NTWL_RFP_Industry_Questions_Tracker_20151105.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Naval Test Wing Atlantic (NTWL) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N00421-15-R-0044
About this file
NTWL RFP Industry Questions Tracker 20151105
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Naval Test Wing Atlantic (NTWL) has more files on GovTribe.
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
Sheet1
| N00421-15-R-0044: RFP INDUSTRY QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSES | ||||||
| Q# | RFP Document | Section/Para | Discussion / Comment / Issue | QUESTION | ANSWER | RFP Documentation Updated |
| 1 | RFP | Section L, 2.2 Manning Approach, and RFP attachment P-3_Vol2_T-2 Manning | Section L, paragraph 2.2.a requires the offeror report onsite and offsite management personnel on Table T-2 Manning. | Does the Government want these positions incorporated into the provided worksheets, or should we create a worksheet that collects and reports the required information? | All FTEs funded through the contract either onsite or offsite should be incorporated into the provided worksheets in Table T-2 (Manning). | N/A |
| 2 | P-9_Vol_5_Prime_CCS_20150609 | N/A | Treatment of labor premiums for FFP CLINs | The worksheets associated with the CPFF CLINs have a separate line to provide the cost of labor premiums. The FFP CLIN worksheets have no designated lines for cost of labor premiums. There are certain FFP employees that will have labor premiums (e.g. shift premiums). We recommend that lines be inserted on the FFP worksheets similar to those on the CPFF CLIN worksheets to record these costs. | Concur. Attachments P-9 (Vol 5 Prime CCS) and P-10 (Vol 5 NPE CCS) will be updated by inserting similar lines into the FFP worksheets and provided in Amendment 001. | Attachment P-9 Vol 5 Prime CCS |
Attachment P-10 Vol 5 NPE CCS 3 P-_Vol_5_Prime_CCS_20150609, P-3_Vol_2_T-2_Manning_20150610, and RFP L.5, Sec 3 (Page 176) Labor premiums for CPFF CLINs The RFP indicates that “Premium Pay should be transferred directly from Annex A (Manning) to the corresponding CPFF tab on the Prime Contractor Cost Summary in accordance with the instructions in the attachment.” There are a number of issues associated with this instruction: (1) The number of paid hours and associated dollar amount of premiums will not be the same from period to period even if the number of FTE is the same from period to period. This is due to the number of work days being different from period to period. For example, in the base year there are 261 work days, during option year 3 there are 262 work days, and during option year 4 there are 260 work days. (2) The number of FTE from period to period may not be the same. (3)The “Pay Premium” schedules contained on the various squadron worksheets of Table T-2 Manning is a mixture of hours associated with FFP and CPFF CLINs. (4)The “Pay Premium” schedules contained on the various squadron worksheets of Table T-2 Manning are missing shift premiums. (5) Per the CBA the Phase Coordinator premium can be $1.00, $1.25, or $1.50 per hour. For these reasons, we recommend that the paragraph on page 176 of the RFP requiring linkage of the pay premiums of Table T-2 Manning and P-9 Prime Contractor Cost Summary be removed from the RFP. The pricing portion of the Premium Pay worksheet will be removed and the instruction in Section L, Volume 5.3, Section 3, Specific Instructions for CPFF CLINS (page 176 of the current RFP) will be revised to indicate that the offeror should clearly demonstrate how the premium skills proposed in Annex A (Manning) have been priced on attachments P-9 (Vol 5 Prime CCS) / 10 (Vol 5 NPE CCS). Offerors may use any reasonable approach to demonstrate that pricing. Shift premiums shall be accounted for in the direct labor rate proposed on attachments P-9 (Vol 5 Prime CCS) / 10 (Vol 5 NPE CCS). A similar instruction will be included in the Specific Instructions for FFP CLINs section of the RFP. Section L, Volume 5, 5.3, Section 2, Specific Instructions for FFP CLINS Section L, Volume 5, 5.3, Section 3, Specific Instructions for CPFF CLINS Attachment P-3 (T-2 Manning) Attachments P-9 (Vol 5 Prime CCS) and P-10 (Vol 5 NPE CCS)
| 4 | P-11_Vol_5_FB_Labor_Rates and RFP | L.5, Sec 1 (Page 175) and M.2 Sec D (Page 192) | “Tripwire Rates” | RFP section L.5.3.1.d appears to indicate that Attachment P-11 is “For CPFF CLINs ONLY”. However, the tripwire table provided in Section M includes positions, including the On-Site Manager and Squadron Group Managers that would only be chargeable only to the FFP CLINs. Please clarify whether such positions are to be included on Attachment P-11. | NAVAIR tripwires do not apply to services proposed on a fixed price basis. | N/A |
| 5 | P-11_Vol_5_FB_Labor_Rates and RFP | L.5, Sec 1 (Page 175) and Sec 3 (Page 176) | “Tripwire Rates” | Can the provided Tripwire Rates provided in the RFP be escalated by the 2.5% escalation rate provided in the RFP when making comparisons to the escalated fully loaded labor of Exempt and SCA positions? | No, NAVAIR tripwires do not allow for escalation. | N/A |
| 6 | RFP | Sec L; 3.0 Past Performance | Paragraph states “the Offeror shall identify all contracts, or those portions of a contract, whose performance is within three years of the proposal due date and contains efforts similar to those efforts (e.g., service, O-Level aircraft maintenance, type effort, aircraft, contract tasks, contract type, contract dollar value), required by this solicitation for the principal entities identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary). Para 3.3 b. & c. set the requirements for writing to Past Performance Information and Demonstrated Systemic Improvement. The 3.0 and 3.3 requirements could potentially require bidders to write [Redacted] contracts to the full details required by 3.3 b. & c. The additional requirement to provide SOWs for each of the potentially [Redacted] contracts could result in over [Redacted] pages of proposal space. | Please clarify the requirement. We recommend the Government cap the total number of relevant contracts provided to the 3.3 b & c. requirement to the five most relevant programs (within 3 years). Should the Government desire insight to all other relevant bidder program, then we recommend bidders be required to simply provide program titles and contract numbers for relevant programs (within 3 years). | Section L, Volume 3 (Past Performance) will remain the same. |
| Final Versions of Previous SOW/PWSs/supporting solicitation/contract documentation for Past Performance and Corporate Experience is submitted in Annex C. Section L, Part A, Section 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes states "Information submitted as an Annex to a particular proposal volume could include manuals, specifications, plans, procedures, and company policies, as well as other information requested in Part B Specific Instructions and do not count towards the suggested page count." | N/A | ||||||
| 7 | Attachment J-20_QASP, Enclosure (2) | 2.5, VX-23. Table “T/M/S, Systems required for RA Aircraft” | The table does not include the EA-18G | Please define the systems required for RA aircraft. | Attachment J-20, Section 2.5, will be updated in Amendment 001 to include the EA-18G aircraft with the following Systems Required for RA Aircraft: No Downing Discrepancies / Systems as required per test plan. | Attachment J-20_QASP, Enclosure (2) 2.5, VX-23. Table “T/M/S, Systems required for RA Aircraft” | |
| 8 | RFP | Attachment L-7 | VX-20 does not show the additional PRs required for P-8 support. | Please clarify the Government Staffing estimate. | Correct. The two (2) PRs were omitted. The manpower for VX-23, Fighter Shop Powerplant increased by one, VX-20 Tool Room decreased by one, and VX-20 PR Shop increased by two. Attachment L-7 (Government Manpower Estimate) will be updated in Amendment 001. | Att L-7, VX-20 Tab (TPAs and PRs) and VX-23 Tab (Fighter Shop Powerplant) . Changes indicated in bold red. | |
| 9 | RFP | Attachment L-7 | The CBA shows a Sr Production Control Clerks in Logs and Records for TPS, Strike, and Force. Attachment L-7 does not show a Sr Production Control Clerks in Logs and Records for VX-20. | Please clarify there if there is supposed to be a Sr Production Control Clerks in Logs and Records for VX-20. | There is no requirement for a Senior Production Control Clerk in Logs and Records for VX-20. | N/A | |
| 10 | PBSOW | 6.1.6.4, Individual Material Readiness List (IMRL) (page 27) | The second bullet states “Conduct a joint phase-in inventory of all IMRL within 30 days of contract assumption, termination, and completion.” | Can the Government clarify, does “within 30 days of contract assumption” refer to the first 30 days of period of performance, first 30 days after contract award, or first 30 days of transition? | Contract assumption refers to first 30 days of period of performance. | N/A | |
| 11 | PBSOW | 15.2 a) On-Site Manager (Key) , Page 66-67 | The requirement for this position under Experience: Experience that demonstrates the ability to negotiate a CBA and manage a large unionized workforce (e.g., 550+ personnel). | Experience negotiating a CBA and managing a large union workforce (e.g., 550+ personnel) appears to give an unfair advantage to the incumbent contractor and current on-site manager. Would the Government consider changing the requirement to read: Experience that demonstrates the ability to manage a large unionized workforce? | The PBSOW, section 15.2 a) On-Site Manager (Key) , Page 66-67 will remain the same. This question was considered when initially asked as Industry Question #64 to the Draft RFP, and resolved with the revised language posted in the Final RFP on 14 September 2015. Please note, the experience must "... demonstrate the ability..." of the individual to negotiate and manage as required. | N/A | |
| 12 | RFP Section L | L.B.4.0, Volume 4 – Corporate Experience (page 168) and Attachment P-7, Table CE-1, Corporate Experience Cross Reference Matrix, Instructions sheet | Section L, Volume 4 instructions for completing table CE-1 and the Instructions sheet of Attachment P-7, Table CE-1, state: "... the Offeror shall identify the relevant portions of the contract reference's SOW/PWS to clearly identify how corporate experience performing past tasks are similar to evaluation elements 4.1.1 through 4.1.3." In some solicitations, the evaluation elements required are only identified in the RFP, and not specifically identified in the SOW/PWS. If the Offeror is limited to only using SOW/PWS requirements, the Offerors matrix may not include relevant references for the Government to evaluate only because they are in the RFP documents rather than the SOW/PWS documents. | Will the Government consider revising the Table CE-1 instructions to allow the Offeror to cite relevant portions of the contract reference’s RFP as well as SOW/PWS to identify how corporate experience is similar to evaluation elements 4.1.1 through 4.1.3? | Yes. Section L will be updated in Amendment 001. | ||
| 13 | PBSOW | PBSOW paragraph 6.1.13.6 (page 34) | The PBSOW requires the Offeror provide in-flight observers and in-flight mechanics when requested by the Government. | Can the Government identify the aircraft and squadrons that require in-flight observers and in-flight mechanics, and include the estimated annual flight hours required for the observer/mechanic services for each aircraft? | HX-21 and TPS are the only squadrons requiring in-flight mechanics and in-flight observers. The Government estimate includes in-flight duties as collateral duties. During OPY3 (01 August 2014 - 31 July 2015) 51 hours were flown with the Flight Premium charged. | N/A | |
| 14 | PBSOW | PBSOW paragraph 6.1.2.2 (page 23) | The PBSOW requires the Offeror to provide a networked maintenance management information system (MIS) for aircraft that are not covered by OOMA. No timeline is specified to have the system fully functional such as by the end of transition, or the end of the phase-in period, etc. | Will the Government provide a desired time period or deadline for the non-OOMA aircraft MIS to be fully functional? | The non-OOMA aircraft Management Information System (MIS) must be fully functional the first day of contract performance. | N/A | |
| 15 | RFP | Section L.B.2.5, Transition/Phase In Plans (page 158-159) | In Section L.B.2.5.b, Phase in, item (1), the requirement to submit a time phased manning plan and ramp-up to full manning level is normally associated with the 90 day transition period prior to the first day of the period of performance. Also in Section L.B.2.5.b, Phase in, item (1), the analysis associated with ramp up accounting for workload requirements/fluctuations, operational commitments/tempo, work in progress, and other area impacts can only be performed by the incumbent contractor as only they have access to current operational and work in progress information. In Section L.B.2.5.b, Phase in, item (2), program for training key personnel, and item (3), training plan for certification/ licensing, are also items normally associated with the 90 day transition period prior to the first day of the period of performance. | (A.) Can the Government move the Section L.B.2.5.b, phase in requirements (1), (2), and (3) from Section L.B.2.5.b and include them with the other transition requirements in Section L.B. 2.5.a? (B.) If not, can the Government clarify why the Section L.B.2.5.b items (1), (2), and (3), normally associated with the 90-day transition prior to the first day of the period of performance, are associated with the 60-day phase in period beginning on the first day of the period of performance? (C.) Can the Government delete the sentence in Section L.B.2.5.b.(1), “Analysis shall account for workload requirements/fluctuations, operational commitments/tempo, work in progress, and other area impacts,” since this analysis can only be performed by the incumbent contractor prior to contract award. | The Government will move item (1) from Section L.B.2.5.b (Phase-In) to item (4) of Section L.B.2.5.a (Transition); however, items (2) and (3) of Section L.B.2.5.b will remain in Phase-in. The sentence in Section L, Part B, Volume 2 (Technical), Section 2.5.b (Phase In Plan) “Analysis shall account for workload requirements/fluctuations, operational commitments/tempo, work in progress, and other area impacts,” will remain the same. Analysis can be made based on the historical information provided (e.g., planned aircraft flight load, planned aircraft flight hours). | Section L, Volume 2, Phase-in 2.5.b (1) will be moved to Section L, Volume 2, Transition 2.5.a (4). | |
| 16 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Para 2.0 Volume 2, para 2.2.e | This instruction asks for an "overall process description" but it is not clear to us precisely what process we should be describing. It is not clear if the requirement is to (1) Describe our process for developing our man-hours and man-loading or (2) Provide an organizational diagram with FTE summaries and total man-hours for each work center. | Please clarify the process requested by this proposal instruction. | Section L, Part B, Para 2.0 Volume 2, para 2.2.e will be updated to add "for each work center to the end of the first sentence. "The Offeror shall provide a top-level block diagram or flow chart of the overall process showing man-hours and man loading for each work center." | Section L, Part B, Para 2.0 Volume 2, para 2.2.e | |
| 17 | RFP | Section L, Table G-3, Annex D and Section L, Table G-4, Annex D and Section L 4.0, last para | Tables G-3 and G-4 require bidders provide negotiated or renegotiated CBAs. Section L, 4.0 states “In Annex D (Negotiated or Re-Negotiated CBAs), the Offeror shall provide electronic copies of the cover letters of Collective Bargaining Agreements from each of the contract references for which the Prime performed this task.” | Please clarify if bidders are to provide the entire CBAs or just the CBA cover sheets for each past performance/corporate experience example. | Only the cover letters of Collective Bargaining Agreements from each of the contract references for which the Prime performed this task are required. | N/A | |
| 18 | RFP | L.A.3 Table G-4 | Can you confirm that you are requesting only 1 paper copy (in addition to the original) of Volume 4, Corporate Experience? Other volumes have 2 paper copies. | The Corporate Experience Team verifies that only 1 paper copy is needed. | N/A | ||
| 19 | RFP | L.A.3 Catalog Card | Are Catalog Cards required for Annexes A, B and E? | Section L, Part A (General Instructions), Section 3.0 (Proposal content and volumes) requests Catalog Cards for each binder within a Volume (e.g., Volume 2 (Technical). Information submitted as an Annex to a particular proposal volume can either be submitted in the same binder as the volume or as a stand alone binder. If an Annex is submitted as a stand along binder, a catalog card is requested. |
Please be advised that catalog cards are not needed for Annex C (Final Versions of Previous SOW/PWSs/Other Supporting Documentation for Past Performance and Corporate Experience) and Annex D (Negotiated or Renegotiated CBAs) which are requested in electronic format only.
| N/A | ||||
| 20 | RFP | L.B.3.3.a.(1) b) | In Section 3.3 Evaluation, sub paragraph 1 Relevancy, b) Not Relevant; the solicitation states under “ c) Contracts from a different physical location (e.g. with different CAGE code/DUNS) than the entity proposed in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary;” are deemed not relevant however in sub paragraph 3 Past Performance, the solicitation states “Past performance of any entity with multiple CAGE codes/DUNS will be considered for the same physical location if they have distinct roles and responsibilities identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary), or the current and previous CAGE codes were created as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason and refer to the same division in the same physical location.” (emphasis added). Please clarify the role of Cage Codes, DUNS numbers, and physical location in the relevancy evaluation. | Volume 3 (Past Performance), paragraph 3.3a.(1)b) states "iii. Contracts from a different physical location (e.g. with different CAGE code/DUNS) than the entity proposed in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary)" will not be relevant. |
Volume 3 (Past Performance), paragraph 3.3a.(3) states "Past performance of any entity with multiple CAGE codes/DUNS will be considered for the same physical location if they have distinct roles and responsibilities identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary), or the current and previous CAGE codes were created as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason and refer to the same division in the same physical location. However, all current CAGE Codes/DUNS must appear in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary Table) which indicates a commitment of work for those entities. To facilitate the relevancy determination, the Offeror shall provide an explanation of why multiple CAGE codes are proposed; identify all applicable CAGE codes along with their defined roles and responsibilities, and a description of all such changes in the organization of the company within Volume 1 (Executive Summary) if past performance for a previous CAGE code/DUNS is submitted."
In accordance with the RFP references above, the CAGE code/DUNS associated with the contract reference proposed will be considered in the Past Performance relevancy determination. Generally, the CAGE code/DUNS associated with the contract reference proposed should be the same CAGE code as the entity performing the work on this solicitation to be considered relevant in the Past Performance relevancy determination. In the limited circumstances described above, when a company name/CAGE code/DUNS is updated or multiple CAGE codes are provided, it is incumbent upon the offeror to provide sufficient explanation for why the contract reference is relevant.
| N/A | |||||
| 21 | RFP | L.B.2.D | Under Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLIN X030, the solicitation states “The Cost Estimating Relationship (CER) described in RFP Section L, paragraph 5.3, Section 3.c. has been determined by the Government to be realistic for developing proposed costs for CLIN X030. Proposed costs will be evaluated for compliance with the CER. Any deviations from the CER will be evaluated for realism to establish an MPC and shall require substantial justification.” Please provide additional information regarding what constitutes “substantial justification”. | Section L Price Instructions and Section M Evaluation criteria will be revised in Amendment 0002 to indicate that offerors shall propose cost on CLIN X030 in accordance with the CER. | Section L Volume 5 (Cost/Price) and Section M. |
| 22 | Att L-2 Historical Manpower Data 20150909 |
| Att_J-14_CBA_20150909 | Is the Admin Assitant position listed in Attachment L-2 the same as Personnel Assitant 1 listed in the CBA? | Yes, the Admin Assitant position listed in Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) is the same as the Personnel Assitant 1 listed in the CBA. | N/A | ||
| 23 | Att L-2 Historical Manpower Data 20150909 |
| Att_J-14_CBA_20150910 | The Computer Operator position listed in Attacment L-2 has no corresponding position listed in the CBA. There is, however, a Computer Operator III position in the CBA. Is the Computer Operator position listed in L-2 the same as Computer Operator III listed in the CBA? | For NTWL Support the "Computer Operators" will be updated to "Computer Operator IIIs" on Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) and Attachment L-7 (Government Manpower Estimate) in Amendment 0002. | Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) and Attachment L-7 (Government Manpower Estimate) for NTWL Support tab. | ||
| 24 | Att L-2 Historical Manpower Data 20150909 |
| Att_J-14_CBA_20150911 | The Computer Programer position listed in Attacment L-2 has no corresponding position listed in the CBA. There is, however, a Computer Program II position in the CBA. Is the Computer Programer position listed in L-2 the same as Computer Programer II listed in the CBA? | For NTWL Support the "Computer Programmer" will be updated to "Computer Programmer II" on Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) and Attachment L-7 (Government Manpower Estimate) in Amendment 0002. | Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) and Attachment L-7 (Government Manpower Estimate) for NTWL Support tab. | ||
| 25 | Att L-2 Historical Manpower Data 20150909 |
| Att_J-14_CBA_20150912 | Is the Inspector position listed in Attachment L-2 the same as A/C Quality Control Inspector position listed in the CBA? | Yes, the Inspector position listed in Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) is the same as the A/C Quality Control Inspector position listed in the CBA. | N/A | ||
| 26 | Att L-2 Historical Manpower Data 20150909 |
| Att_J-14_CBA_20150913 | Is the Mechanic position listed in Attachment L-2 the same as A/C Mechanic position listed in the CBA? | Yes, the Mechanic position listed in Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) is the same as the A/C Mechanic position listed in the CBA. | N/A | ||
| 27 | Att L-2 Historical Manpower Data 20150909 |
Att_J-14_CBA_20150914 There are a number of position listed in the CBA that do not appear in Attachment L-2 to include:
Maintenance Test Pilot Senior Production Control Clerk Tech Writer Warehouse Specialist Are these position no longer being used or are they called out as another position title in Attachment L-2? Correct, there are a number of positions listed in the CBA that do not appear in Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data).
a. Historically, the Government has not had Senior Production Control Clerks and Tech Writers.
b. Maintenance Test Pilot cross walks to FCF Pilot;
| c. Warehouse Specialist cross walks to Supply Runner. | N/A | ||||||
| 28 | RFP | General | Will the FFP CLINs be invoiced using a standard FFP billing formula of 1/12th total, monthly? | The Contractor will invoice IAW the monthly price specified on the FFP CLIN. | N/A | ||
| 29 | RFP | Section L, 6.0, f., (2) | Price Attachment P-8 (Vol 5 Cost Price Exhibit B). Offerors are advised that Price Attachment P-8 Vol 5 Cost Price Exhibit B) will be used by the Government to populate Section B for the awarded contract. | Is the contractor expected to leave Section B of the model contract unpopulated? | Yes, Section B of the model contract shall not be completed by Offerors. | Section L, Volume 6, paragraph f.(2) | |
| 30 | RFP | Section/Para - Article IX | All bidders will be bound by law to the full terms of the CBA. | Can the Government attach the full terms of the CBA to the Solicitation including the CBA Job Descriptions? | The Government has included the CBA on record as Attachment J-14 and does not have any additional information to provide. Standard labor qualifications are included in Attachment J-19. | N/A | |
| 31 | |||||||
| 32 | |||||||
| 33 | |||||||
| 34 | |||||||
| 35 | |||||||
| 36 | |||||||
| 37 | |||||||
| 38 | |||||||
| 39 | |||||||
| 40 | |||||||
| 41 | |||||||
| 42 | |||||||
| 43 | |||||||
| 44 | |||||||
| 45 | |||||||
| 46 | |||||||
| 47 | |||||||
| 48 | |||||||
| 49 | |||||||
| 50 | |||||||
| 51 | |||||||
| 52 | |||||||
| 53 | |||||||
| 54 | |||||||
| 55 | |||||||
| 56 | |||||||
| 57 | |||||||
| 58 | |||||||
| 59 | |||||||
| 60 | |||||||
| 61 | |||||||
| 62 | |||||||
| 63 | |||||||
| 64 |
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .