Industry_Q A_N00421-15-R-0029.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N00421-15-R-0029
About this file
Industry Q A
View the file
Other files
Show all 28
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q & A Log
| N00421-15-R-0029: RFP INDUSTRY QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSES | ||||
| Question # | RFP Document | Section/Para | QUESTION | ANSWER |
| 1 | RFP (main)/ pg 84 | L 1.7 | Formatting instructions state: “Photographs, pictures or hyperlinks are not permitted.” Are diagrams (e.g. organizational charts, process diagrams) permitted? | Yes - Organizational Charts and Diagrams are permitted. |
| 2 | RFP (main)/ pg 85 | L 1.4 | Exclusive teaming arrangements are a very standard teaming approach during competitions for Government service and product contracts because they allow teammates to jointly design a technical approach without concern that proprietary information would be shared with a competing team. These types of teaming arrangements have not historically limited competition, as evidenced by the number of proposal submissions provided in response to Government RFPs. Is there a specific concern which the Government is seeking to address through this requirement? | The Government does not have any specific concerns with exclusive teaming that may limit competition. |
| 3 | RFP (Main)/ pg 89 | L 4.2 | Instructions for the Cost Summary Spreadsheet (Attachment P6) state “Offerors shall carefully follow the instructions provided within the Cost Summary Spreadsheet”. Are the P-6A and P-6B files meant to contain an Instructions tab, and if so, will the Government please provide this information? | L 4.2 will updated to reflect the Instructions on the Attachment P-6A Notes at the bottom of the P-6A. |
| 4 | RFP (main)/ pg 93 | L 4.4.6 | This section states “Offerors shall utilize the Not-To-Exceed (NTE) amounts provided by the Government in Section L-3, paragraph 1.0 for ODC CLINs. If it is the contractor’s accounting practice to apply (and invoice for) indirect rates (burdens) against ODCs, then the contractor shall apply these burdens within the NTE amounts provided by the Government. The NTE amounts are fully inclusive of expected industry burdens, fees, taxes, and other associated costs; the offeror shall not propose any additional fees or burdens to the NTE amounts.” Question: If an offeror’s disclosed cost accounting practice from its approved accounting system is to include Overtime Premium for non-exempt employees as an ODC (versus direct labor), is the offeror permitted to add the OT Premium amount plus associated indirect burden to the ODC plug numbers supplied in Section L-3 (1.0 Other Direct Costs (ODC)) and enter that total amount in the Material/Other Direct Costs line of the Attachment P-6A? If not, will such offeror be permitted to disclose the incremental cost resulting from the OT Premium being treated as direct labor so that the Government, in its cost realism analysis, can reduce the offeror’s price to the price that would have resulted had the OT Premium been treated as an ODC? | Do not adjust the Government ODC amounts for overtime. The offeror may adjust the P-6 as required to capture the cost of overtime premiums separately. |
| 5 | Attachment P-6A,Attachment P-6B | All | Are offerors permitted to add columns in the Attachment P-6A and Attachment P-6B in order to distinguish between overtime and regular hours? | Offerors may refer to Section L 4.3.1 for the labor category and overtime labor category breakout. Please make additional rows as needed to complete the overtime labor. |
| 6 | Attachment P-6A, Attachment P-6B | All | Are offerors permitted to add columns in the Attachment P-6A and Attachment P-6B in order to break out costs by labor category and by candidate? | Offerors may refer to Section L 4.3.1 for the labor category and overtime labor category breakout of hours. The Offerors may also adjust the spreadsheet to accommodate the indirect rates being used. Please ensure the changes being made are clear and easily understandable. |
| 7 | SOW/ pg 12 | 3.2.6 | This section states: “Coordination will include tracking specific and/or modified AAE and liaison with squadron maintenance in support of preparing aircraft for test operations.”Is a specific tracking tool required to perform this task, or may offerors propose their own tracking tool? Shall offerors assume that licensing costs for tracking tools will be paid from the NTE ODC amounts provided by the Government, or should these costs be estimated elsewhere? | No - No special tracking tool is required by the contractor. The Government will provide the tracking tools required. No - No software licensing fees should be estimated for tracking tools. |
| 8 | SOW/ pg 22 | 9.1.1 | This paragraph requires the successful offeror to “establish and maintain a Training and Certification Program” to include an ordnance certification program. Are these programs required to be in place at the time of proposal submission, at contract award, or at some point following contract award? Does the Government desire offerors to describe their existing programs in our proposals, and if so, in which proposal section should this description reside? | Yes - Ordnance Certification shall be in place at contract award. Yes - Offerors are to describe their program in Section L 2.1.2, Transition Plan (c) training. |
| 9 | SOW/ pg 24 | 13.5 | This paragraph requires the successful offeror to “establish a comprehensive FOD program”. Is this program required to be in place at the time of proposal submission, at contract award, or at some point following contract award? Does the Government desire offerors to describe their existing program in our proposals, and if so, in which proposal section should this description reside? | Per CDRL A006 the Safety Program is required no later than 30 days after contract award. Safety can be described in the proposals in Section L 2.2 Understanding and Approach. |
| 10 | SOW/ pg 30 | 16.3 | This section contains two different descriptions for Systems Analyst (SOW Paragraph 3.4). Would the government please clarify which is the correct description for that labor category? | All descriptions for the System Analyst labor categories are correct. The experience requirement is unique for the SOW paragraphs it supports. Example: Software Development, Software Testing, Data Processing. |
| 11 | SOW/ pg 31 | 16.3 | The requirements for Systems Analyst, Senior (Key) list a Masters Degree in “Software Engineering, Database Engineering, Computer Science or Computer Engineering”. Is a Masters Degree in Physics or Electrical Engineering acceptable? | No - A Masters Degree in Physics or Electrical Engineering is not acceptable. |
| 12 | SOW/ pg 32-33 | 16.3 | The education requirement for the Subject Matter Expert II (SOW Paragraph 3.4) are listed as a BS or BA, but then includes an allowable substitution of “A BS or BA degree and an additional 4 years of experience can be substituted for an MS or MA degree” implying that a MS or MA degree is required. Would the government please clarify whether a BA/BS is required or a MA/MS is required for this position? | The BS or BA with the 10 years of experience are the actual requirements. The Allowable Substitution sentence will be removed from the SOW. |
| 13 | RFP/ pg 87 | L 3.1 | Regarding Past Performance references: Can the submissions (for the Prime or any Principal Subcontractor) include contracts for which the submitting company performed as a subcontractor? If so, we assume the proposed Contract Value provided in the Past Performance Matrix should be calculated based on the subcontract value performed by the submitting company and not the overall value of the associated parent Prime Contract Please confirm that this assumption is correct. | Yes, the submissions can be performed as a subcontractor. Yes, the value will be assessed by the work done by the subcontractor, not the total value of the contract. |
| 14 | RFP/ pg 103 | M 5.3.2 | If work performed as a subcontractor can be submitted as a past performance by the Prime or Principal Subcontractors, is there a requirement to show that the work specifically performed by the submitting company meets the relevance criteria? i.e., will the total scope of the prime contract be considered for relevance, or only the portions performed by the submitting company’s subcontract? | Yes, the submitted past performance should state what specific relevance was performed. Only portion of the work completed by the submitting offeror will be evaluated. |
| 15 | RFP/ pg 87 | L 3.1 | Is there any requirement to show a correlation between a past performance submission by a principal subcontractor and that company’s expected role on this contract? i.e. must the tasks described in the past performance reference align with the subcontractor’s expected role on the program? | Yes, the tasks described in past performance will align with the expected role as the subcontractor on the contract. |
| 16 | RFP/ pg 88 | L 3.2 CPARS | Section 3.2 instructs offerors to complete past performance Questionnaire Packages, with items 1-8 completed, for contracts with CPARS more than 12 months old. Later in that section, Offerors are instructed to NOT send Past Performance Questionnaires for contracts currently in CPARS for which annual reporting has been performed. Some contracts seem to fall into both of these categories – would the Government clarify the instructions for a contract that is current, has annual CPARS reporting, and has reports older than 12 months? | If CPARS is current use that, if it is not current or the contract is less than 12 months the offeror may use the PPQ. |
| 17 | RFP/ pg84 | L 1.7 Proposal Format | The RFP is silent as to the inclusion or exclusion of Tables of Contents and Lists of Acronyms Lists within the proposal volumes. Will the Government remove these reference materials from the page count limits? | The Government will not include the Table of Contents, and Lists of Acronyms List pages as part of the allotted page limits. |
| 18 | RFP/ pg 83 | L 1.6 | The instructions specify proposals shall be submitted electronically via CD-ROM. Does the Government prefer all volumes to be placed on one CD-ROM, or does the Government prefer one volume per CD-ROM? | The Government prefers a single CD-ROM for the Cost Volume, and a separate CD-ROM for all other volumes which may be included on a single CD-ROM. |
| 19 | SOW | 2 | In order to adequately provide an understanding and approach response, we are requesting the following documents listed in Section 2.0 of the SOW. Will the Government provide these documents?a. ISEET Test Planning Handbook |
b. ISEET Test Reporting Handbook
c. SOPs 50-56
d. NAVAIR Instructions 3710.8E, 3960.4C 8012.2A, 10350.3A, 13023.2, 13640.1C,13640.3, 13650.1D, and 13050.6A
e. NAWCAD Instructions 3120.1A, 5510.1B, 13050.1D, 3432.1B
f. NAVTESTWINGLANT Instructions 3140.1B 8020.1J, 3750.2A
g. NAS Patuxent River Instructions 3710.17H, 3721.2E, 3750.1B, 4602.1A, 5090.1B, 5090.2, 5090.5, 5100, 5100.35D,8010.1B, 8010.2B, and 8020.14E
h. NOSSA Instruction 8020.14E
i. NAVSEA Instructions OP-5, 8020.6D
j. NAVAIR Technical Manual Program
k. NAVAIR LHA/LHD NATOPS Manual
l. COMFISCINST 5090.1 Ch. 8
m. COMNAVREGMIDATLANTIC 6820.1A Para 5
| The Government will provide instructions for obtaining documents in a forthcoming amendment to the RFP. | |||
| 20 | SOW | 2 | After an extensive search for the Applicable Documents listed in Section 2.0 of the SOW, we have noticed some discrepancies between your Applicable Documents table and the publically available documents. We respectfully submit these discrepancies for Government disposition. a. SECNAV Instruction 5239.3B is now 3C. |
b. NAS Patuxent River Instruction, NAS Explosive Safety Self-Assessment (ESSA) Program - 8020.14E, and NOSSA Instruction, Shore Station Explosives Safety Compliance (ESI) Program – 8020.14E has the same number. Is this a mistake?
c. The DoD Manual titled the Performance of Contract Property Administration 4161.2-M has been replaced by the Guidebook for Contract Property Administration as of December 2014.
d. The DoD Directive, Information Assurance - 8500.1, is now called Cybersecurity.
| Concur. a. Government will revise the SOW SECNAV Instruction from 5239.3B to 5239.3C and changed Title from Department of the Navy Information Assurance (IA) Policy to Department of the Navy Cybersecurtiy. b. Government will revise SOW page 5 removing 8020.14E from in front of Shore Station Explosives Compliance (ESI) Program and replaced it with 8020.14F. c. Government will revise SOW page 5 4161.2M - DoD Manual 4161.2M was replaced with Guidebook for Contract Property Administration. Removed this from under DOD manuals and placed Guidebook under Handbook section. d. The Government will revise SOW page 5 8500.1 from Information Assurance to Cybersecurity. | ||||
| 21 | Attachment 1/ pg 26-27 | 16.3 | “Engineering Technician I (SOW Paragraph 3.2, 3.3)” and “Engineering Technician II (SOW Paragraph 3.2, 3.3, 3.5)” have the same requirements for education and experience. Is this correct? | Yes - education /experience are the same. The function description defines the position requirement. |
| 22 | RFP/ pg 84 | L 1.7 | Clarification: Per the instructions Tables are permitted, but “photographs, pictures, or hyperlinks” are not. Does this mean that, aside from tables, no bidder-generated graphics are permitted in this proposal? Are flow charts considered pictures? | No - Organizational flow charts and graphic diagrams are permitted. No. flow charts are not considered pictures. |
| 23 | SOW/ pg 27 | 3.2 | “Engineering/Electronics Technician, Senior (KEY) (SOW Paragraph 3.2)” states that this employee “Applies engineering techniques, principles and precedents to develop, design and development of specific components and circuits…” Is the employee responsible for a third action in place of “development” or only for developing and designing these items? | No - Only for developing and designing of these items. |
| 24 | RFP L-1 | 1.6 | Can the hard copy packages be hand delivered vice mailed? | Proposals may be hand delivered to the address indicated in RFP Section L-1, paragraph 1.6. |
| 25 | All the System Analyst positions require a BS in Computer Science. Is a BS in Information Technology an acceptable substitute for the Computer Science degree? | No | ||
| 26 | The Statement of Work refers to the 5.1.6 Standard Operating Procedures series (SOP 50 through SOP 56) We do not have access to these SOPS. Can the Government provide them? | The Government will provide instructions for obtaining documents in a forthcoming amendment to the RFP. | ||
| 27 | CDRL A006 | The contract reference for CDRL A006 Safety program is SOW Paragraph 7.0. However, in the SOW, Safety is addresses in paragraph 6.0. Please confirm the appropriate SOW paragraph is 6.0. | The appropriate SOW paragraph is 6.0. CDRL A006 has been revised to reflect this change. | |
| 28 | N/A | N/A | Are there trip wire limitations in effect for this contract? | No, there are not any trip wire limitations for this contract. |
| 29 | RFP | Section I | Request an update to the Cybersecurity Clause 252.204-7012 SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE INFORMATION AND CYBER INCIDENT REPORTING, which is currently listed in the RFP as the NOV 2013 clause, to the current DEC 2015 clause. The reason for this request is that there are significant changes between the initial Cybersecurity clause published in Nov 2013 and the current requirement to contractors | The clause will be updated in a forthcoming amendment to the RFP. |
| 30 | General | Please confirm that the Service Contract Act does not apply to this contract. | Not Service Contract Act Applicable | |
| 31 | RFP/ Pg 92 | L 4.4.8 | "The proposed subcontractors are required to submit their cost/price proposal directly to the Government via CD-ROM." | The Subcontractor may submit their proposal with the Prime if it is in a sealed & unopened packaging. |
| 32 | Attachment P-6A & P-6B | Instruction #3 | Please confirm only Principal Subcontractors are required to submit cost volume narrative and backup data. | A P-6B and supporting cost substantiation must be provided by all Subcontractors. Subcontractors only performing limited portions of the requirement may focus their submission as required to substantiate their proposed cost/price. |
| 33 | Attachmment P-6A & P-6B | Please confirm that employee/candidate names are not to be included in the Attachment P-6A/B Cost Summary worksheets. | Correct | |
| 34 | Attachment 1 SOW/ Pg 26-27 | 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 | Engineering Technicians I and II both require "at least 3 years of experience." Please clarify if it was intentional for both levels of the Engineering Technician to require the same amount of experience. We recommend modifying the requirements for the Engineering Technician I to "0-1 year of practical experience" in order to facilitate a broader skillset and promote entry level growth. | Yes - education /experience are the same. The function description defines the position requirement. |
| 35 | Attachment 1 SOW/ Pg 29 | 16.3 (3.2, 3.3,3.5) | Please clarify how many FTEs are associated with SOW 3.4 from this specific category requirement, so we can differentiate from the other Engineering/Electronic Technician (SOW Paragraph 3.4) category description. | Out of the three (3) FTE's for Engineering/Electronics Technicians in SOW paragraph 3.4; one (1) shall have experience performing NATIP, Ordnance, and Data Analysis functions and two (2) shall have experience performing Test Engineering functions. |
| 36 | RFP | L 4.3.1 | Please clarify how many FTEs, out of the 8 Systems Analyst in SOW 3.4, are Software Development focused versus Software Testing focused? | Out of the eight (8) FTE's for System Analysts in SOW paragraph 3.4; four (4) shall have Software Development experience and four (4) shall have Software Testing experience. |
| 37 | SOW/ Pg 30/90 | 16.3 pg 30 & L2 4.3.1 | SOW section 16.3, page 30 describes two System Analyst positions that cover paragraph 3.4 Requirements. The Table provided in Section L2, 4.3.1 (Page 90) shows one line item for System Analyst Position (sum of 8 Base Man-Years). Can the Government, please clarify what is the division of work effort (MY) for the two positions described in the SOW? | Out of the eight (8) FTE's for System Analysts in SOW paragraph 3.4; four (4) shall have Software Development experience and four (4) shall have Software Testing experience. |
| 38 | SOW/ pg 90 | 16.3 pg 28-29, L2 4.3.1 | SOW section 16.3, pages 28-29 describes two Engineering/Electronics Technician positions that cover paragraph 3.4 Requirements. The Table provided in Section L2, 4.3.1 (Page 90) shows one line item for Engineering/Electronics Technician (sum of 3 Base Man-Years). Can the Government please clarify, what is the division of work effort (MY) for the two positions described in the SOW? | Out of the three (3) FTE's for Engineering/Electronics Technicians in SOW paragraph 3.4; one (1) shall have experience performing NATIP, Ordnance, and Data Analysis functions and two (2) shall have experience performing Test Engineering functions. |
| 39 | Attachment P-5 | Will the Government please confirm the correct submission deadline for Past Performance Questionnaires? | The Past Performance Questionairre (Attachment P-5) has been updated to include the deadline date of 5 July 2016. | |
| 40 | RFP/ Pg 83 | L 1.6 | To account for potential time lost or delays with mail carriers over the national holiday, will the Government please allow for hand delivered submission of proposals? | Proposals may be hand delivered to the address indicated in RFP Section L-1, paragraph 1.6. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .