Attachment_P8 _QAs_1-2 _3-8 _9.pdf

N00421-15-R-0043-0003 Attachment P8

Government’s Response to Questions

Reference: RFP, Section L-(1), Part A, Paragraph 4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Q1: As seven days prior to the submission date in Block 9 of the SF 33 is 11 November, a Government holiday, will the Government please confirm that this submission may occur on Monday 14 November prior to 10:00AM?

A1: This requirement shall be submitted with the original proposal no later than the date and time specified in

Block 9 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP. The following has been removed from the solicitation under RFP

Amendment 0001:

“However, Offeror’s shall also submit copies of Volume (3) Past Performance information in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 and Volume 1, Executive Summary “Offeror’s Summary Table”, 1.1.1 seven days prior to the submission date/time specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP.”

Reference: RFP, Section L-(1), Part B, Paragraph 1.1.1 Offeror Summary Table

Q2: As Offerors’ pricing will not be finalized seven days prior to the submission date in Block 9 of the SF 33, for the early submission of the Executive Summary “Offeror’s Summary Table”, will the Government please confirm that it is acceptable for Offerors to leave the column “% of Total Proposed Price” blank?

A2: See Q1/A1: The Government has changed this Proposal Submission requirement under RFP Amendment

0001.

Reference: RFP, Section L-(1), Part B, Paragraphs 2.1.1.2 and 2.3.4

Q3: Does the Government plan to issue the first task order concurrently with the award of the IDIQ contract or will there be delay in the first task order award, and if so, how long after IDIQ award does the Government plan on issuing the first task order?

A3: Refer to Section L-(1), Part B, Paragraph 2.1.1.2. 90% of the (entire LOE) Workforce. A revision under this section is included.

Reference: RFP, Section L-(1), Part B, Paragraph 2.1.2

Q4: The solicitation lists a very high number of “Key personnel” (22) which must be proposed. This is VERY difficult for any company other than the incumbent to have that high number of staff as current employees, or even contingent hires in that location. This indicates the Government is not interested in seriously considering sources other than the incumbent for this effort. Would the Government lower this requirement to allow more competition on this solicitation?

A4: The Government has reviewed the Key Personnel requirements and has reduced the twenty-two (22) Key personnel to fourteen (14) Key personnel; all of which are anticipated to start performance at the issuance of the first task order(s) after contract award. Revisions have been incorporated under Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1.2 Key

Personnel, Section L-2 Government-Furnished Information, Paragraph 1.2, and NAVAIR Clause 5252.211-9503.

Reference: RFP, Section M-1, Part B, Paragraph 1.1

Q5: Technical Workforce subfactor: How many Key personnel do the offerors need to propose specific persons with resumes in order to be evaluated “Outstanding” or low risk in this section? – (It will be difficult for anyone other than the incumbent to propose 25 Key personnel with resumes).

A5: The evaluation of “Outstanding” or low risk will be in accordance with the Combined Technical/Risk Ratings in Section M, Part C, Paragraph 1.1 – Table 1. In accordance with paragraph 2.1.2.0 of Section L-(1), Part B, the

Offeror shall propose to the fourteen (14) Key personnel as current employees or contingent hires. These Key personnel will be evaluated in accordance with Section M-1, Part A, paragraph 1.0, Part B, paragraph 1.0 and Table

1 in Part C.

Reference: RFP, Section L-(1), Part A, 3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES

Q6: Will the Government please confirm that the table presented in Section 3.0, Proposal Contents and Volumes, should include that the following sections are included as part of the 15 page limit of Section 2.3 Management Plan:

2.3.3 Qualification/Recruitment/Retention and 2.3.4 Transition Plan?

A6: With reference to the Proposal Content and Volumes table presented in Section 3.0, the total 15 page limit under 2.3 Management Plan must include the following:

2.3.1 Overall Management Approach,

2.3.2 Usage of Teaming, Personnel, and

2.3.3 Transition Plan.

Reference: RFP, Section L-(1), Part B, Paragraph 2.1.2 & Section L-(1), Part A, 3.0 Proposal Contents and

Volumes

Q7: Section L.B.2.1.2 requires offerors to complete the Attachment P1 Workforce Qualifications spreadsheet.

Will the Government please confirm that: (1) the Attachment P1 should be included as part of the Section 2.1 submission as a standalone attachment; and (2) the Attachment P1 is excluded from the page limit for Section 2.1?

A7: The Attachment P1 Workforce Qualifications spreadsheet is a standalone document and should be included as part of the Section 2.1 submission. The Attachment P1 is excluded from the 20-page limitation under the 2.1

Workforce section. A revision to Section 2.1 under 3.0 “Proposal Contents and Volumes” has been provided to clarify this submission requirement.

Reference: RFP, Section L-(1), Part B, Paragraph 4.6 & Section M, paragraph 3.8.1

Q8: Section L.B.4.6 states that small business goals shall be "...at least 23% of the total proposed contract costs" and that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan "...shall break out costs.. and clearly show the actual percentage of the total proposed price being allocated to small business.". Section M.B.3.8.1 states the offeror must demonstrate

"..at least 23% of the total proposed contract value" to Small Business Concerns. 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/value?

A8: The Offeror must demonstrate that at least 23% of the total proposed contract value represents subcontract awards to Small Business Concerns. A revision to Section L-(1), Part B, Paragraph 4.6 has been included in the

RFP in accordance with IAW FAR 19.704(a)(2).

Reference: Revisions to Amendment 0002, posting on 02 November 2016 (See QA’s 4, 5)

Q9: This offeror noted that Amendment 0002 significantly changed the labor mix from the original solicitation, which closely mirrored the current workforce, to a much more junior workforce. Eleven (11) key personnel (senior positions) were revised to junior positions. We also noticed that there was no change to the requirements of the

Statement of Work (SOW) that would coincide with the skill mix reduction. There is concern that this revision to a much lower skill mix could negatively impact contract performance and present a significant amount of risk, not only to successful contract execution by the contractor, but also cost, schedule and performance risk to the programs the contractor will support. Will the Government please revise the hours changed in Amendment 0002 for the junior positions back to Non-Key Senior positions as originally requested pre Amendment 0002?

A9: After a thorough review, the revised Amendment 0002 labor mix remains unchanged.