15-R-0092_ANSWERS_TO_INDUSTRY_QUESTIONS_III.docx

Answers to Industry Questions III

1. Section L, para 3.0 Volume 3, p. 103: The requirements for Corporate Experience are confusing as it relates to Principal Subcontractor’s and Team Members. Para 3.0 does not mention a requirement for corporate experience from subcontractors, but para 3.1 does. The same issue mentioned in question 4 applies to this requirement also. We are not sure what (how many references) to ask from our subcontractors for either Past Performance or Corporate Experience. Please clarify the requirement. Would the government please extend the due date for this proposal after providing clarification?

· Corporate Experience: Per Section L, Part B, 3.0 and 3.1, the proposal shall include Corporate Experience from the Offerors, Principal Subcontractors, and Team Members.

· Past Performance: Refer to Section L, Part B, 4.1 General for clarification on the past performance references.

2. The RFP requires Volume 3 Corporate Experience and Volume 4 Past Performance. By nature there will be considerable overlap and repetition between these volumes. Part A General Instructions, paragraph 3 on page 96 of 121 states, “There is no need to repeat information in more than one volume if an overlap exists.” Request the Government clarify the information required in Volume 3 that may be omitted from Volume 4.

· Section L, Part A General Instructions was updated via amendment.

3. Section L, Part B, Specific Instructions, Para. 3.0, VOLUME 3: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE, Amendment 0001, pages 10-11 On page 10, offerors are instructed to "utilize Attachment #2, Corporate Experience Tables (CE-1 and CE-3), to provide information for this volume." Table CE-2 Corporate Experience Summary provided in Attachment #2 is not specifically mentioned and does not have correlating guidance in Section L on pages 10-12. Is Table CE-2 required to be used to present the information required in Paragraph 3.2, Evaluation Areas, on Page 11?

· Table CE-2, Corporate Experience Summary is not required for this solicitation. This was updated via amendment.

4. Tables CE-1 and CE-2 in RFP Attachment 2: Instructions for Column A of the Corporate Experience Tables CE-1 and CE-2 reference Table ES-2 (Relevant Contract Summary); however; there is no such table. Is the referenced Relevant Contract Summary table supposed to be Past Performance Data Requirements summary table described in Paragraph 4.2 on Page 13?

· Table CE-2, Corporate Experience Summary is not required for this solicitation. This was updated via amendment.

5. Section L, para 5.0 Cost/Price: Please confirm the only cost/price requirement is the P6 for the Sample Task.

· The only P6 requirement is for Sample Task #1. As stated in Section L, Volume 5, Cost/Price, Paragraph 5.1, the Cost/Price Volume shall contain the offeror’s cost/price proposal information for Sample Task #1.

6. RFP, Volume 5: Cost/Price: the tables, ODC and Labor Hours are not calculated properly within the tables provided on pages 110-112 of the RFP.

· The solicitation has been updated via amendment to notate the minor rounding error in detail rows above the Totals row.

7. Section L2, Paragraph 3.1, Labor hours per labor category, pages 110-112 – The hours do not sum correctly (across and down). Please revise as appropriate.

· The solicitation has been updated via amendment to notate the minor rounding error in detail rows above the Totals row.

8. RFP, Volume 5: Cost/Price, Attachment P6: Attachment P6 has a calculation for 10% Capacity Increase, but the Capacity Increase is not addressed in the RFP.

· The 10% Capacity Increase is not being used in this solicitation and Attachment #6, P-6 will be updated via amendment.

9. Is the detail included in cells A7-A32 under ‘Government Labor Categories’ simply there for illustrative purposes as they are inconsistent with the detailed Labor Categories in the body of the solicitation (Pages 43-54)?

· Attachment #6, P-6 will be updated via amendment.

10. After reviewing the attached P6 that was included in the RFP, I noticed this does not match up to the labor categories in the body of the RFP. Please clarify

· Attachment #6, P-6 will be updated via amendment.

11. Attachment 6 and RFP, Section C, Personnel Requirements: The labor categories provided in Attachment 6, costing for the Sample Task, do no match the labor categories provided within the RFP. Will the Government be correcting this variance?

· Attachment #6, P-6 will be updated via amendment.

12. Attachment 6 P6 CLIN Breakout spreadsheet references Sample Task 1 in the title, yet has multiple option year tabs. Could you please confirm that pricing will only be required for the one year sample task and, if so, that a revised spreadsheet will be provided for this purpose?

· Attachment #6, P-6 will be updated via amendment.

13. Attachment #6 : Are subcontractors required to submit an un-sanitized proposal (Attachment #6) of their cost buildup associated with the Prime Offeror’s Sample Task Order response to NAVAIR? And, if so, would you please provide submission instructions for subcontractor sealed bids?

· Per Section L, Part B, Paragraph 5.3.3, subcontractors and team members shall provide an Attachment 6 delineating the build-up of rates to the Government as applicable. Furthermore, Section L, Part B, Paragraph 5.3.5 identifies the content requirements.

· All offerors including their subcontractors and team members shall follow the submission instructions required by Section L, Part A, Paragraph 4.0

14. Section L1, Part B, Specific Instructions, Paragraph 5.1, Volume Content, page 107 – The P6 Cost Summary Spreadsheet (Attachment #6) is to be utilized to price Sample Task #1; however, there is no mention of Section B. Is the Offeror required to include any amounts in Section B for the proposal submission or is Section B to be “Completed Upon Award” at such time it will reflect the basic contract ceiling amounts shown on page 18?

· Section L, Part B, Paragraph 5.1 will be updated via amendment.

15. Section C, SOW, Paragraph 11.0, Minimum Personnel Requirements, Labor Categories, pages 43-53 – No labor category, other than Senior Logistics Engineer, allows for a candidate with a technical or engineering degree to qualify. To broaden the education requirement, is a technical or engineering degree an acceptable education discipline in addition to those specified?

· Section C, Paragraph, 11.0, Senior Logistics Engineer, Education will remain as solicited in N00421-15-R-0092. Senior Logistics Engineer falls in the engineering labor categories for purposes of task order competitions under the MAC. The other personnel requirements remain as solicited (including amendments).

16. The RFP states on Pg. 23, Par 3.1.4 - 3.1.4 “tractor shall provide logistics product support management for the technical execution and tracking during production for Foreign Military Sales. (H60)” - Is PMA-299 the only PMA that will use this contract for FMS Logistics purposes?

· No, the awarded MAC will be available to any PMA requiring incidental 6.6 FMS logistics support, and Paragraph 3.1.4 has been revised via amendment.

17. Clause 5252.247-9521, Place of Performance (NAVAIR) (OCT 2005), on page 63 – The place of performance is specified as Patuxent River, MD and contractor facilities. Should this clause be revised to allow for work to occur at other locations as defined at the TO level?

· This remains as solicited.

18. Will the evaluation of the cost, since it is based on sample task pricing, be done on the total cost or a cost per hour?

· Section M, Part B, 4.0 Price/Cost, Paragraph 4.1 Cost Realism Analysis has been updated via amendment.