ETMS_Questions&Answers.docx

ETMS Questions: N00421-16-R-0021

Question 1: Section L, 3.8.2 States “The Government estimate is 515,000 hours for the entire performance based work effort”, but does not specify the hours associated with each labor category (CPFF & FFP) and does not provide the allocation to the different funding types indicated by the CLIN structure. […] If the quantity of services is unknown, how can the government expect an Offeror to provide the breakdown of hours per labor category (CPFF & FFP) and funding type? To ensure all Offerors are afforded a fair opportunity to compete, will the government provide the breakdown of hours per labor category, funding type and CPFF/FFP?

Answer 1: As this is a Performance-based effort, the Government is stating the outcomes desired rather than prescribing the solution or specifying the hours associated with each labor category. As such, all offerors are afforded a fair opportunity to propose an approach (labor categories, hours, etc.) based on its understanding of the work. This method allows for alternative approaches rather than restricting offerors to the incumbent’s approach. The Government does not expect offerors to propose to not separately priced (NSP) CLINs. To clarify its intention, the Government will revise Section B, Attachment P1 Cost Summary tab to include labor categories, and will revise Attachment P1 Summary tab to indicate the CLINs that should be included in the summary tab. Please monitor fbo.gov for updates.

Question 2: Reference Section L, 3.3, page 109 of 125, states “The Offeror shall use the CLIN Summary tab to breakout total proposed costs by CLIN.” However, Attachment P1 does not have a “CLIN Summary” tab. It only has a “Cost Summary Spreadsheet” tab and a “Summary” tab. Please clarify, is the offeror supposed to complete a “Cost Summary Spreadsheet” tab for each CLIN (0001, 0009, 0025 and 0033)? Or is the offeror supposed to complete a “Cost Summary Spreadsheet” tab for each CLIN 0001 through 0039?

Answer 2: The Government will amend the solicitation and Attachment P1 to clarify its intention. Please monitor fbo.gov for updates.

Question 3: Reference Section B CLIN Structure and Attachment P1, Cost Summary Spreadsheet, The CLIN structure […] asks for pricing for CLIN 0001 which covers all CPFF labor hours and then asks for a breakdown of CLIN 0001 into CLINs 0002 thru 0008 (the sum of which will equal CLIN 0001) to account for different funding types which may or may not happen. […] Please confirm if the Offeror is to provide a “Cost Summary Spreadsheet” tab for each CLIN 0001 through 0039?

Answer 3: Please see the Government’s answer to Questions 1 and 2.

Question 4: Reference Section B, CLIN 0033 asks the offeror to price “Field Services Ceiling” as a Cost reimbursable CLIN in accordance with the PWS. Is this a Labor CLIN? If so, why isn’t it a CPFF or a FFP CLIN? If this is a labor CLIN, will the government provide a breakdown of the hours between labor category and funding type? If it is not a Labor CLIN, will the government provide an estimate of the Cost anticipate by funding type so that each Offeror has a fair opportunity to bid these “services” with any applicable burdens?

Answer 4: Field Services is not a labor CLIN. The Government will amend the solicitation to provide an estimated cost break down for Material, Travel and Field Services. Please monitor fbo.gov for updates. As to funding type, please see the Government’s answer to Question 1.

Question 5: Reference Section L, 3.8.1, page 112 of 125, lists the estimated ODC dollars for each year. However, Section B requires the Offeror to breakdown these costs by different funding type which may or may not occur. To ensure all bidders have a fair opportunity to price, will the government provide the breakdown of the ODC’s for each funding type? Or will the government remove the requirement to breakdown the estimate by funding type as we are only building ceiling for an IDIQ contract?

Answer 5: Please see the Government’s answer to Question 2.

Question 6: Reference Section B CLIN 0009 is stated as a FFP CLIN for a 5 year period. How will a task order be issued for this CLIN? Will it be a single task order for the entire 5 year period?

Answer 6: The Government has not determined how task order(s) will be issued, but any task order will incorporate CLINs 0010 through 0016 to delineate appropriation type. Please monitor fbo.gov for updates.

Question 7: Reference Section B CLIN 0009 is stated as a FFP CLIN which is a sum of CLINs 0010 through 0016. If CLIN 0009 is a FFP CLIN why is there a need to provide CLIN 0010 through 0016 separately?

Answer 7: The Government is required to clearly delineate funding by appropriation type.

Question 8: Reference Section L, 3.8.2, page 112 of 125, States “The Government estimate is 515,000 hours for the entire performance based work effort.” This differs from the IGCE that was provided when the Sources Sought was released. To ensure all bidders have a fair opportunity to price out ceiling for this IDIQ, will the government provide the detail as to how this labor hour estimate breaks down between each labor category as well as the labor categories and hours that are attributed to the CPFF CLINs and the FFP CLINs?

Answer 8: Please see the Government’s answer to Question 1.

Question 9: Reference Section L, 3.8.5, page 113 of 125, states “The Government has the ability to provide 49 spaces on an annual basis at its facility for this effort.” Please identify which labor categories will be government site and which labor categories will be contractor site?

Answer 9: The Government has made provisions for all labor categories to be onsite. Offerors should determine onsite/offsite based on the approach.

Question 10: Reference Section M, 3.0 Firm Fixed Price, page 120 of 125, states “The total evaluated price will be the sum of the Base Period CLINs plus the sum of all Option Period CLINs. The evaluation will not bind the Government to exercise any of the options.” According to the Section B, page 16 of 125, this will be a contract with a 5 Year Ordering period. No base year and no option years. Please clarify this Section M statement?

Answer 10: The Government will amend the solicitation to clarify Section M, 3.0 Firm Fixed Price. Please monitor fbo.gov for updates.

Question 11: Section L 1.0 General, states that a Principal Subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 20% of the proposed total cost/price, which appears to be language taken directly from the NAVAIR Streamlined Section L which was released recently. Also, Section L states that an offeror can’t submit a subcontractor’s past performance for evaluation unless they are a Principal Subcontractor. […] If the government would like to see more than one bid for this contract change this factor to 10%, which mirrors what most NAVAIR procurements have required from a historical perspective. […] Answer 11: The Government will amend the solicitation to address this issue. Please monitor fbo.gov for updates.

Question 12: Under Section L.2.1 General (Past Performance) the RFP states that the window for past performance is 7 years. This seems like a departure from NAVAIR’s standard practices. Doesn’t the NAVAIR Streamlined Section L template state that 5 years is the standard? […] Answer 12: The Government is requesting 7 years of past performance history to allow small business a larger window to demonstrate experience, which increases competition and fair opportunity.

Question 13: Relative to most other NAVAIR service contracts this RFP seems to have too many key positions. […] The government should reduce the number of key positions by removing Key status from the Manager, Senior Multi-Media Specialist, and at least 2 of the Senior Engineer/Scientists.

Answer 13: The Key positions are vastly diversified and Senior types will be required to provide services as described in PWS on day one. The resumes are needed to ensure that proposed personnel meet the minimum qualifications including experience and education.

Question 14: While your applicable document section includes DoD Directive 8570.01-M (Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program) as it should, your labor categories are extremely vague as to which IT related categories require IAT/IAM Levels 2 or 3. […] Based on the requirements of the 8570 instruction, and how NAVAIR is implementing 8570 everywhere else, all personnel proposed under the following labor categories require either a Security+ or CISSP certification, at a minimum: Principal Cybersecurity and Information Assurance Specialist, Information Assurance Analyst Senior, Systems Analyst Senior, Systems Analyst Junior, Information Management and Technology Analyst Senior, Information Management and Technology Analyst, Systems Administrator Senior, System Administrator Junior, Computer Programmer II. […] Answer 14: The instruction cited in this question has been superseded. The offeror should review the most current applicable directive and make a determination of labor categories that should have the mentioned certifications based on the type of work that is specified in the RFP.

Question 15: The Information Technology sample task (page 105) requests a level of detail that only an incumbent is going to be able to deliver. For example, the sample task spells out 11 sub-tasks, and the instructions (item 9 on Page 104) say that we have to provide the labor hours by labor category that will be required to complete the sample tasks. However, you haven’t sufficiently quantified anything in the sample task such that non-incumbents can plan the required labor hours. For example, many of the sub-tasks are very general statements such as “1) Integration of new personnel into existing government owned building which has an access control system” but you don’t tell us how many people are to be integrated. How can a non-incumbent figure out how can many hours such a task would require if we don’t know whether its 1 person that’s joining the team or 50? Or, relative to the same example you also need to tell us what kind of access control system is currently in place, such that we can review it, and make logical decisions and assumptions in our response. […] Answer 15: The number of persons is mentioned in the performance based sample task. The Government will amend the solicitation to revise the sample task to state that offerors should share their knowledge of electronic access control systems.

Question 16: […] Why does this particular contract have a much more detailed rubric for past performance evaluation than is provided in the standard NAVAIR Streamlined Section M template? Why would the government need to go to this length to evaluate competitors for a contract that will be providing fairly standard technical and management services? […] Answer 16: This rubric was included to assist offerors with understanding the Government criteria for relevant and recent past performance in an attempt to increase competition, provide clarity, and improve the quality of proposals.

Question 17: While the Sources Sought included an IGCE (providing labor hours / categories / funding type) the final RFP (Section L. 3.8.2) simply provides a government estimate of 515,000 total hours, within which offerors are to propose a mix of labor categories based on their understanding of the work. How does this support competition as the incumbent will know exactly how to best distribute those hours between categories? […] Answer 17: Please see the Government’s answer to Question 1.

Question 18: […] This RFP is clearly out of step with the current NAVAIR business environment, and the business philosophy […]. Will you address this issue?

Answer 18: The RFP was based on the NAVAIR template and it should promote fair opportunity for small businesses to compete while gaining the benefits of performance based contracting. Please see Amendment 1 of the solicitation.

Question 19: Reference Section C, 3.1, the small lead-in paragraph associated with this PWS Section states “The Contractor shall perform design, development, integration, testing, evaluation, installation, fielding, maintenance and sustainment….” However, Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 don’t seem to address anything regarding antenna design, development and integration, or the actual installation/integration of antennas on airborne or shipboard systems. If this is the case we would like to suggest that the government remove those words from Section 3.1. Our point is that the broad words within Section 3.1 may give non-incumbent firms the impression that the contemplated antenna work in Section 3.1 – 3.1.2 is significantly more complex (i.e. antenna design, integration, and installation), and thus more costly, than the actual work (which focus on the lower cost labor needed to perform repair and testing) will really require. Clarifying this will result in NAVAIR receiving better priced proposals for this work.

Answer 19: The Government will amend the solicitation to clarify this section. Please monitor fbo.gov for updates.

Question 20: Reference Section C, 3.1 – 3.1.2, Can you provide clarification as to the labor category(s) that will primarily support performance work statement Sections 3.1 – 3.1.2? It seems that most of the work described in those sections focuses on the review and repair of antennas and associated testing, however the only labor category that seems to directly mention physical repair of items is the Journeyman Field Technician. Is that correct?

Answer 20: NAVAIR standard labor category verbiage was used. The offeror should propose labor categories that best fit its ability to perform the tasking in the RFP.

Question 21: There are many references to Standard Operating Procedures in the PWS. Will the government provide interested firms with copies of the various standard operating procedures that are referenced within the RFP? This will allow interested firms to prepare more competitive proposals. Interested companies should review all of these documents to help them write accurate proposals. An example would include the Antenna Range Standard Operating Procedure mentioned in Section 3.1.

Answer 21: The sample task is intended to showcase the offeror’s general knowledge and understanding of antenna range operation including life cycle management. The SOP will be provided following contract award.

Question 22: Reference Section C, 8.0, In reviewing the request for proposal and evaluating the performance work statement against the labor categories we don’t see a labor category intended to support Section 3.3 Engineering and Prototyping. Specifically, we don’t see a labor category that includes actually fabricating items, operating CNC machines, molding plastics and resins, fabrication and bending of sheet metal, and the finishing of parts to include coatings. Can you tell us which labor category is intended to support this portion of the work or will you add a category as appropriate?

Answer 22: The applicable labor categories should have the appropriate level of knowledge of fabrication methods. The offeror is not required to actually perform fabrication type work.

Question 23: Reference Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers, Does, or should, the Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts clause apply to this contract. Please clarify, and if so please designate which labor categories are covered. Several labor categories in the request for proposal are appropriate for Department of Labor and SCA standards and designating those labor categories will ensure that you receive consistent proposals from all companies that bid and support a fair assessment of proposed costs.

Answer 23: This is not a SCA contract so the Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts clause does not apply. However, offerors must adhere to SCA minimum wage rates for those categories which qualify. The Government will amend the solicitation to address this issue.

Question 24: Reference Section B, page 16 of 125, Additional Information states “In accordance with NAVAIR Clause 5252.216-9506, the maximum value of this contract is the maximum value of the CLINS.” CLIN 0001 equals the sum of CLINs 0002 thru 0008, this would double an offerors estimated cost (ceiling) for these CLINs, The same for the FFP CLINs. CLINs 0010 thru 0016 have an “NSP” suggesting these CLINs are Not Separately Priced, yet ask for an “Estimated Cost”. Is this CLIN structure correct? It seems to differ significantly from other IDIQ contracts which utilize different types of funding that have been awarded lately which only breakdown the CLINS of labor, materials and travel to establish ceiling. Is the Offeror supposed to provide an estimated cost (ceiling) for CLINs 0001 (CPFF), 0009 (FFP), 0017 (Travel), 0025 (Materials), 0033 (Field Services) only?

Answer 24: Please see the Government’s answer to Questions 1 and 2.

Question 25: There appear to be many issues/questions to be resolved before potential offerors can determine if they can submit a quality bid. Will the government consider extending the proposal due date 30 days after answers are provide?

Answer 25: The Government will amend the solicitation to extend the proposal due date. Please monitor fbo.gov for updates.

Question 26: Section L, paragraph 3.8.2 states the Government estimate is 515,000 hours for the entire performance based work effort. Will the Government identify the labor hours to be proposed for each key and non-key labor category identified in Section C, paragraph 7.0 of the solicitation?

Answer 26: Please see the Government’s answer to Question 1.

Question 27: In Section C, 7.0 Personnel Qualifications show the number of employees to be proposed for each key labor category. The number of employees to be proposed for the non-key labor categories were not stated. Will the Government be providing the required number of employees to be proposed for each non-key labor category as well?

Answer 27: No, this is a performance based requirement. The number of key personnel was stated so that offerors could submit resumes for purposes of workforce evaluation.

Question 28: On page 116 of the solicitation, the place of performance is identified as “Webster Field, St. Inigoes, MD, contractor facilities, and temporary duty location during travel. Will the Government identify which labor categories are to be proposed as onsite and offsite labor categories?

Answer 28: Please see Government’s answer to Question 9.

Question 29: Section B includes several NSP CLINs which require dollar amount entries or cost entries in accordance with the various types of Government funding specified by the CLIN. However, there is no information contained in the solicitations which identify labor categories/labor hours alignment to the Government funding types specified in Section B. Will the Government specify the alignment of labor categories/labor hours for the various Government funding types (i.e., WCF, RDT&E, O&M etc,) stated in Section B?

Answer 29: Please see the Government’s answer to Question 1.

Question 30: Section L, paragraph 3.8.1 provided the Government’s yearly estimates for ODCs but does not breakout the yearly dollar estimates for travel, material or field services support required to complete Section B ODC CLINs. Will the Government provide a yearly estimate for each ODC CLIN (i.e., travel, material and field services support) identified in Section B?

Answer 30: The Government will amend the solicitation to breakout the yearly dollar estimates for travel, material or field services. Please monitor fbo.gov for updates.

Question 31: My company would like to request the government amend the RFP to make it clear what level of security clearance (none, secret, or top secret) are required by for each position. The RFP includes guidance referencing compliance with the general requirements of DoDI 5200.02 and otherwise, however we request that the government spell out exactly what level of clearance that each category is required. Different levels of required security clearance can make a significant difference in labor costs for each category. Additionally, per the NISPOM and current Navy and NAVAIR policy, please note than most of your IT related categories (cybersecurity, systems administrators, systems analysts, programmer, etc.) are required to meet the Navy’s IT Level 1 standard. This means that the people proposed for those positions must at a minimum hold a final Secret clearance as well as a Single Scope Background Investigation. That means they must have completed a Top Secret investigation, and are then (if TS is not required otherwise) downgraded to Secret, in order to meet the Navy’s IT workforce security standards.

Answer 31: The Government is in process of implementing Cyberspace/IT/Cybersecurity/Management education and certification requirements for Government employees per SECNAV-M-5239.2 (June 2016). It is understood that requirements for contractor personnel will mirror that of the government personnel requirements. The offeror should review each paragraph in the PWS and determine the corresponding level of clearance as required by SECNAV M-5239.2 (June 2016). The Government will amend the solicitation to address this issue. Please monitor fbo.gov for updates.

Question 32: Regarding the fabrication workload on paragraph 3.3, please provide additional information regarding the equipment to be utilized to perform this work.

Answer 32: Operation of fabrication machinery is not required. Knowledge and understanding of practical application of fabrication machinery and materials is required.

Question 32a: Please confirm that all such equipment and materials are government property and reside within government spaces.

Answer 32a: Please see the Government’s answer to Question 32a.

Question 32b: Will bidders need to provide C-N-C machines and other equipment, or is all such equipment and materials provided by the government?

Answer 32b: Please see the Government’s answer to Question 32a.

Question 32c: Do bidders need to have a local contractor site fabrication facility?

Answer 32c: Bidders do not need to have a local contractor site fabrication facility.

Question 33: Can bidders expect the government to provide copies of all the MIL-STDs that are referenced in the RFP as well other SOPs?

Answer 33: All the MIL-STDs are publicly available, but due to ITAR and DISTRIBUTION Code requirements copies of the SOPs cannot be provided to bidders. The SOPs will be provided following contract award.

Question 34: Please provide a clear listing of labor hours related to each category. Asking bidders to simply make a guess in their proposals may inadvertently help the incumbent and seems to be counter to most other Navy RFPs.

Answer 34: Please see the Government’s answer to Question 1.

Question 35: Can you confirm for bidders which positions will be located in government workspaces and which will be working from contractor workspaces? Or, are all of the labor hours to be worked from government workspaces?

Answer 35: Please see the Government’s answer to Question 9.

Question 36: My company has reviewed the RFP and the CLIN structure in detail and we request that the government consider another CLIN approach, or to greatly expand your costing instructions. We feel that the CLIN structure in the RFP is not reasonable for this work and the instructions within the RFP are not adequate for bidders to understand what the government wants priced per the CLINs.

Answer 36: Please see the Government’s answers to Questions 1 and 2.

Question 37: Our proposed major teammate supports similar network requirements for other Navy commands and from our Team’s experience, supported by clear DoD and Navy guidance, is that any contractor position that addresses cyber security, information assurance, network security, or software development requires an IAT or IAM level II or III certification. Does that requirements pertain to the information technology categories in this RFP? The RFP generally mentions that offerors should ensure compliance with DoD and Navy information security requirements, but we request that you amend each information technology labor category to clearly state which level of IAT or IAM compliance should be proposed.

Answer 37: Please see the Government’s answer to Question 31.

Question 38: Does SCA apply to this contract? If so, which labor categories are currently SCA under the incumbent contract(s)?

Answer 38: Please see the Government’s answer to Question 23.

Questions not included in this document will be addressed next week.