QAs_7_July_2016.pdf

N00421-15-R-0042

Government’s Responses to Questions 07 July 2016

Reference: Section C, SOW para 10.7, pages 28 – 29 and SOW para 3.2.2, page 12 Q1: Are offerors required to submit an SDP with our proposals?

A1: An SDP is not required; Section C, SOW para 10.7 has been removed and marked as “Reserved”. See Amendment 0001.

Reference: Section C, SOW para 10.7, pages 28 – 29 Q2: Mandatory elements of the SPII policy language are:

The requirement that offerors submit a proposed Software Development Plan (SDP) with their proposals, and, during contract performance, deliver a completed SDP (based on the proposed SDP) as a CDRL deliverable, subject to Government review and approval.

Is the SDP required with the IDIQ proposal or at a later date as part of a TO proposal? If the SDP is required as part of the IDIQ proposal, what section should it be included in and will it be included in the current page count? In addition, the SDP isn’t referenced in the CDRL’s list in the RFP or in Exhibit A.

A2: An SDP is not required; Section C, SOW para 10.7 has been removed and marked as “Reserved”. See Amendment 0001.

Reference: Section L-1 – Part B, para 1.1 (Offeror Summary Table), Page 82 – 83 Q3: This table is required to be submitted two weeks before the submission date/time. This table requires “% of Total Proposed Price” by company which may not be finalized that far ahead of the submission date. Will the Government consider removing this column or allow offerors to leave this column blank and to submit a final table with this data at the proposal submission date?

A3: Submission of the Offeror Summary Table and Past Performance information two weeks prior to proposal submission has been removed from Section L-1, para 4.0. The submission date on the Past Performance Questionnaire, P4 is also updated accordingly. See Amendment 0001.

Reference: Section L-1 – Part B, para 1.0 Volume 1 – Executive Summary, pages 82 – 83 Q4: The instructions for the Executive Summary volume state that the purpose of the volume is to “provide the evaluators with an overview of the offeror’s proposal and strategy”. However the outline of the volume provided on page 83 does not seem to include any sections where offeror’s can provide this overview of our proposal and strategy. May offeror’s submit a proposal summary / strategy description in this volume, and if so, are there page limitations?

A4: The instructions to the Executive Summary section (Section L-1 – Part B, Para 1.0, Volume 1 – Executive Summary) have been updated in the solicitation. See Amendment 0001.

Reference: Section B, NAVAIR Clause 5252.211-9503, Pages 8 – 9 and Section L-1 – Part B, para 2.2.1.1, Q5: The section states: “Offerors shall propose to the four (4) Key personnel as current employees or contingent hires.” And then goes on to say “In addition, the Government anticipates that the one (1) remaining off-site Key person will be required later in the year; therefore, this one (1) Key position may be proposed as a prospective hire.” This does not match up with the LOE hours shown on page 8-9 which shows 5 Key Positions that are full-time for each of the 5 years. Can the Government please explain if they wish for us to price out 5 full time positions or does the Government need to adjust the LOEs to reflect the hours for the 1 position needed later in the year?

N00421-15-R-0042

A5: The hours per category outlined in Section B, NAVAIR Clause 5252.211-9503 and in Section L-2, para

1.2 remain unchanged. The tables have been updated to reflect expected four (4) Key personnel as current employees or contingent hires and the remaining one (1) position as a non-key position. See Amendment 0001.

Reference: NAVAIR Clause 5252.211-9503, Pages 8 – 9 and Section L-2, para 1.2, Pages 92 – 93 Q6: Please confirm that the planned distribution of hours is different in Year 5 than in Years 1 – 4, i.e.

that 1920 hours are removed from Senior Systems Engineer and added to Journeyman Engineer.

A6: The planned distribution of hours within the referenced clause/sections is correct.

Reference: Attachment 2 DD254 Q7: The DD254 references the contract at the “secret” level. In anticipation of future platform support, would the government consider increasing the security level to “Top Secret”?

A7: The level of security remains unchanged.