Draft_RFP_N00421-18-R-0028_Q&A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- PEO (U&W) Program Management (PM) Support Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N00421-18-R-0008
About this file
Draft RFP N00421-18-R-0008 Questions and Answers.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 49
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
Draft RFP Questions Received
| Draft RFP Questions | Answers | |
| 1 | Do you need a security clearance to bid? | A facility security clearance is not required at the MAC level. However, at the T.O. level a facility clearance commensurate with the DD254 will be required at contract award. |
| 2 | Is it possible for you to sponsor us via DD Form 254 or otherwise? | |
| Requiring program office sponsorship is applicable at the Task Order level. | ||
| 3 | If we do not meet all of the requirements, can we still apply for portions of the IDIQ? So for example, can only apply for engineering requirement but not the logistics requirement? Will doing this disqualify our response? |
You cannot apply for portions of the solicitation. The Government requires a comprehensive solution meeting all of the requirements that could present in a task order.
| 4 | We anticipate having at least an interim facility clearance by the end of December 2017 (most likely much sooner). Will we still qualify for this IDIQ? | Please see the response posted to Question 1. |
| 5 | Can we use the background of our Key Management Personnel for relevant experience? | Relevant experience projects may have been performed by the Offeror as a prime contractor or principal subcontractor as defined in the solicitation. The experience provided shall only relate to experience gained through contracted work at the organization level. The individual experience of the Offeror personnel, or subcontractor personnel, will not be considered in the evaluation of the Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet. |
| 6 | How many awards are anticipated to be made? | The Government expects to select four (4) Offerors for the Unmanned Systems IDIQ/MAC and four (4) Offerors for the Weapon Systems IDIQ/MAC. |
| 7 | When do you anticipate the release of the RFP and subsequent award? | Release of the RFP is anticipated for first quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. First Task Order award is anticipated for fourth quarter of FY 2018. |
| 8 | Can sub contractor qualifications count towards the prime's past performance and qualifications? | Past performance is not being evaluated as part of this source selection. |
| 9 | When can we expect the RFP release? | Please see the response posted to Question 7. |
| 10 | Will there be an industry day? | An industry day is not anticipated at this time. |
| 11 | How many awards are anticipated? | Please see the response posted to Question 6. |
| 12 | Will this ultimately be let on FBO or is there another vehicle involved? | The release of this solicitation will be posted to FBO. |
| 13 | Have there been any additional acquisition strategies decided on and if so what are they? | The acquisition strategy was posted to FBO with the draft RFP. |
| 14 | When will the RFP be released? | Please see the response posted to Question 6. |
| 15 | If the Government intends to solicit and award approximately 20 contracts under the NAVAIR Small Business Program Management MAC (Solicitation # N00421-17-R-0039) in which the scope is defined as Program Management Services supporting NAVAIR PMA’s, then why is the Government planning to compete this PEO (U&W) MAC (also as a Small Business Set Aside) in which the scope includes similar Program Management Services supporting numerous PMA’s which are also included under Solicitation # N00421-17-R-0039)? Is this a duplication of similar efforts? If it is not a duplication of effort , how is it different besides slight sematic and word changes? | |
| This solicitation is not a duplication of effort. PEO(U&W) intends to solicit based on a portfolio based approach, hence, the breakout of requirements between the (U) and (W) IDIQ/MACs. | ||
| 16 | Is it the Government’s intent to recomplete the existing PMA 262 – 266 (Ausley as incumbent) & PMA-263 (Bowhead as incumbent) support contracts on this PEO (U&W) MAC and not as standalone solicitations or via the NAVAIR SB PM MAC (Solicitation # N00421-17-R-0039)? | The Government does not intend to recompete the existing contracts. The Task Orders attached to this IDIQ MAC are considered new efforts. Therefore, the incumbent information provided in the DRAFT RFP has been removed prior to the release of the final RFP. |
| 17 | Page 64/Section 9.1/Paragraph #4. Will subcontractor Projects be accepted in the Technical Proposal? | Please see the response posted to Question 5. |
| 18 | Part III: Experience Claimed for Project (Attachment L-3): The language in Attachment L-3 that is meant to correspond with Draft Solicitation section 9.1.7.5 does not match the requirement as explained in the Draft Solicitation section 9.1.7.5. Will the government consider removing "and PEO (U&W) administrative procedures" from Attachment L-3 since the Draft Solicitation section 9.1.7.5 does not state this as a requirement, and this language unnecessarily limits otherwise relevant projects? | The Government removed "and PEO (U&W) administrative procedures" from Attachment L-3. Please see the final RFP. |
| 19 | Part III: Experience Claimed for Project (Attachment L-3): The language in attachment L-3 that is meant to correspond with Draft Solicitation section 9.1.15.3 does not match the requirement as explained in the Draft Solicitation section 9.1.15.3. Will the government consider removing "in accordance with established NAVAIR Security policies" from Attachment L-3 since the Draft Solicitation section 9.1.15.3 does not state this as a requirement, and this language unnecessarily limits otherwise relevant projects? | The Government removed "in accordance with established NAVAIR Security policies" from Attachment L-3. Please see the final RFP. |
| 20 | SF33 Block 3 lists the overall MAC Solicitation number as N00421-18-R-0008. This number also appears in the header of every page. Section 3.1, last paragraph, fourth bullet states "RFP Number: N00421-17-R-0028", the last line of the delivery address in 4.0 paragraph three states "Solicitation Number: N00421-17-R-0028", and Section 4.0 paragraph four states: "The outside shipping container shall be marked with: Solicitation Number N00421-17-R-0028." Question: Will the Government please clarify the Solicitation/RFP/Contract numbers associated with each of the intended submittals (U) MAC, (W) MAC, PMA-263, and PMA-262/266. | The Government intends to update this information in the final RFP. The correct solicitation number is N00421-18-R-0008. |
| 21 | A.6 states: "Contractor personnel shall be required to have a security clearance at the level required for each specific task order." Is it the Government's intent that all personnel, regardless of labor category or work location, are required to have the clearance level indicated on the DD254? | Appropriate security clearance by labor category has been defined in final T.O.s. |
| 22 | Section H-Special Contract Requirement 5252.216-9535 (2) (ii), pg. 20 states "All cost data shall be submitted in an electronic format, by CD-ROM OR DVD....... The file format will be Microsoft Office 2003, or as specified in individual TORFPs." Section 2.1.1 Electronic Proposal Media, pg 58 states: "The Offeror will provide ..... as electronic files that are fully compatible with Microsoft (MS) Office 2010 ...... on a CD-ROM." |
Which version of MS Office should the offeror use to submit its proposal? Which format should be used to submit the electronic version, CD-ROM or DVD?
The section H contract clause 5252.216-9535(2)(iii) specifically refers to task order procedures for multiple awards and has not been updated to reflect the current software packages in use.
Section 2.1.1 Page 58 specifically identifies the version that shall be used for proposal submission of the MAC.
Please refer to all solicitation instructions located within Section L.
| 23 | 5252.222-9501 states: "….. the bidder/offeror will identify any first-tier subcontractors proposed and estimated at $10,000,000 or more, ..." | ||
| Will the Government allow the addition of subcontractors to the Prime Contractor's team after contract (or Task Order) award? | All subcontracts will be approved in accordance with 52.244-2. In addition, for first tier subcontractors over $10,000,000, a preaward clearance will be required in accordance with 5252.222-9501. | ||
| 24 | Will the government clarify the required format (hard copy and electronic/CD-ROM); number of originals and copies to be submitted by the Offeror; and the packaging of Volumes 1, 2, and 3? | The Government has updated this information in the final RFP. | |
| 25 | 3.1 Proposal Format Table, Section L 9.1.1 row for Relevant Experience Projects, page limit column, states "Template limited to three pages per project." The Attachment L-3 Relevant Experience Project Template provided by the government is four pages long (with page 4 being optional). |
| Will the Government change the page limit from three pages to four pages, to allow for the Option Verification Method page of the template? | The Government has updated this information in the final RFP. | |
| 26 | Section 3.1 Proposal Format Table does not include instructions for preparing Volume 3 Price/Cost Volume. | |
| Will the Government specify its requirements for Volume 3 to the Proposal Format Table? | The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. | |
| 27 | Section 3.1 Proposal Format Table, last row on page 61, lists ""Staffing and Personnel" as a proposal section title, with a reference to Section L 9.2.1 and with a 5 page limit. However, Section L 9.2.1 does not include any instructions on what to include in the proposal response for this section. |
| Will the Government provide directions for responding to the "Staffing and Personnel" requirement listed in the Proposal Format Table. | The Government has removed the "Staffing and Personnel" in the final RFP. | |
| 28 | RFP 9.1.17.2 states: "...the Offeror will receive points .... if the project identified a 90% or greater (no rounding permitted) required backfill of vacant Junior labor categories within 30 days from vacancy after contract award." Similar language is used in Sections 9.1.17.3 and 9.1.17.4 related to Journeyman and Senior labor categories. |
| The criteria for these labor categories (Junior, Journeyman, and Senior) varies greatly across contracts awarded and performed over the past 7 years. In scoring these elements, is it acceptable for the offeror to determine its own relative criteria to generate the metrics for qualifying point capture? | It is not acceptable for the Offeror to determine its own relative criteria. The criteria used for these labor categories are defined in the original award/project. | |
| 29 | Regarding Section 9.1.19.3 Acceptable Estimating System, page 72: DFARS 215.407-5, Estimating Systems, states that although DOD policy is that all contractors have acceptable estimating systems that consistently produce well-supported proposals that are acceptable as a basis for negotiation of fair and reasonable prices, only a large business contractor that meets certain requirements is subject to estimating system disclosure, maintenance, and review requirements. The requirement for an Acceptable Estimating System is inconsistent with current NAVAIR practices for contracts set aside for small businesses. |
| Prior to release of the final solicitation, would the Government consider removal of this from the self scoring sheet? | Offerors are not required to have an acceptable estimating system to submit an offer under this solicitation. However, the offeror will receive points on the SSWS if they have an acceptable system. | ||
| 30 | The current (and prior) contracts for PMA-263 support have been 8(a) set-aside contracts since 10/2/2002. Is there justification for taking it out of that program, or will the follow-on task order be restricted to an 8(a) awardee under the MAC vehicle? | The Government does not intend to recompete the existing contracts. The Task Orders attached to the IDIQ MAC are considered new efforts and are both set aside for small business. | |
| 31 | There is no subsection 1.1.6 between 1.1.5 and "Reserved1.1.7". | The Government intends to update this information in the final RFP. | |
| 32 | Attachment L-14 PMA-263 TO FON 9/26/17, PAGE 28 para 1.1.7 has the word Reserved before it. Was the word "Reserved" intentional? | The Government intends to update this information in the final RFP. | |
| 33 | Att L-15 PMA-263 SOW, para 3.4.1.5 states "All of the labor categories (all functional areas) have 3 levels of Experience and Education as follows unless otherwise specified in Section 3.4.2." This would mean that the Administrative Assistant Junior position would require the following experience and education: |
- BA/BS with less than 3 years’ experience; or
- AA and 5 years’ experience (1 year experience + 4 additional years to substitute for the BS/BA); or
- High School with a minimum of 7 years’ experience (minimum 1 year experience + additional 6 years to substitute for a BA/BS).
Is it the government’s intent to require this level of education and years of experience for a junior administrative assistant? These Experience and Education requirements would add a significant cost premium to entry-level positions with no realistic performance benefits to NAVAIR.
| The requirements are as stated in the Statement of Work. | ||
| 34 | Att L-15 PMA-263 SOW, Para 3.4.2, page 49 identifies the Admin Asst Jr correctly in BY and OY1. However, Att L-14 PMA-263 TO FON, PAGE 32 para B.2 Labor Hours shows an additional FTE starting OY2 and continuing through OY4. Will the Government clarify its intent regarding the hours in OY2-OY4? | The requirements are as stated in the Statement of Work. |
| 35 | Att L-15 PMA-263 SOW para 3.5.1 Personnel Qualifications, page 52 does not include Financial Analyst, Journeyman. Will the government add the Journeyman personnel qualifications? | The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. |
| 36 | Att L-15 PMA-263 SOW para 3.5.1, page 49, lists a Manager, Senior SOC 11-1021, however, there are no hours associated with this labor category. Question: Does the government intend to include hours for the Manager, Senior? | The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. |
| 37 | Att L-15 PMA-263 SOW para 3.5.1, Personnel Qualifications, page 51, does not include Acquisition Specialists/Management Analysts Junior, BLS SOC 13-1111. Will the government add this labor category qualifications? | The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. |
| 38 | Att L-16 PMA263 CDRL A001, Block 16 states "Inventory of all NMCI Services….." It is our understanding that the NMCI Services are no longer managed by the contractor. If this is accurate, will the government remove this requirement from CDRL A001? | The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. |
| 39 | Att L-16 PMA263 CDRL A002 Block 16 includes NMCI as part of the funds and man-hour expenditure report. It is our understanding that the NMCI Services are no longer managed by the contractor. If this is accurate, will the government remove the reference to NMCI from CDRL A002? | The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. |
| 40 | Is the offeror required to a have a facility security clearance and would the government be willing to sponsor one if needed? | Please see the response posted to Questions 1 and 2. |
| 41 | Is there an incumbent currently fulfilling these requirements and if so what is the contract number and when was it awarded? | The Task Orders attached to the IDIQ MAC are considered new efforts, as a result, there is no incumbent. |
| 42 | What sort of teaming architecture is the government looking for to fulfill these requirements on the part of the offerors? | The Government has no expectation with respect to teaming arrangements. |
| 43 | What is the overall approach to source selection; what are the evaluation factors for source selection; and how will these factors be weighted? | Please refer to sections L and M of the final RFP. |
| 44 | What is the governments estimated total number of positions to be filled by title/ positions/ or NAICS for each of these contracts (Unmanned Systems and Weapon Systems)? | The Governments estimated total number of positions/hours is located within each task order. The dollar value associated with the "U" MAC and "W" MAC are located within Section H, Clause 5252.216-9508. |
| 45 | Page 71, Section M, Section 9.1.17 Workforce Recruiting and Retention - Section 9.1.17.2, 9.1.17.3 and 9.1.17.4 states, “the Offeror will receive points for a MAXIMUM of 5 Relevant Experience Projects if the project identified a 90% or greater (no rounding permitted) required backfill of vacant Junior/Journeyman/Senior labor categories within 30 days from vacancy after contract award.” The acceptable verification evidence cited does not provide a method to consistently document whether a backfill was required by the government, which could lead to mis-scoring during evaluations. |
| Will the government confirm whether or not full points will be awarded if a delay in backfill was directed by the government, and if so, what will the government consider acceptable verification? | If the delay in backfill was directed by the Government, Offerors may provide any official, verifiable documentation necessary to validate and evidence of delay. | |
| 46 | Page 77 & 78, Section M, Part A General Information - Section 2.2 Evaluation states, “Once the Top four (4) (U) and Top four (4) (W) highest scored Offers have been evaluated, the evaluation team will evaluate the Sample Task for Technical and Cost for those Top four (4) (U) and Top four (4) (W) Offerors.” |
| Will the government please clarify that if upon selection of the top 4 offerors for (U) and (W), a deficiency is found during the sample task evaluation of one of those top 4, will the government then include the next highest ranked offer and evaluate their sample task proposal for technical and costs? | The Sample Task has been removed, please see the updated final RFP. | |
| 47 | Page 7 & 8, Section C, Item 0004, Item 0007 and Item 0008 requires the Contractor to provide documentation that addresses specific requirements. Section L, Proposal Requirements, does not have a reference or requirement for the submittal of this documentation or what Volume it should be included in and if there is a page limitation. |
Will the government please confirm when the documents referenced as Item 0004, 0007 and 0008 need to be submitted and whether it is part of the evaluation process of the proposals submitted in response to the RFP? Item 0004 is only for the minimum guarantee CLIN. It will be issued to each offeror selected for an IDIQ award under the "U" MAC and "W" MAC that does not receive an award for the PMA 262/266 or PMA 263 task order. No pricing proposal is required. The deliverables required for the minimum guaranteed task order will be required at the time the task order is issued.
Items 0007 and 0008 will be evaluated for price reasonableness. The Offeror's proposed FFP will be incorporated into any contract that is awarded as a result of this solicitation. The deliverables required for CLINs 0007 and 0008 will be required in the individual task orders should they contain these CLINs.
The final RFP has been updated for clarity.
| 48 | The draft solicitation states the Government reserves the right to on-ramp additional prime contractors as necessary. Is the Government considering requiring the current MAC holders be required to recertify their business size (e.g. during the on-ramp process or on a more frequent basis such as annually) to ensure that the MAC holders still qualify for the set-aside status? Should existing primes be re-classified as large business during the contract period of performance, it would be advantageous to the local small business industrial base to have the opportunity to compete for future awards. | MAC holders will retain their business size classification for the duration of the MAC ordering period. |
| 49 | During the on-ramp process, is the Government considering allowing MAC holders add subcontractors to the Prime team? | Please see the response posted to Question 23. |
| 50 | The clause 5252.216-9506 illustrates the values intended for each MAC. Are the maximum quantities illustrated for each MAC a collective value for all MAC holders, or to be issued to each MAC holder? | It is a collective value for all MAC holders. The value of all task orders issued under each MAC will not exceed the value stated in the 5252.216-9506. |
| 51 | The clause 5252.216-9508 illustrates the values intended for each MAC. Are the maximum quantities illustrated for each MAC a collective value for all MAC holders, or to be issued to each MAC holder? | It is a collective value for all MAC holders. The value of all task orders issued under each MAC will not exceed the value stated in the 5252.216-9508. |
| 52 | The clause 52.244-2 outlines the requirements obtaining consent to subcontract. If the Offerer proposes subcontractors, will subcontractors be approved at the MAC level? Can subcontractors not approved at the MAC level be proposed at the Task Order level? Will approvals of subcontractors at the Task Order be incorporated at the MAC level? | The Government has updated the final RFP with regards to the identification of MAC level subcontractors. If the offeror proposes subcontractors at the T.O. level then a consent to subcontract will be granted as part of the evaluation. However, if after award of the T.O.s a new subcontractor is proposed, all primes must follow the procedures of 52.244-2. |
| 53 | Per FAR 44.302, the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) shall determine the need for a Certified Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) based on, but not limited to, the past performance of the contractor, and the volume, complexity, and dollar value of the subcontracts. If a contractor’s sales to the Government are expected to exceed $25 million during the next 12 months, a review will be performed to determine if a CPSR is needed. Since this contract is set aside for small businesses, and based upon the material estimate provided in Section 9.2.1, material acquisition requirements are not typically material (traditionally < 5% of awarded contract value), the requirements to gain credit for having an Approved Purchasing Management System is inconsistent with current NAVAIR practices for contracts set aside for small businesses. Please explain. | Offerors are not required to have an Approved Purchasing Management System to submit a proposal. However, the offeror will receive points on the SSWS if they have an approved purchasing system. |
| 54 | The table illustrates Section L Paragraph 9.2 as “Understanding and Approach (Sample Task)” and Paragraph 9.2.1 as “Staffing and Personnel.” Section L Paragraph 9.2 is entitled “Sample Task.” Section L Paragraph 9.2.1 is entitled “Understanding and Approach.” There are no corresponding instructions or evaluation criteria for this section. Please clarify. | The Sample Task has been removed, please see the updated final RFP. |
| 55 | The requirements state that “specific subcontractors and separate subcontractor pricing shall not be included in the cost/price proposal.” The attachment L-5 Cost Summary Spreadsheet includes pricing sections for proposed subcontractors. Is the offeror to include the subcontractor pricing in its pricing? The subcontractors are, therefore, not required to submit pricing substantiating the subcontractor costs proposed? Please clarify. | The final RFP has been updated for clarity. The Primes are responsible to report all Subcontractor burdened rates within Attachment L-5. The Subcontractors must submit a separate Attachment L-5 which will depict the buildup of the rates provided to the Prime. |
| 56 | For those subcontractors proposed at the MAC level, will those subcontractors be considered approved IAW 52.244-2? | Please see the response posted to Question 52. |
| 57 | For scoring element 9.1.6, can Relevant Experience for a proposed Principal Subcontractors in which they have performed as a Prime Contractor be submitted? | The Offeror’s Relevant Experience Projects may have been performed as a Prime Contractor or as a Principal Subcontractor as defined in Section L. EXCEPT, scoring element 9.1.6 which must have been performed as a Prime Contractor. If providing Relevant Experience Projects as a Principal Subcontractor, the completed Attachment L-3 shall be submitted with a PCO, COR, or Principal Deputy Program Manager (PDPM) verification and signature. A relevant experience project that has not been performed by the offeror does not qualify for any relevant project submitted under 9.1.1. |
| 58 | Section 9.1.3 states that the Offeror will receive points “if the value of a Relevant Experience project is equal to or greater than $15 million on an annual basis”. The self-scoring worksheets (Attachments L-1 and L-2) state “Contract with value greater than or equal to $15 Million.” Can the Government please clarify whether scoring points will be applied if the Relevant Experience project has a value of $15 Million total, or $15 Million on an annual basis? The requirement for a single relevant experience project to be greater than $15 Million annually is overly restrictive. It is unlikely that any qualified small business will have a single project with a value in excess of $15 Million annually. | Attachments L-1 and L-2 has been updated to reflect $7 million on an annual basis. |
| 59 | The Draft RFP specifies scoring element 9.1.6, L-1 and L-2 must have been performed as a prime contractor. If the Offeror submits a relevant experience project from a subcontractor who has performed the effort as a prime, can the Offeror obtain points for this scoring element? | Please see the response posted to Question 57. |
| 60 | To obtain points for this scoring element, 9.1.18.2, the Offeror must be able to host secure meetings with spaces to accommodate 60+ people at the SECRET classification level. Would the Government be willing to assign points if the Offeror was able to obtain agreements with teammates to utilize their spaces, if necessary? | The Offeror must be able to host secure meetings with spaces to accommodate 60+ people at the SECRET classification level. |
| 61 | Per FAR 44.302, the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) shall determine the need for a Certified Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) based on, but not limited to, the past performance of the contractor, and the volume, complexity, and dollar value of the subcontracts. If a contractor’s sales to the Government are expected to exceed $25 million during the next 12 months, a review will be performed to determine if a CPSR is needed. Since this contract is set aside for small businesses, and based upon the material estimate provided in Section 9.2.1, material acquisition requirements are not typically material (traditionally < 5% of awarded contract value), the requirements to gain credit for having an Approved Purchasing Management System is inconsistent with current NAVAIR practices for contracts set aside for small businesses. Please explain. | Please see the response posted to Question 53. |
| 62 | DFARS 215.407-5, Estimating Systems, states that although DOD policy is that all contractors have acceptable that consistently produce well-supported proposals that are acceptable as a basis for negotiation of fair and reasonable prices, only a large business contractor that meets certain requirements is subject to estimating system disclosure, maintenance, and review requirements. The requirement for an Acceptable Estimating System is inconsistent with current NAVAIR practices for contracts set aside for small businesses. Please explain estimating systems that consistently produce well-supported proposals that are acceptable as a basis for negotiation of fair and reasonable prices, only a large business contractor that meets certain requirements is subject to estimating system disclosure, maintenance, and review requirements. The requirement for an Acceptable Estimating System is inconsistent with current NAVAIR practices for contracts set aside for small businesses. Please explain. | Please see the response posted to Question 29. |
| 63 | Per FAR 45.103 (b), agencies will not generally require contractors to establish property management systems that are separate from a contractor’s established procedures, practices, and systems used to account for and manage contractor-owned property. The requirements to gain credit for having an Approved Property Management System is inconsistent with current NAVAIR practices for contracts set aside for small businesses. Please explain. | Offerors are not required to have an Approved Property Management System to submit a proposal. The minimum requirements to participate in the opportunity are as described in the final RFP. However, the offeror will receive points on the SSWS if they have an approved property management system. |
| 64 | The requirements contained within this section state the Sample Task is provided for evaluation purposes to facilitate the basic IDIQ MAC award. Sample Task contract type is stated as Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), although the Section B contains FFP CLINs. What is the basis of pricing for the FFP CLIN 0002 such that Section B can be completed IAW Section 10.1 Volume Content? | CLIN 0002 does not require pricing at the MAC level. The final RFP has been updated for clarity. |
| 65 | Additionally, Section B contains FMS CLINs both FFP and CPFF. What is the basis of pricing for the FMS CLINs 0002 and 0003 such that Section B can be completed IAW Section 10.1 Volume Content? | CLIN 0002 does not require pricing at the MAC level. The basis for pricing of CLIN 0003 is contained in the SOW Section C. |
| 66 | Labor categories and associated hours are defined but key labor categories are not designated. Please identify which labor categories, if any, are considered key for the sample task. | There are no key labor categories identified at the MAC level. All key labor categories will be identified at the T.O. level. |
| 67 | Throughout Section 10.1, there are references to the FFP Product Contract CLINs. Section C describes Item 0002 as FFP FMS services. What is the basis of pricing for this non-product CLIN? | Please see the response posted to Question 64. |
| 68 | The requirements state that if subcontractors are proposed, they shall provide the same information required for the prime contractor, unless otherwise noted. Section 8.3.b states specific and separate subcontractor pricing shall not be included in the cost/price proposal. Please clarify. | The final RFP has been updated for clarity. The Primes are responsible to report all Subcontractor fully burdened rates within Attachment L-5. The Subcontractors must submit a separate Attachment L-5 to the Government which will depict the buildup of the rates provided to the Prime. |
| 69 | The Price/Cost Information provides instruction regarding FFP Product CLINs. What is the basis of pricing for the FFP Services CLIN? | Section C of the IDIQ MAC provides instruction regarding the basis of price/cost for CLINs 0007 and 0008. The offeror would provide an FFP for each product base on the description provided in Section C, if required by the individual task orders. |
| 70 | The requirements state that subcontractors and team members shall provide an Attachment L-5. Section 8.3.b states specific and separate subcontractor pricing shall not be included in the cost/price proposal. Please clarify. | Please see the response posted to Question 55. |
| 71 | Section M indicates that the Government intends to evaluate the top 4 (U) and top 4 (W) proposals and award IDIQ contracts without discussions. The selection of 4 awards is extremely limited and excludes a large part of the local industrial base. Would the Government consider awarding 6-8 awards per IDIQ or possibly identifying awards for various socio-economic groups? | Extensive market research determined that the numbers indicated in Section M of the solicitation are appropriate to meet the Government needs. |
| 72 | This section states that in arriving at the Most Probable Cost (MPC) pertinent cost information, to include DCAA recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc. will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the MPC for the performance of the Sample Task. Understanding that the value of the Sample Task may have a material impact on a company’s indirect base and indirect rates, an offeror may pass on these cost savings to the Government within its proposal. If an Offeror proposes cost information that is unique to this solicitation, such as a Special Rate Analysis, and these indirect rates differ from information that DCAA has on file. Please confirm the Government will ensure DCAA is aware that the Offeror has provided alternate substantiated cost information with its proposal that may differ from what DCAA has on file and therefore require further examination and review by DCAA prior to releasing their recommended indirect rates? | It is the contractor's responsibility to ensure DCAA is the aware of any rate information the contractor deems unique to the final RFP. |
| 73 | This section states that adjustments to the cost portion of the offer may be made to include Government costs required to accomplish the Offerors proposed approach with the exception of those costs that are equal to all Offerors. Could the offeror make the assumption that these costs would be a billable cost under the proposed material CLIN or state within its Assumptions that this will be Government furnished at no cost to the offeror, therefore avoiding the upward adjustment to its evaluated cost? | The question is unclear, however, any adjustments to the cost portion will be used to determine the MPC of performance for each Offeror. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost. The higher of the MPC or proposed cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. Contract awarded value, however, will be based upon the successful Offeror’s proposed costs. |
| 74 | This section provides evaluation information regarding FFP Product CLINs. What is the basis of pricing for the FFP CLINs if they are to be evaluated? | Please see the response posted to Question 69. |
| 75 | For both the PMA 262/266 and 263 Task Orders labor categories and hours are identified by ordering period as well as designating that 40% of the work will be performed on-site at the Government’s facilities. Please clarify by labor category and ordering period the hours that are government-site versus contractor-site. | The labor categories to be performed on-site/off-site have been updated in the final RFP. |
| 76 | For both the PMA 262/266 and 263 Task Orders Section L 2.1.8 states that subcontractors are required to submit their cost/price submission under their prime contractor to the Government POC. However, 2.1.9 states that subcontractors are required to submit either under their Prime contractor or separately to the Government POC. Please clarify. | Please see the response posted to Question 55. |
| 77 | For both the PMA 262/266 and 263 Task Orders Section M states that information in the cost/price response will be shared with the technical evaluators for consideration in determining which contractor is best suited to perform the work and the offers the Government the best value. What level of cost/price information will be shared with the technical evaluators? Will the technical evaluation team have any responsibility in evaluating the cost realism of an offerors proposal? | Under Fair Opportunity T.O. procedures the technical team will not be responsible for the evaluation of cost realism; however, they may have access to cost data if deemed necessary and relevant. |
| 78 | Draft RFP, Page 63, Section L, 8.3 Proposed subcontractors If a subcontractor is not proposed at the MAC level, can the subcontractor be proposed at the task order level? | Please see the response posted to Question 52. |
| 79 | Draft RFP, Page 63, Section L, 8.3 Proposed subcontractors |
Are teaming agreements for subcontractors required at the IDIQ contract level in order to support task orders or are subcontractors evaluated only at the task order level and not required at the IDIQ level?
| Teaming agreements for subcontractors will not be required at the MAC level. Subcontractors will only be evaluated at the T.O. level. | |
| 80 | Draft RFP, Page 52, Section C, Clause 5252.222-9501 Identification of First Tier Subcontractors for Pre-Award Clearance Purposes |
Since the solicitation is for an IDIQ contract and proposed and estimated costs for first-tier subcontractors will be determined at the task order level, how should offerors respond to this clause?
| This clause is only applicable at the T.O. level. | |
| 81 | Draft RFP, Page 4, Section B and Page 7, Section C |
Items 0001, 0002, 0003, 0005 and 0006 indicate that pricing shall be provided for the Unmanned Systems, Weapon Systems or in individual task orders. Items 0004, 0007 and 0008 do not indicate for which program they are required. Please clarify.
| Please see the response posted to Question 47. | |
| 82 | Draft RFP, Page 4, Section B; and Page 7, Section C; and Page 75, Section L, 10.3 Price/Cost Information, 10.3.1 FFP Product CLINS; and Attachment L-5 IDIQ Cost Summary Spreadsheet |
Please provide clarification on what is required to illustrate a fully supported FFP Unit Price Proposal. In the IDIQ Cost Summary Spreadsheet, the FFP CLINS are listed where ODC pricing is proposed and does not include detail. Also, please clarify that the Government’s intent is for a FFP unit price, establishing a ceiling price, for CLINS 0004, 0007, and 0008 and the product deliverables identified in those CLINS which are often included at the proposal stage or a contract deliverable after award that is not separately priced in Section B. Does the NET AMT refer to the individual unit price? Also, please provide clarification on pricing CLIN 0002 for FMS FFP support for what is the NET AMT referring to and where the applicable instructions are for pricing that CLIN.
The contractor shall provide a FFP unit price. No other supporting documentation is required.
CLIN 0004 is the minimum guarantee CLIN. This price is established by the Government.
For CLINs 0007 and 0008, the proposed price is binding and the Government may place T.O.s in that amount. However, offerors will have the opportunity to propose a lower FFP for a product CLIN at the time of each Task Order, but may not exceed the proposed FFP that is incorporated in the basic IDIQ contract.
In general, the "NET AMT" refers to the extended price and it is calculated by multiplying the quantity by the unit price.
CLIN 0002 does not require pricing at the MAC level. It is a placeholder for future T.O.s.
83 Draft RFP, Page 61 under the 3.1 table and in 4.0 Please clarify the proposal number referenced for required volume information and the proposal submission solicitation number.
| Please see the response posted to Question 20. | |
| 84 | Draft RFP, Page 63, Section 59 Table 3.1-Volume 1, Paragraph 8.2 and Page 63, Section L, 8.2 Representations and Certification |
It states in Section L that the Offeror is to provided signed Reps and Certs and Acknowledgements and/or System for Award Management (SAM). In Table 3.1, it states to submit Section K.
| The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. | |
| 85 | Draft RFP, Page 75, Section L, 10.3.2.5 |
Are any labor categories for the sample task pricing subject to SCA?
| This requirement is not subject to SCA pricing. | |
| 86 | Draft RFP, Page 74, Section L, 9.2.1, Labor Hours |
Does the Government intend for sample task pricing to provide the basis for Section B, CLINS 0001 and 0003? If so, what is the split for the CLINS as none of the labor categories in the table indicate FMS support?
| The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. | |
| 87 | Draft RFP, Page 59, Section L, Table 3.1 Proposed Format Table |
Volume 3: Cost/Price Proposal is not listed in this table. Is it the Government’s intention that it should be?
| The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. | |
| 88 | Attachment J-1 and J-2 Page 31, Attachment L-9 Page 88, 3.4 Labor Categories |
Will the Government clarify substitution language for education requirements for the labor categories? An acceptable substitution for a Master’s degree is a Bachelors plus 4 years additional experience. Does the Bachelors substitution apply to the original Master’s Degree requirement? For example, a Senior Labor Category requires 10 years and a Master’s Degree. Would 14 years and a Bachelor’s degree be an acceptable substitution? As well, would 16 years and no degree be an acceptable substitution?
Substitution language included in J-1 and J-2 is not required at the MAC level. Allowable substitutions at the T.O. shall be identified in the T.O. documentation.
For the example provided, Senior labor categories require 10 years of experience and a masters degree. For the bachelors degree substitution, the total years of experience required would be 14. For non-degreed personnel submission, the total years required would be the minimum of 10 plus 4 years experience in lieu of a bachelors plus 6 years of experience in lieu of a masters degree for a total of 20 years of experience.
89 Attachment L-8, Page 49, B.1 Other Direct Costs Please provide the CLINs in Section B that the travel and material estimates should support.
| The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. | |
| 90 | Attachment L-8, Page 49, B.2 Tables |
Please provide clarification for which labor categories tie to which CLINs as well as which location for performance is intended, Government or Contractor. The first table provides the hours per year but not by CLIN or location. The second table provides the hours by CLIN but the hours increase in the option years and those CLINS are not identified in that table.
| The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. | |
| 91 | Attachment L-8, Page 52, B.4 Place of Performance and Attachment L-9, Page 3, 3.1.2 Work Location and Facilities |
For Government site pricing, should the Offeror use Patuxent River, MD for the location or are certain labor categories intended for a different place of performance like those listed in Attachment L-9 for additional Government sites?
| The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. | |
| 92 | Attachment L-8, Page 49, B.2 Tables |
Are any labor categories for the task order pricing subject to SCA?
| Please see the response posted to Question 85. | ||
| 93 | Attachment J-1, Page 31, 3.4.2 Labor Qualifications and Attachment L-9, page 90, 3.4.2 Labor Qualifications. The General Clerk, FMS Financial Analyst and FMS Aerospace Engineer labor category description is not in Attachment J-1 and J-2 but is listed in Attachment L-9. Is it the Government’s intention that they be included at the IDIQ level, if listed in a task order? | The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. |
| 94 | Attachment L-9, Page 11, 3.2.6.2 under PMA 262/266 Security Requirements |
Paragraph 3.2.6.2 indicates that Contractor CACs will be issued for on-site contractor personnel. Will CAC’s be provided for the 50% of the workforce that is staffed off-site in Contractor spaces?
| CAC's will be provided to those who use NMCI assets or require access to Navy Network resources. | |
| 95 | Attachment L-8, Page 44, Table for Instructions for Responses |
Section 1.2 are for key personnel resumes. The recommended page count is 2 pages maximum per resume and signed letter of commitment. Are the letters of commitment included in the 2-page maximum for resume or is that a separate page limit?
| The Letter's of Commitment are separate. | |
| 96 | Attachment L-8, Pages 49-52, B.2 Labor Hours |
For many of the labor categories, including key labor categories, the required hours or associated full time equivalents (FTE’s) fluctuates both up and down, sometimes having no hours required in middle of the period of performance leaving potential gaps in that support. Was this information intentional?
| The requirements are as stated. | |
| 97 | Attachment L-8, Page 46, 1.2.1 under Technical Subfactor: Key Personnel Resumes |
Are key personnel resumes and letters of commitment required for support that does not start until the option years? Is the Government requiring letters of commitment for support that will occur potentially years in the future?
| Letters of Commitment and resumes will not be required for option year labor support at proposal submission. However, the Addition or Substitution of Key Personnel Clause, 5252.237.9501 must be met throughout contract performance. | |
| 98 | Attachment J-4, REFERENCE the minimum guarantee task order |
If an Offeror is bidding one of the task orders under the (U), is the Offeror still required to bid the information in J-4?
| Please see the response posted to Question 47. | |
| 99 | Attachment J-4, REFERENCE and Draft RFP, Page 77, Section M, 1.0 |
There are instructions provided within the Minimum Task order but there are no instructions related to it in Section L of the Draft RFP. Is it the Government’s intention for Offeror’s to do a full proposal for an un-evaluated task order per Section M?
| Please see the response posted to Question 47. | |
| 100 | Draft RFP, Page 65, Section L, 9.1.1 Relevant Experience Projects |
Part (b) states that each project must have a minimum of three years of performance. Does this refer to the total period of performance for the relevant project, being a minimum of three years long or does it require an Offeror to have supported an ongoing relevant experience project for at least three 3 years to qualify for an acceptable relevant project.
| The project can either be ongoing or have been completed within the last seven (7) years. Three (3) years of completed POP is required. There is no requirement to submit a proposal for the minimum guarantee T.O. The price is established by the Government and will not be an evaluated T.O. | |
| 101 | Attachment J-1, Section 3.4.2 states “The following lists the minimum labor category education and experience requirements and the functional descriptions for each labor category:” |
Labor Category Descriptions in following table do not contain education requirements. Request Government provide education requirements for each Labor Category.
| The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. | |
| 102 | Attachment J-2, Section 3.4.2 states “The following lists the minimum labor category education and experience requirements and the functional descriptions for each labor category:” |
Labor Category Descriptions in following table do not contain education requirements. Request Government provide education requirements for each Labor Category.
| The Government has clarified this information in the final RFP. | ||
| 103 | The PEO (U&W) IDIQ/MAC Statement of Work for Weapons Systems Program Management (PM) Support Services Page 2, Para 1.2 states that the SOW “supports the Weapon Systems associated with Program Manager Precision Strike Weapons (PMA-201), Program Manager Aerial Target and Decoy Systems (PMA-208), Program Manager Direct/Time Sensitive Strike (PMA-242), Program Manager Tomahawk Weapon System (PMA-280), and Program Manager Strike Planning and Execution Systems (PMA-281).” The draft NAVAIR PM CSS MAC also identifies these PEO (U&W) programs to be supported by the MAC awardees of PM CSS MAC for program management support contracts. Could the government clarify which contract vehicle the government intends to use to solicit task orders for the program offices that are listed on both PM CSS MAC and PEO (U&W) MAC for program management tasks? | T.O.s for PMA262/266 and PMA263 will be solicited and awarded under the PEO(U&W) IDIQ/MAC. Future NAVAIR requirement will be analyzed to determine the appropriate contract vehicle to utilize. |
| 104 | Page 67 of 81, Para 9.1.6 L-2 states “Scoring element 9.1.6 must have been performed as a Prime Contractor.” Attachment L-3 Relevant Experience Project Template lists categories for Prime, Principal Subcontractor and Subcontractor. Please clarify if relevant experience must be as a prime contractor, or if principal subcontractor or subcontractors will be given credit in the Self Scoring Work Sheet (SSWS). | The scoring element 9.1.6 specifically requires the Relevant Experience to have been performed as a prime contractor versus other scoring elements that the offeror could have been performed as a prime or as a principal subcontractor. |
| 105 | Page 67 of 81 Para 9.1.6 L-2 states that the Offeror will receive points for a maximum of 5 Relevant Experience Projects if the projects supported one of the following Weapon Systems; Air to Ground Missile Systems, Air-to-Surface Missile Systems, Air Launched Rocket Systems, Strike Planning and Execution Systems, Precision Guided Bomb Systems, Aerial Target Systems. If a Relevant Experience Project performed program management work on a highly technical, complex major aircraft program within NAVAIR, will that relevant experience be awarded points if it is not specific to these weapon categories? Several of the scored categories appear to be areas regarding overall NAVAIR program management support that are standardized throughout NAVAIR and allowing scored credit for ACAT I program experience could be value added for the PMAs. Request clarification regarding scored relevant experience projects and request considering awarding points for experience projects that are standardized within NAVAIR program offices. | The acquisition strategy is based on a portfolio based approach. The requirement will remain as stated in the RFP. |
| 106 | Attachment L-1, the Self-Scoring Worksheet for Unmanned Systems, Section 9.1.2 (p. 1) places a large point value on contracts awarded under Product Service Code (PSC) R408 Program Management/Support Services. Considering that other program office support contracts, including current contracts supporting PEO(U&W), were awarded under PSC R425 Engineering and Technical Services; and that the Statement of Work for Unmanned Systems, paragraphs 3.3.X.X.7-3.3.X.X.12, consist of Engineering and Technical requirements; would the Government consider adding PSC R425 to Section 9.1.2? | The Government intends to keep the assigned point values as is. While, the solicitation includes limited engineering and technical services, the preponderance of this effort is R408. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it.