 April 2016, instead of 16 April 2016? | The Past Performance Proposal, Volume 4, due date has been revised to 3 May 2016 as seen in Amendment 0002. | |
| 13 | Section L Part B, Paragraph 3.9.4 | NMCI | 92 | The RFP states that 33% of the work is currently being performed in Government provided spaces. Is it the Government’s intention that Offerors bid 33% or an alternative percentage specified by the Government of the labor hours in each labor category at Government site rates? | Please see response to Question #10. | |
| 15 | Section C, Paragraphs 2.4 and 2.8 | Modeling and Simulation | 16 | Paragraphs 2.4 and 2.8 specifically call out Modeling & Simulation (M&S), but some of the requirements within the paragraphs imply some level of analysis work and software development for analytic applications. Will the Government please clarify whether analysis work and software development for analytic applications should be included in these areas as well, or was it intentionally not included? | Paragraphs 2.4 and 2.8 accurately represent the Government's requirements. Paragraph 2.4 includes a list of existing models and simulations that the contractor will be required to support and the reference note in paragraph 2.8 provides a general description of the scope of Modelling and Simulation Applications with respect to this solicitation, i.e. "...applications may include, but are not limited to, high fidelity engineering, engagement, mission, and campaign level models as well as database web application development." | |
| 16 | Section C, Paragraph 2.12 | Security | 23 | Paragraph 2.12, Security, requires "at least 3 individuals [with] Top Secret" for the Sr. Engineer labor category. The LOE estimate on page 91 requires 3324 hours for Sr. Engineer in each year of the contract, which equates to only ~1.7 FTE. Does the Government require at least three resumes to fill these 3324 hours, or should the requirement for TS cleared personnel be lowered to 1? | The Government does require at least 3 individuals with Top Secret clearance in the Sr. Engineer labor category. It is expected that multiple tasks requiring individuals with a Top Secret clearance will be ongoing at the same time and while the total hours may not add up to 3 FTEs, the nature of the work would preclude 1 individual from supporting multiple projects at the same time. | |
| 17 | Section C, Paragraph 4.0 | Personnel Quals | 31 | Statement of Work, Paragraph 4.0, defines the Personnel Qualifications. In addition to detailed Functional Description requirements, qualifications for the Senior Tactical Systems Analyst include: (b) Education: BS or BA in engineering, operations research, computer science, physics, or a related scientific discipline. |
(c) Experience: At least twelve (12) years of recent professional experience with F/A-18 or EA-18G aircraft tactical systems employment is required. F/A-18 pilot or Weapon Systems Officer (WSO) is preferred. Candidate for this position shall be a graduate of the Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) or Marine Aviation Weapons Training Squadron-1 (MAWTS-1) Weapons Tactics Instructor (WTI). EA-18G pilot or Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO) are preferred but candidates are required to be graduates of the Electronic Attack Weapons School (EAWS).
| -Will the Government consider including in the (b) Education requirements additional disciplines which include curriculums that prepare a student in decision analytics such as Strategic Studies, Political Science or Economics as long as the candidate meets the requirements of (a) Functional Description and (c) Experience? | 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. | |||||
| 18 | Section C, Paragraph 4.0 | Personnel Quals | 31 | Statement of Work, Paragraph 4.0, defines the Personnel Qualifications. In addition to detailed Functional Description requirements, qualifications for the Tactical Systems Analyst include: (b) Education: BS or BA in engineering, mathematics, operations research, computer science, physics, or a related scientific discipline. (c) Experience: At least eight (8) years of recent professional experience with F/A-18 or EA-18G aircraft tactical systems employment is required. F/A-18 pilot or Weapon Systems Officer (WSO) is preferred. Candidates proposed for this position shall be a graduate of the Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) or Marine Aviation Weapons Training Squadron-1 (MAWTS-1) Weapons Tactics Instructor (WTI). EA-18G candidates shall be a graduate of Electronic Attack Weapons School (EAWS). -With the experience elements under (c) remaining unchanged, will the Government consider changing the current education requirements to the following? -Will the Government consider including in the (b) Education requirements additional disciplines which include curriculums that prepare a student in decision analytics such as Strategic Studies, Political Science or Economics as long as the candidate meets the requirements of (a) Functional Description and (c) Experience? | 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. | |
| 19 | Section C, Paragraph 4.0 | Personnel Quals | 32 | Paragraph 4.0 of the Statement of Work defines the Personnel Qualifications. In addition to detailed Functional Description requirements, qualifications for the Mission Integrator include: (b) Education: BS or BA in engineering, mathematics, operations research, physics, computer science, or a related scientific discipline and a graduate of warfare centers of excellence Tactics Technics and Procedures (TTPs) curriculum. (c) Experience: At least eight (8) years of professional experience directly related to the analysis of Naval Aviation mission areas, CONEMPS, and associated kill chains. -Will the Government consider including in the (b) Education requirements additional disciplines which include curriculums that prepare a student in decision analytics such as Strategic Studies, Political Science or Economics as long as the candidate meets the requirements of (a) Functional Description and (c) Experience? | 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. | |
| 20 | Section C, Paragraph 4.0 | Personnel Quals | 32 | 1. Education qualifications for the Mission Integrator include “a graduate of warfare centers of excellence Tactics Technics and Procedures (TTPs) curriculum.” -Would the Government please clarify what the centers of excellence Tactics Technics and Procedures (TTPs) curriculum includes? | A detailed description of the typical warfare center curriculum is beyond the scope of a labor category definition. The intent of the education requirement for this labor category is to ensure that an individual has completed training in one of the Navy's graduate level warfare schools, e.g. Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN), EA-18G Growler Weapons School (HAVOK), Rotary Wing Weapons School (SEAWOLF), etc, or an equivalent school in another Service, which includes advanced instruction in Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs). | |
| 21 | Section C, Paragraph 2.11 | CDRLs | 23 | Paragraph 2.11 Deliverables and Documentation states that deliverables associated with CDRLs A00K, A00L, A00M and A00N are to be submitted at the contract level. -Will the Government be issuing an administrative task order for the preparation of these contract deliverables separate from the individual Task Order deliverables? | No, A00K, A00L, A00M and A00N are required at the contract level, not at the task order level and shall be delivered in accordance with the criteria in the CDRL list. |
For CDRL A00K, please provide the Company non-disclosure agreements for the prime and subcontractors prior to the company beginning work under the contract.
For CDRL A00L, please provide the individual non-disclosure agreements prior to the individual beginning work under the contract.
For CDRL A00M, the first submission is due to the COR within (30) days of the award date of the contract. Revised reports shall be submitted when gains and/or losses of employees occur to ensure that all employees comply with these requirements prior to accessing Government IT Systems.
For CDRL A00N, A preliminary draft plan 90 days after contract award. Final due 45 days after government approval of draft. Revisions are required after approval of final plan only to comply with Government Data Protection Policy Documents revision.
| 14 | Section C, Paragraph 2.11 | CDRLs | 23 | There appears to be a disconnect between the CDRL listing and Section C paragraph 2.11 of the solicitation. (a) The CDRL list shows that the Operational Security (OPSEC) Plan is A00P, but is referred to as A00N in the solicitation. (b) In addition, the solicitation provides a CDRL A009 as Software, but this deliverable is not provided on the CDRL listing. -Will the Government provide clarification for these requirements? | The Government has updated the CDRL for the OPSEC Plan to read A00N. It appears that CDRL A009 was dropped from the CDRL list in the attachment. This CDRL has been included back into the attachment as seen in the next amendment to the solicitation. |
| 15 | Section L, Paragraph 3.1 | Cost/Price | 87 | Cost/Price Proposal Instructions, Paragraph 3.1, states “Offerors shall not complete Section B of the solicitation as allocation of proposed costs (and fee if applicable) across funding-based CLINs (e.g. RDTE CPFF Labor, NWCF CPFF Labor, etc.) will be determined at contract award by the Government.” However, Attachment P6, nor P7 allow for CLIN pricing and appear to be the Summary pricing tabs. -Should the CLIN pricing be removed from the P6 and P7? | Please see the next amendment to the solicitation and the revised attachments P6 and P7. The instruction tab has been updated to clarify that the CLIN numbers have already been included and that the Offeror will propose costs by Labor category per year to account for escalation. The Offeror will provide a cost for all labor under CLINs 0001 - 0006 and the Government will then allocate these costs in Section B across the funding based CLINs. The same process will be done for Material and Travel CLINs. |
| 16 | Section L, Paragraph 4.1 | Past Performance | 92 | Paragraph 4.1, General, states that principal and critical subcontractors will provide written consent to allow the Government to coordinate Past Performance issues with the Offeror. Paragraph 4.2 indicates that the Offeror will indicate in the Past Performance Data Requirements (Item 1) that the teammates have agreed to coordination with the Prime. However, there is no indication of where the Government would like to have the actual consent letters included in Volume 4. Normally, we would expect to attach signed consent letters as an appendix to the Volume. -Would the Government confirm that it does want to receive copies of the consent letters as an attachment to Volume 4? | Yes, copies of the consent letters shall be provided as an appendix to Volume 4. Please see updated language under Section L, paragraph 4.1 in the next amendment to the solicitation. |
| 17 | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1.1 | PBSOW | 82 | Section L, Part B, Section 2.1.1 "Performance Based Statement of Work Approach," indicates that "the proposal shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the scope of work define in the PBSOW." -Does the Government intend for offerors to respond to PBSOW sections 2.11 Deliverables, 2.12 Security, 2.13 OPSEC Plan, 2.14 ID Badges, and 2.15 Control of Contractor Personnel? | No, as seen in Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1.1 (a) The Offeror does not need to address each paragraph of the PBSOW specifically, but the proposal shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the scope of work defined in the PBSOW. |
| 18 | Attachment P-3 | Past Performance | Attachment P3 Item 7 states: “Under the heading of “Confirmation,” provide the date, point of contact that confirmed receipt of the Past Performance Questionnaire Package for Services, and the method of transmittal. Merely a statement by the Offeror that the Past Performance Questionnaire Package for Services was delivered to the customer on a specific date is not sufficient. If contract in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and the assessment report that is not more than 12 months old, annotate in this column that the contract is in CPARS and the date of the most recent Contractor Performance Assessment Report.” -While this description references the receipt confirmation for Attachment P5 - PPQ Package, it does not address confirmation receipt of the CPARS Update Questionnaire (Attachment P4). Will the Government confirm that offerors should use the same confirmation approach for Attachment P4 as the one for P5? | Please see the revised verbiage in the next amendment to the solicitation as well as the revised Attachment P3. Yes, the same confirmation approach is required for the CPARs Update Questionnaire (Attachment P4). |
&"Times New Roman,Bold Italic"&12RFP Questions &"Times New Roman,Bold"&12Solicitation N00421-15-R-0014
&"Times New Roman,Bold"&12Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .