QAs_27_May_2016.pdf

27 MAY 2016

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL N00421-16-R-0044

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question 1: Current Incumbent?

Answer 1: This can be found in the RFP; Section L2, paragraph 2.2

Question 2: Technical Point of Contact?

Answer 2: The COR’s information can be found in the RFP on page 2. However, the COR is currently listed as TBD and will not be added until the time of award.

Question 3: Is the 27 person level of effort for all contractors combined or is it per awardee?

Answer 3: As a Single Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, there will only be one awardee.

Question 4: Is it a show stopper if we don’t have the security clearance called out on attachment DD254?

Answer 4: Facility clearance determination for Secret level is required at the time of contract award.

Contractor personnel must receive an eligibility determination for Secret level at a minimum to cover operational need at the time of a task order award. This clarification will be reflected in the amended solicitation to follow.

Question 5: What is the anticipated award date?

Answer 5: Per NAVAIR Clause 5252.215.9503 Anticipated Award Date outlined in Section L of the RFP, the anticipated award date for this requirement is November 2016 (estimate).

Question 6: Compass Systems Inc. is currently the contractor. How large a team are they utilizing for the contract and when does their contract expire?

Answer 6: The three year total anticipated Level of Effort on the current contract is 128,160 hours. The current expiration date of the contract is January 16, 2017.

Question 7: On Page 12 of the RFP, the Period of Performance states: The contract shall commence on 16

January 2017 and shall continue 15 January 2021. However the P6 has a base period and 4 one year option periods. Would the government please clarify if the period of performance ending date should be 15 Jan 2022?

Answer 7: The IDIQ contract is for a five (5) year ordering period. NAVAIR Clause 5252.211-9507 Period of Performance will be updated accordingly.

Question 8: On page 62 of the RFP both the ODC and Labor CLIN tables state they equal 100%. However when adding the percentages both tables equal a value over 100%. Can the government please clarify the correct total values of the tables?

Answer 8: The table will be updated to correct the discrepancy.

Question 9: In the Attachment P6, the instructions state that in column B, the Offeror can insert the title of the labor category it will be utilizing. If it is comparable to one of the Government Labor Categories, then it should appear opposite that category. However, if it is not comparable, utilize the "not comparable" row. This applies to the Prime Contractor's section and those sections for its subcontractors. When reviewing the base year and the option years on the P6 column B states that

Offsite/Onsite designation is to be inserted. Can the Government please clarify what offerors are to provide in Column B of the P6 attachment?

Answer 9: Column B “On-Off Site” will be removed and column C will become B. The title and instructions for Column B will be revised as offerors are not to propose “not comparable” positions.

Question 10: In Attachment P8, the government states that the Level of Effort for Engineer Scientist Senior

(Composites) Key has 2304 Hours for the Base year and each option year. The RFP defines a man year as 1920. Was it the government’s intention to have an additional Key person for only 384 hours per year? Or is this position expected to perform overtime?

Answer 10: Overtime is not authorized under the contract and it is the offeror responsibility to determine how to meet the required labor hours.

Question 11: Page 1 of the RFP Form SF33 does not provide a submission date and time for offerors in block 9.

Can the government please clarify when the date and time is to submit proposals?

Answer 11: Due to the updates of the solicitation, an extension will be given for the submission of proposals.

The submission deadline will be reflected in block 9 of the amended solicitation to follow.

Question 12: In Section L page 51, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 10% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee), for the contract.

Section 3.0 Past Performance, defines a principal subcontract as any subcontractor providing at least 20% of the total labor cost proposed. Can the government please clarify the definition of a principal/primary subcontractor?

Answer 12: A “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 10% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee). The definition in Section 3.0 Past

Performance has been corrected and will be reflected in the amended solicitation to follow.

Question 13: With the mix of labor categories (senior positions) on the current contract supporting ongoing efforts versus the mix of labor categories (senior positions) on this RFP; Is it the Governments intent to reduce the knowledge base/capability of support for current, ongoing, and future Air

Vehicle engineering efforts?

Answer 13: The Government has identified changes in requirements and an amended solicitation will be posted making changes to the labor categories and hours.

Question 14: A Draft SOW of was released on 4/18/16, and then approximately two weeks later a RFP released on 5/3/16. Given that no section L or M requirements were release with the Draft, and the significant changes from the draft to final RFP, would the government consider giving an extension to the submission deadline so that offerors are allowed ample time to respond to the

RFP and provide a quality proposal.

Answer 14: Due to the updates of the solicitation, an extension will be given for the submission of proposals.

The submission deadline will be reflected in block 9 of the amended solicitation to follow.

Question 15: The following clauses on page 6 of the RFP refer to a “Section C.” There is no Section C in the

RFP or in the SOW. Would the Government please clarify if the “Attachment_6_SOW’ is intended to be Section C?

5252.211-9503 LEVEL OF EFFORT (COST REIMBURSEMENT) (NAVAIR)(DEC

2012) (e) In performing the contract/order, the contractor may use any reasonable combination of hours for the labor categories in support of section C of this contract/order.

5252.247-9521 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE (NAVAIR) (OCT 2005) The services to be performed herein shall be performed at the locations detailed in Section C Statement of Work, paragraph 6.2.

Answer 15: Section C will be created and will reference the attached SOW. This update will be reflected in the

Question 16: In the RFP Section L, 4.3.5.6 states “Offerors shall utilize the Not-To-Exceed (NTE) amounts provided by the Government in Section L-2, paragraph 1.0 for ODC CLINs” and Section L2, 1.0

ODC’s, 1.1 states “Offerors shall propose ODCs as outlined in the table below and Attachment

P6,” but Section L2, 1.0 ODC’s, 1.1.1 states “The values provided above are for informational purposes only. The Offeror should propose costs/prices for the ODC CLINs that it determines reasonable and appropriate.” Is it the government’s intent for all offerors to propose just the NTE amounts as provided by the Government?

Answer 16: The offeror shall propose in accordance with the ODCs outlined in Section L of the RFP. The

ODC amounts outlined will be updated in the amended solicitation to follow.

Question 17: In the RFP section J, an attachment P5_Past Performance is referenced. However, when opening the P5 attachment, the header states the form is a P2 attachment and questionnaire. Can the government please clarify if the attachment is a P2 or a P5?

Answer 17: The attachment P5_Past Performance had the incorrect header title. This has been corrected and will be reflected in the amended solicitation to follow.

Question 18: In the RFP, Section M, paragraph 1.0 states, The government intends to select an offeror based on

Best Value, The Offeror is advised that the proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. Paragraph 2.1 states, The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation, in accordance with the solicitation. However, Section M, paragraph

5.0 Clauses incorporated by full text references clause:

5252.215-9524 BASIS FOR AWARD (NAVAIR) (JUL 1998)

Award will be made to that responsible offeror proposing the lowest price for supplies or services meeting the requirements of the solicitation.

All proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability. Proposals that do not conform to the requirements of the solicitation may be rejected without further evaluation, deliberation or discussion. The low priced, technically acceptable offer submitted by a responsible offeror will be awarded the contract.

This clause indicates that this is NOT a best value contract, and that proposals will not be awarded on a Best value basis. Can the government please clarify if their intentions for this contract are

“Best Value” or LPTA?

Answer 18: This contract will be awarded to the Contractor with the Proposal that is the Best Value to the

Government. Clause 5252.215-9524 BASIS FOR AWARD (NAVAIR) (JUL 1998) will be removed. This update will be reflected in the amended solicitation to follow.

Question 19: Appendix A of the SOW lists each labor category; however it does state the security clearance level that must be obtained within each labor category. Can the government please confirm if contractors are required to have security clearances for this effort, and if so, what level of clearance will be required? Additionally, will clearances be required at the start, 30, 60, or 90 days from contract award?

Answer 19: Facility clearance determination for Secret level is required at the time of contract award.

Contractor personnel must receive an eligibility determination for Secret level at a minimum to cover operational need at the time of a task order award. This clarification will be reflected in the

Question 20: Attachment P1 workforce quals, instruction 7 states the “Type of Degree Earned” should be listed as one of the following HS, GED, AA, AS, BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, PHD or none. Instruction 8, states the “Field of Study” should be listed as one of the following HS, GED, AA, AS, BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, PHD or none. Would the government consider deleting one of these columns due to the redundancy of the information?

Answer 20: Instruction 8 of the Attachment P1 has been corrected. This update will be reflected in the

Question 21: The Engineer/Scientist, Journey (Structures) indicates this labor category is a Key Labor Category.

The attachment P8 indicates the level of effort is for 6 FTE’s. Can the government please clarify if all 6FTE’s are Key personnel? If not, how many of the 6 are Key, and what location are they in?

Answer 21: The upcoming solicitation amendment will address changes to the key personnel.

Question 22: In Section L, subsection 3.0, page 53 states that “The Offeror shall submit a Cross Reference

Matrix (CRM) for the Technical Volume, similar to the example below, to help ensure that all solicitation requirements are addressed and to facilitate the evaluators’ review of the Offeror’s proposal.” For the Technical Volume Section 2.0, Offerors are to provide a response to two sample tasks, and the sample tasks do not cover all of the areas in the SOW. Can the government please clarify how they would like Offerors to reference that all areas of the SOW have been addressed in the cross reference matrix?

Answer 22: The Cross Reference Matrix has been removed from the solicitation. This update will be reflected in the amended solicitation to follow.

Question 23: In section 2.2 Workforce of the RFP, subparagraph 2.2.1 states that no Perspective Hires may be proposed as Key personnel. This requirement seems unrealistic given that these positions are not funded on the current contract, and with this being an IDIQ contract in which funding will be given upon task order awards. It would be unethical, for an offeror to make a contingent offer of employment to personnel in a labor category, exclusively for bid purposes, knowing that the offeror could not fulfill that committed offer of employment, due to lack of or no funding. Would the Government consider removing or revising the no perspective hires for Key personnel? If not, will the government please provide assurance that the Key Personnel billets will have funding upon contract award?

Answer 23: The upcoming solicitation amendment will address changes to the key personnel.

NOTE: Other changes to the instructions in Section L and evaluation criteria in Section M and the attachments are being reviewed. An amended solicitation will be posted to reflect all updates.