Formal_RFP_Q&A_1-16-18.pdf

Question Answer

L-1, Part A, Paragraph 1 General Instructions. Page 71 of 97. This solicitation is being issued on a competitive, 100% Small Business set aside basis and utilizes the North American Industry Classification Code System (NAICS) code 541330 which has a small business size standard of $38.5M. Has the Government considered current 8a work in PEO U@W Strike Weapons specifically PMA-201 which is 8a currently?

The Government considered this, however The Government does not intend to recompete the existing contracts.

2 Is this the follow-on to a current contract, or would this be a new start? If this is a follow-on, under which contract number is this work currently being performed, and by whom?

This a new requirement and not a follow-on.

3 My question is basic and not specific to this Solicitation. If otherwise qualified to bid, can I submit a response to a Total Small Business RFQ?

A proposal may be submitted under a total small business set-aside if your company qualifies as a small business and is otherwise qualified under the solicitation.

The solicitation makes it clear that the Offeror may propose subcontractors, whether or not proposed as a principal subcontractor (Section L-1, Part A, 1.0, p. 71 and Section L-1, Part A, 3.1 Proposal Format Table, Vol 1/8.3). The solicitation and the Q&A also make it clear that any “Relevant Experience Project” cited in response to Section L, 9.1.6 (Solicitation pages 81 and 82) must have been performed as a Prime contractor. What is not clear is whether or not the Offeror may respond to Section L, 9.1.6 by citing a Prime contract from a company that is being proposed as one of the Offerors subcontractors in this proposal. Would such a Prime contract we acceptable as a Relevant Experience Project for this proposal?

The Offeror may not respond to Section L, 9.1.6 by citing a Prime contract from a subcontractor that is being proposed.

Ref: Attachment L-8_PMA262-266_FOPR; Page 55, Section L, Clause 5252.215-9503 Anticipated Award Date. This clause reads that the anticipated award date is 1 Oct 2018, and subsequent paragraph discusses transition from 1 – 31 Jan 2019. This would seem to indicate initial CLIN POP’s would start 1 Feb 2019. Same Attachment, Page 45, Section F, Deliveries or Performance shows base period CLIN POP’s starting on 29 Aug 2018? Can the government clarify actual planned award, transition and POP dates?

Attachment L-8 has been updated to reflect the following dates: CLIN PoP (Base Year) 30 Sept 2018 - 29 Sep 2019. The transition period will begin on 31 Aug 2018. See Attachment L-8 Amendment 1.

Ref: Attachment L-8_PMA262-266_FOPR; Page, 66, Section L. The Labor Hours table starting on page 66 indicates that the Manager/Operations Managers, Senior position is only planned for 960 hours in Option Years II and III. It also indicates that the Administrator – Administrative Services Manager, Journeyman is planned for 0 hours in Option Years II and III. The subsequent tables for Option Years II and III on pages 73 – 79 (that show the hours breakdown by CLIN) and the Place of Performance Tables on pages 82-84 show 2880 total hours for the former, and 1920 hours for the latter for Option Years II and III. Can the government clarify/update the tables, so the required hours match?

Attachment L-8 has been updated and revised. See Attachment L-8 Amendment 1.

7 Ref: Attachment L-8_PMA262-266_FOPR; Page 55, Section J – List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other attachments. Attachment 3, Surveillance Activity Checklist is listed, but not provided. Is it meant to be provided at contract award (requiring an asterisk denoting this), or should it have been provided with the T.O. FOPR?

Attachment 3 will be provided at time of award. Attachment L-8, Page 55 has been updated to reflect an asterisk. See Attachment L-8 Amendment 1.

Ref: RFP N00019-18-R-0008, Page 78, Section L, Section 9.0. The RFP Section 9.0 Volume 2: Technical under Section 9.1 calls out for the Offeror to fill in specific columns on Attachments L-1 and L-2 starting on page 78. The question is, will there be a fillable attachment L-1 and L-2 that aligns with Section 9.1 Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet? Specifically, it is stated “1.

Do not alter rows or columns of the Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet.” However, the columns on the attachment spreadsheets do not line up with the instructions due to Column A on the spreadsheet. Additionally, Column B is to be filled in. The particular cells (Project Identifier) they are requesting to be filled in are locked which renders them non-modifiable. Please provide clarification for the columns and provide fillable L-1 and L-2 attachments or additional instructions to make the templates compliant to the instructions.

Attachments L-1 and L-2 have been updated to unlock Column B for Contractor input.

Section L, Section 9.1 has been updated. See RFP Amendment 1.

Page 35, Section L-15, Paragraph 3.3.5.3 FMS Tasking Statement/Item: The contractor shall provide financial support to the PMA-

263 FMS IPT.

Question: L-14 PMA-263 FOPR page 43 Full Period of Performance table by CLIN, does not have FMS CLINs associated with either of the financial analyst labor categories. Was this intentional?

The PMA263 SOW have been updated to remove FMS financial analyst requirements . See Attachment L-15 Amendment 1.

Section K: Annual Representation and Certifications: Please confirm the MAC awardees will not be required to certify their business size throughout the life of the contract. This approach will allow companies who graduate to compete as small businesses for the entire period of performance. Recertification by MAC awardees and on-ramping process is vital to maintaining small business competition, as well a healthy small business industrial base. Will the Government consider altering recertification requirements to annually or at the task order level?

MAC holders will retain their business size classification for the duration of the MAC ordering period in accordance with Per FAR 19.301-1.

11 Proposal Format Table: The table references 8.3 Proposed Subcontractor/Subcontractor(s) Teaming Arrangements. But in the Volume 1: General Requirements, it does not list a corresponding requirement for 8.3. Please clarify.

The Solicitation has been updated to remove the reference to proposed subcontractor/subcontractor(s) teaming arrangements. See RFP Amendment 1.

Documentation Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet: With regard to point values associated with 9.1.7 through 9.1.16: If an offeror has a more broadly defined Statement of Work, but does perform these specific activities (not detailed specifically in the SOW), what would the Government consider an acceptable form of “official and verifiable supporting documentation”? Is the submission of deliverables, monthly status reports to the prime, letter of verification from the prime PM, PCO, COR or PDPM verification, acceptable official and verifiable supporting documentation?

It is the Oferor's responsibility to ensure the documentation is verifiable.

Relevant Experience Projects: If submitting a relevant experience project performed as a “principal subcontractor”, can the original RFP requirements be referenced vice subcontract documentation from the prime ? Often, full contract language is not flowed down to subcontractors. Please advise.

No, the original RFP requirements cannot be referenced vice subcontract documentation from the Prime.

Offerors shall submit their subcontract agreements which define the role as a Principal Subcontractor. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to provide subcontract documentation to validate the scoring criteria. If the SOW does not validate the scoring criteria, the Offeror is to provide other verifiable documentation or a signed L-3.

Relevant Experience Project with Phase of Programs: What does the Government consider adequate documentation of program phase (ref. RFP section 9.1.5) in the event that the program phase is not explicitly defined within the contract statement of work?

Please advise.

Please see the Government response to Question 12.

15 Workforce Recruiting and Retention: What is the appropriate way to account for retention on subcontracts in which vacancies are not defined? Please advise. The Offeror will need to provide substantiating data that the vacancy did not have a requirement to be filled.

Volume Content: The instruction states that if proposing the Unmanned Systems IDIQ/MAC, the offeror shall utilize the Attachment L-

5. The instruction goes on to state that if proposing the Weapons Systems IDIQ/MAC, the offer shall utilize the Attachment L-6. It further states the offeror shall utilize Attachments L-5 and L-6 as part of each separate proposal. Please clarify.

Attachment L-5 and L-6 shall be utilized for both the Unmanned IDIQ/MAC and the Weapons IDIQ/MAC. If proposing to both IDIQ/MACs, the Offeror would need to provide two sets of Attachments L-5 and L-6. The RFP has been updated to clarify the utilization of Attachments L-5 and L-6. See RFP Amendment 1.

Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs: The instruction states that the contractor will be required to propose IAW the Attachment L-5. Is the contractor to utilize the same Attachment L-5 for both the Unmanned Systems IDIQ/MAC and the Weapons Systems IDIQ/MAC pricing submission?

Attachment L-5 shall be utilized for both the Unmanned IDIQ/MAC and the Weapons IDIQ/MAC. If proposing to both IDIQ/MACs, the Offeror would need to provide two Attachment L-5 spreadsheets specific to the Unmanned IDIQ/MAC and the Weapons IDIQ/MAC.

Section L, paragraph 9.1.1, subparagraph b. (p. 79) says in part, “Each project must have a minimum of three years of performance.”

As this contract is to be a small business set aside will the Government consider reducing this requirement to 1 year of completed performance? Many small businesses do not have prime contracts that have completed 3 years of performance. We are currently providing superior support on 4 contracts that would qualify if PMMAC standards are maintained. Based on this 3-year rule alone we are unable to qualify for submission of a proposal. This requirement is restrictive and limiting competition.

The Government considered a reduction in the minimum years of performance and reduced the requirement to 2 years. Extensive market research was conducted and the Government does not agree that a one year period of performance is sufficient.

The PMA-263 Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) and the PMA-263 Task Order Statement of Work (SOW) seem unclear on what is required for the Key Labor Categories. A requirement for Program Management Analysts, Senior (6.5 FTEs) is listed as a key labor category in the FOPR and SOW; the SOW lists three separate, extensively-qualified sub-categories under the Program Management Analysts, Senior, without identifying how many of each type of personnel meeting these descriptions offerors should propose. Can the Government clarify what they require?

The PMA263 FOPR and SOW have been updated to clarify what is required for the Key Labor Categories. See Attachments L-14 and L-15 Amendment 1.

Page 80, Section L, 9.1.2, the Government states an Offeror will receive points forprojects with a PSC of R408 (Professional: Program Management Support). Multiplecontracts with similar scope to the PEO U&W work have used PSC R425 (ProfessionalEngineering/Technical) instead of PSC R408. To enable increased competition, will thegovernment consider adding projects with PSC R425 to the list of projects that willreceive maximum points under the 9.1.2 scoring?

The Government does not consider PSC R425 appropriate scoring criteria for this procurement.

RFP, Page 88, Section L, Paragraph 10.1 states that “Attachment L-5 is applicable to the Unmanned Systems MAC and the Weapons Systems MAC.” Later it states that “If proposing under the Unmanned Systems IDIQ/MAC, the Offeror shall utilize Section L, Attachment L-5. If proposing under the Weapons Systems IDIQ MAC, the Offeror shall utilize Section L, Attachment L-6. If proposing under both the Unmanned Systems IDIQ/MAC and the Weapon Systems IDIQ/MAC, the Offeror shall utilize Attachments L-5 and L-6 as part of each separate proposal. L-5 is the IDIQ/MAC Cost Summary Spreadsheet and L-6 is the Fully Burdened Rates Spreadsheet.

Q-Please clarify that for each proposal, the L-5 and L-6 should both be utilized.

The Solicitation has been updated to clarify the applicability of both the Attachment L-5 and L-6 to the proposal for the IDIQ/MACs. See RFP Amendment 1.

RFP, Page 89, section L, Paragraph 10.1 states that “This Volume shall also contain a copy of Section B with the CLIN Unit Prices for CLINs 0007 and 0008 only.” Paragraph 10.3.1 FFP Product CLINs provides the instruction for submitting a FFP Unit Price for CLINs 0007 and 0008. Q-Is any cost buildup required for these CLINS?

These are FFP CLINs for products and do not require a cost build-up.

RFP, Page 95, Section M, Paragraph 5.1 Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINS. This section states that “Attachment L-5 provides the labor categories and number of labor hours.” Q-Can the Government confirm that the same labor categories and hours are proposed both the Unmanned Systems IDIQ/MAC and the Weapons Systems IDIQ/MAC?

The Government provided labor categories and hours are the same for the Unmanned systems IDIQ/MAC and the Weapon Systems IDIQ/MAC.

RFP, Page 73, Section L, Table in section 3.1 lists section 8.3 for Proposed Subcontractors/Subcontractor(s) Teaming Arrangements.

There is no corresponding 8.3 instruction on page 78, Section L. Please clarify. Also, if no subcontractors are proposed at the IDIQ/MAC level, is it sufficient to simply state that for compliance?

Please see the Government response to Question 11.

Attachment L-12_262-266 Cost Summary Spreadsheet and Attachment L-8_PMA 262-266 FOPR page 62, Section L, Paragraph 2.1.7.

Attachment L-12 as provided is formatted to 11x17 size paper. Paragraph 2.1.7 states that the spreadsheet be formatted to letter size (8.5x11). Q-Will the Government update Paragraph 2.1.7 to be consistent with the provided template given the large number of CLINS to price per year that would be difficult to present on standard letter size paper?

The PMA262/266 FOPR has been updated to clarify the paper size. See Attachment L-8 Amendment 1.

Attachment L-13_PMA 262-66 Fully Burdened Labor Rates. The instructions for Columns E-I and for J-N indicate that the information is required for the base period. The template includes all options periods. Please clarify. Also, please confirm that for columns J-N that the annualized fully burdened labor is intended to be the annualized labor even if that position/individual designator is not a full-time position?

Attachments L-13 and L-19 have been updated to clarify the inclusion of all option periods. The fully burdened labor rate will be calculated on an annual basis. See Attachments L-13 and L-19 Amendment 1.

Attachment L-8 PMA 262-266 FOPR, Page 82, Section L, Paragraph C. Place of Performance. The tables on pages 82-84 provides locations by category and by base year and option years. The locations for Philadelphia, CA; Pt. Mugu, CA; San Diego, CA; and Red Hill, TX do not indicate if these locations are Government site or Contractor site positions. Please clarify if those locations are Government site or Contractor site.

The PMA262/266 SOW has been updated to clarify the Government and Contractor sites. See Attachment L-9 Amendment 1.

Attachment L-8 PMA 262-266 FOPR, Section L, Volume 2/2. Task Order Information/B. Labor Hours Tables, pages 66-79. There are several discrepancies between the hours listed in the overall hours per category per year in the table on page 66-67 and the tables by CLIN within the option years on pages 67-79. Please clarify the discrepancies below:

The PMA262/266 FOPR has been updated to address labor hour discrepancies. See Attachment L-8 Amendment 1.

a. Manager/Operations Managers, Senior

i. Page 66 OYII & OYIII lists 960 hours each

ii. Page 73 OYII lists 2880 hours and Page 76 OYIII lists 2880 hours

b. Acquisition Specialists/Management Analysts, Junior

i. Page 66, OYII and OYIII lists 11,520 each

ii. Page 73 OYII lists 9,600 hours and Page 76 lists 3,840 hours

c. Acquisition Specialists/Management Analysts, Senior

i. Page 66 OYIV lists 15,360 hours

ii. Page 76 OYIV lists 21,120 hours

d. Program/Project Management Analysts, Senior

i. Page 66 OYI lists 32,640

ii. Page 71 OYI lists 34,560

e. Administrator-Administrative Services Manager, Journeyman

i. Page 66 OYII & OYIII lists 0 hours each

ii. Page 75 OYII lists 1920 hours and Page 78 OYIII lists 1920 hours

f. Financial Analyst, Journeyman

i. Page 66 OYI lists 0 hours

ii. Page 72 OYI lists 3,840 hours

g. Financial Analyst, Senior

i. Page 66 OYI lists 0 hours

ii. Page 72 OYI lists 1920 hours

h. FMS Financial Analyst, Journeyman

i. Page 66 OYI lists 3,840 hours

ii. Page 72 OY1 lists 1920 hours

Attachment L-8_PMA262-266_FOPR, Section L- 1.2 TECHNICAL SUB-FACTOR: Key Personnel Resumes, sub paragraph 1.2.1 Page 59 states: For any proposed Key Personnel, as designated in Section 2 Task Order Information, Paragraph B. Some of the labor hours for the key labor categories fluctuate by Option Year re: Manager/Operations Managers, Senior

Acquisition Specialists/Management Analysts, Senior

Program/Project Management Analysts, Senior

Question: Is the Offeror required to provide resumes for just the base year effort which would equate to 30 resumes total?

Yes, the Offeror is required to provide resumes for only the Base Year Key Personnel.

The PMA-263 Statement of Work, Page 49, states that the Program Management Analyst, Senior shall have a degree in a business-related field. Given that the Journey and Junior levels in this labor category may have either a business-related or technical degree, may a senior have a degree in a technical field?

The PMA263 SOW has been updated to state a degree for Program Management Analyst, Senior shall be in a business-related or technical discipline. See Atachment L-15 Amendment 1.

Does conference room referred to on pages 4-5, paragraph 3.1.2.2 of the SOW need to be at contractor facility or can it be on base in a government facility? Assuming it must be contractor facility, must the required VTC be secret capable? Is Skype or other similar cloud based solution considered adequate?

The Contractor shall have the capability to locate and secure conference room facilities for conducting meetings at the classification levels to be determined at the T.O. level.

Paragraph 3.1.2.2 also requires the conference room to be equipped with computers; does this mean an available computer that can be used for presentation materials, or computers for every potential meeting attendee? If the latter, will the government specify how many we should budget for?

The contractor shall have an available computer that can be used for presentation materials.

In reviewing the FOPR for the PMA262/266 effort, I wanted to confirm the POPs in section F are correct as listed? Reason for the confirmation is, in section L, under the Anticipated Award Date Clause, this states February 1, 2019 as the anticipated start date, which is 5 months later than the POP start for the BY in Section F.

Please see the Government response to Question 6.

ii. Page 72 OY1 lists 1920 hours

i. International Logistician, Journeyman

i. Page 66 OYI & OYII & OYIII lists 3,840 hours each

ii. Page 72 OYI lists 1920 hours, Page 75 OYII lists 1920 hours and Page 78 OYIII lists 1920 hours

j. FMS Aerospace Engineers, Journeyman

i. Page 67 OYI lists 5,760 hours

ii. Page 73 OYI lists 1920 hours

Ref: pg 80 of 97. Paragraph on Alternate PCO Optional Verification (above para 9.1.2) "Any individual claimed scored evaluation element that is verified and signed off on by a PCO, COR or PDPM on the Section L, Attachment L-3 does not require additional supporting documentation for those elements." Question: This implies that a second Scored Evaluation Element sheet, identifying only those items that the PCO, COR, PDPM, should be completed. In this manner, the identification of those items validated by the PCO, COR, PDPM can be rewadily identified and not confused with those items that require 'official and verifiable supporting documentation'. Is the Government accepting a separate Scored Evaluaiton Element sheet when the Optional verifiaciton method is used?

Section L and Attachment L-3 have been updated to clarify the Attachment L-3 documentation process.

Please see the updated RFP Amendment 2 and Attachment L-3 Amendment 2.

35 Attachment_L-1_(U)_SSWS The document is locked. Information is not able to be entered into the form. Question: Will the government provide a corrected form? Attachments L-1 and L-2 have been revised to address the locked cells and posted on FedBizOpps 12/11/17.

The discussions of subcontractors is confusing. At the MAC IDIQ contract level, only past performance projects of the prime offeror will be considered in determining that prime offeror’s score; projects of a subcontractor will not be considered. Following the initial round of Q&A, reference to a non-existent Section L paragraph 8.3 was removed from the Section 3.1 Proposal Format Table and with it, reference to subcontractor teaming agreements was also removed. However, throughout the solicitation and in Section L, references are made to subcontractors, to include during discussions of pricing. Notably, the discussion of Attachments L-5 and L-6 at paragraphs 10.1 and 10.3.2 repeatedly mentions subcontractor pricing. Our reading of the overall proposal suggests that we should provide L-5 and L-6 including prime pricing only, as these will be used only for evaluative purposes. Because there is no statement of work associated with the theoretical effort we are pricing in L-5 and L-6, it is not possible to decide whether or not we ought to employ subcontractors; such decisions are made for technical reasons to provide best value to the government. The use of subcontractors in building up pricing has a material effect on overall cost. Please clarify the intent of the discussion of subcontractors in these sections. Question: Must a prime offeror identify and include pricing, at the MAC IDIQ level, for all companies it may possibly use on a future Task Order?

Past Performance is not an evaluation factor for this solicitation. Subcontractors are not identified at the MAC/IDIQ level, therefore the Prime Offeror shall only include Prime pricing.

Section M does not adequately explain how cost/price will be evaluated. Under Part A, Section 3.0, there is a discussion of how Technical factors will be evaluated, but not of Cost/Price. Under Part B, Section 5.1, it is stated that cost realism will be the basis for evaluation. Cost/price information for evaluative purposes is required in L-5 and L-6, however, there is no delineation of work to be performed by the labor categories and levels of effort we are asked to price in L-5 and L-6. We do not understand how the government intends to determine if a cost is realistic. As described in 5.1, inherent in the cost realism assessment is determination of a “most probable cost (MPC).” Given that no description of the work to be priced is provided in the solicitation, we cannot see a way the government can determine a “MPC” to perform it. Question: Will the government clarify the specific work (perhaps referencing Statement of Work paragraphs) we are expected to price in order to allow a fair and equal comparison between proposals?

The Government has elected not to use a Sample Task as the basis of cost realism for this procurement.

Attachment L-5 provides the labor categories and number of hours requested for the purposes of Cost Realism.

Also in 5.1, the statement is made that evaluation will be conducted using higher of MPC or proposed cost, but that contract awarded value will be at proposed cost. This does not apply in the context of an IDIQ MAC since there will no award of work until the award of a Task Order.Question: Will the government remove the apparently erroneous verbiage regarding contract awarded value?

The Government does not plan to award the MAC/IDIQs at the proposed value. Paragraph 5.1 has been updated to remove the last sentence in the 3rd paragraph. Please see the updated RFP Amendment 0003.

Included in the release of Amendment 0002 on 13 December, question #21 was asked and answered with reference to the “MACs’” The answer provided infers that L-5 and L-6 is required at the “MAC” level for subcontractor input. Additionally, the use of the term “MAC” in used in a similar context in the solicitation Part B (pg 8/23) in the Section L List of Attachment Table, and indicates that L-5 is required at the IDIQ/MAC level (different from the L-12, or L-18 Task Order submittals). This indicates again that L-5 for subcontractors is being requested at the MAC, Level. Answers to date, do not clarify this issue. Question: Will the government definitively state that Subcontractor identification and L-5 submittal for subcontractors is only required at the Task Order level.

Yes, the Government will defnitively state that the Subcontractor identification and L-5 submittal is only required at the Task Order Level. No Subcontractor information is required at the MAC Level.

Attachment J-1 PEO U SOW, para 3.4.2 (page 30) Labor Qualifications maps the following labor categories and their associated three levels of experience and education to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 13-1111 Management Analyst. The BLS SOC salary range* significantly limits the salary that can be offered to an individual in a senior level position while requiring a Master’s Degree and 10 + years’ experience. Question: Will the government consider mapping the senior level labor categories to an SOC that will enable the retention of essential Senior persons?

The BLS salary data* is as of May 2016:

BLS data for Maryland state-wide 25th 50th 75th 72,460 92,990 110,590

Labor Category / BLS SOC No.

Acquisition Specialists/Management Analysts - 13-1111 Program/Project/Management Analysts - 13-1111 Configuration Management Analyst/Management Analysts - 13-1111 Foreign Military Sales Analyst - Management Analysts - 13-1111

The Government will not realign the BLS/SOC codes. BLS/SOC codes do not limit the salaries of any category.

Attachment_L-15_PMA-263_SOW_Amend_1, para 3.4.2 Labor Categories maps the following labor categories and their associated 3 levels of experience and education to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 13-1111 Management Analyst. The BLS SOC salary range* significantly limits the salary that can be offered to an individual in a senior level position while requiring a Master’s Degree and 10 + years’ experience. Question: Will the government consider mapping the senior level labor categories to an SOC that will enable the retention of essential Senior persons ?

BLS data for Maryland state-wide 25th 50th 75th 72,460 92,990 110,590

NAVAIR Legacy Labor Category / BLS SOC No. / Key Position Level Senior Program/Project Analyst - 13-1111 - Yes Senior Acquisition Specialist/Management Analyst - 13-1111 - No Senior Foreign Military Sales Analyst/Management Analyst. - 13-1111 - No Senior Logistics Analyst - 13-1111 - No

Please see the Government response to Question 40.

Attachment L-8_PMA262-266_FOPR (Amendment 1); Page 66, Table B hours per Standard Labor Categories have been updated for individual Base/Option Years, but in some cases the total column at the far right does not match. Ex. Mgr/Ops Mgr Senior by year totals to 14,400 hrs, but the total column reflects 10,560. Can the gov’t confirm the total hours should = the total of all hours in BY and OY 1-4?

Attachment L-8 has been updated with the correct column totals.

Attachment L-8_PMA262-266_FOPR (Amendment 1); Starting on page 45, the start date for By CLINS shows 29 Aug 2018. On page 55, under 5252.215-9503, the paragraph details a transition period from 31 Aug 2018 to 29 Sep 2018 (with no CLIN associated), and a PoP that commences on 30 September. Can the government confirm which dates are correct?

The transition period is from 30 August 2018 to 29 September 2018. The estimated period of performance commences on 30 September 2018.

44 Attachment L-9_PMA262-266_SOW (Amendment 1); page 3, Para 3.1.2.1, states that the primary contractor site is Red Oak, TX. Can the government correct/confirm that primary Contractor site should be in the NAS Patuxent River/Lexington Park, MD location?

Attachment L-8 and Attachment L-9 have been updated to clarify the Contractor sites. Please see the updated RFP Attachment L-8 and Attachment L-9 Amendment 3.

Attachment L-9_PMA262-266_SOW (Amendment 1); Page 77 under 3.4 Labor Categories, the substitution table for Master’s Degree does not list a substitution qualification for someone that has no degree. Can we assume that personnel without a degree can still qualify for Senior category (requiring Master’s) with the additional experience substitution for Bachelor’s (additional 6 years experience) for a total of 20 years experience?

With the exception of any Engineering category, this is a true assessment.

In regards to attachment L-8, Volume 1, paragraph 1.2.1 on page 59: “For any proposed Key Personnel, as designated in Section 2 Task Order Information, Paragraph B, provide a resume of the work assignments, training, etc., that demonstrates the experience and specialized qualifications of each key personnel proposed.”Can the government clarify if resumes are required for all 30 personnel who fall into the key labor categories, or does the government only require 1 resume per key labor category?

The Offeror is required to provide resumes for all Key Personnel in the Base Year.

47 Is $38.5M being used as the small business size standard for this solicitation? Yes, $38.5M is the small business size standard for this solicitation.

48 When is the deadline? Please refer to the FedBizOps announcement N00421-18-R-0008. The proposal response date is Jan 17, 2018, 2:00 pm Eastern Standard Time.

49 Will the Government please extend the due date out 1 week to Jan. 24th. Due to the recent snow storm that hit the east coast shutting businesses and the Government down for two days, in addition to a holiday (Martin Luther King Day) falling on a work day.

The Government is not extending the deadline for proposals.

Can the Govt. please provide a “Final” version of all the RFP documents, so all the Q&As are incorporated within the final version.

Example, Section L in Amendment 2 still references subcontractors data needed for submission at the same level as the prime.

However with Amendment 3 released Tuesday, Jan. 3rd the Q&As state subcontractors are not required to submit data at the IDIQ MAC level. In addition, this is a very intricate proposal with a lot of data, we just want to make sure we have all the final RFP documents for review.

No, the Government will not post a consolidated version of solicitation N00421-18-R-0008 to FedBizOpps.

Please see the individual amendments posted on FedBizOpps for the most recent solicitation and attachments.

51 It appears you just released Amendment 4, but there is no Amendment 2 posted on FBO. Are we missing something?

The title headings on the right hand side for Amendment 3 and Amendment 4 were erroneously listed. The Government is working with the FBO help desk to fix this issue. Amendment 1 and associated attachments were added Dec 11, 2017, Amendment 2 and associated attachments were added Dec 13, 2017 , Amendment 3 and associated attachments were added Jan 03, 2018, and Attachment 4 and associated attachments were added Jan 09, 2018. Please see the body of the FedBizOpps announcement.

Section L, 10.3.1 states ”the offeror shall submit a FFP Unit Price proposal for the FFP product CLINs 0007 and 0008.” 10.3.2 states “The offeror shall fully disclose the buildup of cost/price of each CLIN.” Will the government clarify if the offeror is required to provide a FFP Unit Price proposal for CLINs 0002 and 0004?

The Offeror is not required to provide a FFP Unit Price proposal for CLINs 0002 and 0004.

Section L, Part B, Para 9.1.17.2, .3, and .4: Please clarify what is required for this requirement.

Is it required to identify all vacancies that occurred during the entire period of performance, or just the first 6 months?

Are we required to provide evidence of the number of days the position was vacant before a backfill was provided?

What does “if the project identified a 90% or greater required backfill…” mean?

a) Yes, it is required to identify all vacancies that occurred during the completed portion of the period of performance in accordance with sections 9.1.17.2, 9.1.17.3, and 9.1.17.4, as well as the number of vacancies filled within 30 days in order to substantiate it's backfill rate (e.g. 90%). The period of performance is defined as the date stated in the contract to include the Base year in addition to any exercised option years.

b) Yes, the Offeror is required to provide evidence of the number of days the position was vacant before a backfill was provided.

c) Reference sections 9.1.17.2, 9.1.17.3, and 9.1.17.4, sentence "if the project identified a 90% or greater required backfill...", the word "identified" is not intended to imply that 90% was the required backfill rate in the contract. Points are allowable on the Self-Scoring Worksheet if the Offeror achieved a 90% or greater backfill of vacant labor categories within 30 days. The word "required" means that the Government required the position to be backfilled. If a backfill was not required by the Government for a position, Offerors may provide any official, verifiable documentation to validate the Government's desire not to backfill the labor category.

Pg 88/89 – Section 10.0 Volume 3: Cost/Proposal – 10.1 Volume Content: states Section B shall be provided separately in one digital data copy in MS Office 2010 Excel format on CD-ROM media – Please confirm that it is the Government’s intent for this to be provided on a separate CD and that no hard copy is needed in the Original and Copy 1 of Volume 3, as it is not indicated as a file under 3.1 Proposal Format Table.

Section B pricing for CLINs 0007 and 0008 are part of Volume 3. As a result, one original and 2 additional copies are required. The Offeror shall incorporate the Section B Excel file into the electronic file.

In regards to solicitation N00421-18-R-0008 (U&W support), please provide information on any plans to institute a modification to the RFP, either now or after proposals are submitted, which inserts a size recertification requirement a mere 24 months after contract award, similar to the 24 month post award size recertification requirement that was recently instituted by NAVAIR on the PM CSS MAC (Solicitation N00421-17-R-0039). Providing companies this insight now is critical to help us determine if it is worth us pursuing this contract, as if we win, having only 24 months to create value from the contract, won't be a viable, which means many of us pursing this contract shouldn't waste our bid and proposal funds pursing it.

The Government does not intend to incorporate a modification to the RFP to insert a size recertification requirement.

FBO Post 1-16-18