Questions_received_as_of_23_December_2015.pdf

N00421-16-R-0005 Questions received as of 23 December 2015

Q1. There appears to be seven positions marked as “Vacant” throughout the contract period of performance. Given that this represents a large percentage of the RFP (seven out of 25 FTEs or

28% of the effort) where the government is not sure whether personnel are needed for staffing, would the government consider removing these positions from the RFP or adding hours for additional personnel in Option Years vs. having them marked as vacant for the entire contract period?

The Government has restructured the chart as a result of this question to clarify the positions. All final changes will be reported within the Final RFP.

Q2. Given Part time positions noted in the Workforce Hours Table in Section L and the Security

Clearance Table in Section C 8.1 there appears to be the need for 14 key resumes. Accounting for the fact that the government has marked 7 of the 25 positions as “Vacant”, the need for 14 key resumes when the government is anticipating the need for 18 FTEs in the base year seems excessive.

Would the government consider reducing the number of key resumes to a number that is more in line with the size of the contract?

This information will be reflected in the final RFP.

Q3. 5252.237-9501 (ADDITION OR SUBSTITUTION OF KEY PERSONNEL (SERVICES)

(NAVAIR)(OCT 2005)) specifies that “during the first six (6) months no key personnel substitutions or additions will be made…”. However, the government is not certain whether it will staff key positions (marked as vacant) in the base year for Senior Program Analyst, Senior Acquisition

Specialist and Senior Systems Engineer. If the government is not certain that it will staff these positions, should those positions be key positions?

The Government has restructured the chart as a result of this question to clarify the positions, as such, only those Key Personnel Resumes submitted for the Base Year (excluding the option) would apply. Key personnel resumes submitted for any of the positions listed within the Option will be evaluated at the time of submission/exercise of option.

Q4. Given Part time positions noted in the Workforce Hours Table in Section L and the Security

Clearance Table in Section C 8.1 there appears to be a high number of part time positions (6 different part time positions). Accounting for the vacant positions noted in the base year, part time positions account for 33% of the staffing. Is the intent of the government to have offerors find personnel that match more than one labor category to fill these part time requirements?

The Government does not provide strategic advice; it is the offeror’s business decision as to how they propose to staff the effort.

Q5. Given Part time positions noted in the Workforce Hours Table in Section L and the Security

Clearance Table in Section C 8.1 there appears to be four key part-time personnel noted. Having four part time key personnel seems unusual. Does the government intend that part time key personnel fill dual roles? If so, please elaborate on the other part-time positions that part time key personnel are intended to fill. If the person is intended to fill two roles, does one set of position requirements supersede the other?

a) Please see the response for Q4.

b) If the offeror plans to propose an individual for two (2) labor categories, no one position will supersede the other.

Q6. Since there is additional desired experience for key personnel and, per section M, the government will be evaluating key personnel on labor qualifications including desired experience

(ex. Experience with ASW systems, subsystems, and sensor components, P-3, P-8A, MH-60R, MQ-

4C, MQ-8C, V-22, and or RQ-21A mission systems, hardware and software, configuration control, test and evaluation, systems integration and systems supportability). This coupled with the high number of key personnel, the part time key personnel, and the Section M top technical criteria of

Staffing and Personnel might appear to favor the incumbent. What is required to gain an

Outstanding rating for staffing and personnel?

The definition for an Outstanding rating is contained within the RFP.

Q7. It is not typical for Senior Program Analysts to have a Level 3 IA certification and staffing for this position will be especially difficult. Most NAVAIR Senior Program Analysts are not required to obtain this certification. A specialized Level 3 IA certification requirement on top of the additional desired experience will severely limit the local available pool of candidates. Would the government consider removing the Level 3 IA certification requirement bringing the requirements more in line with other PMA requirements for Sr. Program Analysts?

The requirement for Level 3 IA certification has been removed.

Q8. The original contract N00178-05-D-4520 was through SeaPort. Do you know if the above referenced solicitation will also be through SeaPort and therefore only contractors who are on seaport currently have the opportunity to win the contract?

No, this solicitation will occur within SPS and therefore be posted on FedBizOps.

Q9. Page 34. Refers to OPSEC Plan IAW CDRL A002. OPSEC Plan is A003 in the attachments.

The SOW and CDRLs have been updated in the final RFP to reflect the correct number.

Q10. Page 34. Program Protection Implementation Plan (PPIP) should refer to CDRL A004 not

A003.

The SOW and CDRLs have been updated in the final RFP to reflect the correct number.

Q11. Page 37. 8.2.2 refers to CDRL A002, should be A003.

The SOW and CDRLs have been updated in the final RFP to reflect the correct number.

Q12. Page 37. Request language in last sentence of first paragraph of 8.3 be modified from … upon contract award., to … no later than five business days after award.

The Government has accepted this recommendation. All changes (if any) will be contained within the final RFP.

Q13. Page 38. End of paragraph at 8.4 refers to a quarterly report (CDRL A0002). There is no

CDRL A0002. CDRL A002 is a Technical Report delivered as required. Suggest the language here be changed delete the last sentence as written and replace with …. The Contractor shall address gains/losses and any changes to current personnel in the monthly Contractor’s Progress, Status, and Management Report (CDRL A001).

The SOW and CDRLs have been updated in the final RFP to reflect the correct number.

Q14. Page 38 / 39 / 40 / 57. Suggest vii at 8.6 (page 39) change to … telework, Government facility closure and emergency planning policies. Request language in last sentence of second paragraph at 8.8 be modified from … may not work in Government spaces… to Contractor personnel may work from Contractor’s facility or telework if Government spaces are closed due to severe weather, security threat or any other Government facility related problem. These changes will maintain consistency across paragraphs 8.6, 8.8 and 13.0 (page 57).

The Government has evaluated this suggestion and the RFP will stand as currently written.

Q15. Page 41. Last sentence at 8.9 needs to be completed after …. As follows:

This paragraph is being revised to delete the last sentence as this is Non-Performance Based contract with

Not-to-Exceed ceilings for ODCs.

Q16. Page 45 / Page 50. Function of Systems Engineer, Journey Level appears to be overstated by expecting a journeyman to have “…knowledge identifying, formulating, designing and/or testing

… and guide the engineering development…” (page 45); and requires a “BS or BA degree in engineering, physics, computer science, or mathematics,” (page 50) but does not have an allowable substitution of experience for a degree. This requirement for a degree appears to be inconsistent with a Journey Level person who has gained their knowledge from numerous independent courses and years of experience. No substitution is inconsistent with the other engineering categories.

Suggest changing the requirement to allow … an additional four (4) years of experience can be substituted for a BS or BS degree.

All final changes will be reported within the Final RFP.

Q17. Page 47. Program Analyst, Senior identifies “Level 3 IA certification required.” This requirement is an Information Assurance Technical or Manager with a CISSP, CISM or GSLC certification per DoD 8570.01-M. Level III is Enclave/Advanced Network and Computer, this is the highest certification level. The “IA certification programs are intended to produce IA personnel with a baseline understanding of the fundamental IA principles and practices related to the functions of their assigned position.” This requirement appears to be inconsistent with the functions of the a Program Analyst, Senior. Suggest the requirement for Level 3 IA certification be deleted.

Please see the Government’s response to Q7.

Q18. Page 57. Paragraph 12.1 discusses Labor Hours, but elements 1 through 5 refer to non-labor activities. Is this language appropriate and correct?

All final changes will be reported within the Final RFP.

Q19. Page 62. (just addressing base year 000 items, but is in regard to all years) First paragraph identifies Items 0001 & 0002 and 0004 & 0005. Second paragraph identifies Item 0007 and refers that it is in support of CLIN 0005 (and others). CLIN 0005 is Material RDT&E, and CLIN 0007 is

Material OPN. Is “INSPECTION & ACCEPTANCE PMA264” (page 62) correct as written?

Yes, this is written correctly. However, due to the restructure of the CLINs this section has been revised and will be updated in the Final RFP.

Q20. Page 68. At 5252.247-9521 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE (NAVAIR) (OCT 2005) CRANE, IN is identified as a place of performance. There does not appear to be any position associated with

CRANE, IN. Can you provide an explanation of the effort in CRANE, IN.

The location was included in error. Therefore, this clause will be updated within the Final RFP.

Q21. Page 76. 5252.204-9502 refers to a personnel gains/losses quarterly report. Suggest replacing the quarterly reporting requirement with replace with …. The Contractor shall address gains/losses and any changes to current personnel in the monthly Contractor’s Progress, Status, and

Management Report (CDRL A001). This is a more stringent requirement and would be consistent with page 38 paragraph 8.4.

At this time, the Government does not anticipate changes to this clause.

Q22. Page 96. Identifies CDRL’s A001 and A002 incorrectly, and J 1, J2, J3, J4 attachments are missing.

Corrections will be made to all CDRLs in the Final RFP. Attachment J1 – J4 will be added to the awarded contract or a modification thereafter.

Q23. Page 106 at Sec L.2 Proposal Content, table section 2.1.1 Personnel states a page limitation of

10 pages, however paragraph 2.1.1, page 107 Personnel has no requirement for submission of any information. The page 106, sections 2.1.1.1 Non-Key Personnel Workforce Qualification

Spreadsheet and 2.1.1.2 Key Personnel Resumes identify separate page limitations from paragraph

2.1.1. Is there a writing requirement for section 2.1.1 or is the page limitation in error?

Please refer to the chart in Section L with regards to Section 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2.

Q 24. Page 116 at Section L-3 Government-Furnished Information Section 1.0 ODCs , ODC Travel and Material Table appears to have the travel and material numbers transposed for CLINS

2005/2006, 3005/3006 and 4005/4006. Can you confirm the accuracy of CLINs 2005/2006, 3005/3006 and 4005/4006 associated cost estimates for Travel and Material?

The Government will verify this information and will update the Final RFP if necessary.

Q25. CDRL’s.

All CDRL’s refer (Block 5) to SOW Section 8. Is this correct?

All CDRL’s refer to RFP N00421-14-R-3524. Is this correct?

Block 5 – the Government will verify this information and will update the Final RFP if necessary.

Block E – the Government will update the RFP number.

Q26. DD 254.

Block 1 (b) shows Top Secret as the level of safeguarding. Is this correct?

Block 2 (c) shows Solicitation No. as N00421-14-R-3524. Is this correct?

Block 1 – yes, the Top Secret level of safeguarding is correct.

Block 2 - the Government will update the RFP number.