N00421-18-R-0038_Final_RFP_Questions_-_1.pdf

Number REF/#: Industry Question/Comment Government Response

RFP Section M-1

EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR

AWARD, I.

GENERAL

INFORMATION, page

Page 302 states that “The Government expects to select one Offeror on the basis of its proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

Offerors are advised that proposals meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest cost may not be selected for an award if award to a higher-priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher-priced proposal must merit the additional cost.”

However, RFP Page 308 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL

TEXT, 5252.215-9524 BASIS FOR AWARD (NAVAIR) (JUL

1998) states “(a) Award will be made to that responsible offeror proposing the lowest price for supplies or services meeting the requirements of the solicitation. (b) 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.”

Would the Government please clarify the evaluation approach for this solicitation?

The "5252.215-9524 Basis of Award" provision will be removed, please see the forthcoming Amendment 0001.

H.5, clause 5252.219- 9501, and L.B.2.4

H.5 identifies the overall small business participation level as 30% of total subcontracted costs. Clause 5252.219-9501 indicates that a goal of at least 5% of subcontracted costs is expected for Small Disadvantaged Business concerns unless extenuating circumstances are identified explaining why 5% cannot be proposed. Answers to question had said use the DoD goals. Does the Government have any minimum goals for the other small business categories identified in L.B.2.4 of the solicitation (WOSB, HUBZ, VOSB, and SDVOSB)?

Please refer to the DoD Small Business Goals.

L.A.2.1.7 Table G-2 and L.A.3 Table G-3

Annex A in Table G-2 is identified as, "Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Table T-1 (Small Business Goals)". Annex A in Table G-3 is identified as "Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Table SB-1 (Small Business Requirement)". Is the difference between Annex A in Table G-2 and G-3 a typographical error or are Table T-1 and SB-1 different requirements? If Table T-1 and SB-1 are different requirements, please explain what information is required in each table.

Section L, Table G-2 will be corrected to read SB-1, please see the forthcoming Amendment 0001.

4 M-1.II.A

This section states, "A Mission Support Rating and Risk Rating will be assigned. The Mission Support Rating is an assessment of compliance with the solicitation requirements and merit which considers the benefits and detriments related to program performance and operations. The degree of benefit to the Government associated with a strength(s) will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s approach and understanding of requirements rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional."

Will a goal proposed above 30% of subcontracting costs be considered a benefit to the Government resulting in a higher rated proposal?

IAW H-5, Small Business Participation level of 30% of total subcontracting costs throughout the contract is required during execution.

Additionally, IAW Section M IIA "the Government will only consider strengths in element 2.3 Technology/System/Process Approach".

Therefore, a proposed approach of "above 30% of subcontracting costs" will be considered meeting the requirement.

5 None

What is the NAICS code for this proposal? Is the government determining small business size of team mates and subcontractors based on the solicitation NAICS code or the NACIS code selected by the Offeror?

The NAICS code for this solicitation is 541330. Business size is determined by the NAICS code for the solicitation.

L.2.3.a.1, C3,1,3 Q&A 5, number 23 says that the MIS shall be operational on day one of the base period of performance. This is not reflected in the final

RFP.

Please confirm when the MIS shall be operational

It is a requirement of the MIS to track CDRL submission. CDRL A019, for example, is required to be submitted on the first day of contract performance. Therefore, the MIS will be required to be operational on day one of contract performance.

7 L.2.1.4

Q&A 2, number 38 states that the resumes are outside of the page count. This is not stated in the final RFP

Please confirm that resumes are not part of the suggested page count Resumes are not a part of the suggested page count.

8 None

The Government’s final RFP revised the historical salary rate information in Section L and added a new SCA labor category called System Support Specialist. The salary range provided for the position in the final RFP is $18.60 - $21.39. The AWD category code provided in the RFP (14170) has a minimum salary of $46.00 per hour. Request the Government please confirm and/or correct the salary range.

The salary rate table will be updated in the forthcoming Amendment 0001.

9 Section L, Part B, 2

The RFP states "The Offeror shall complete Table MS-1 (Mission Support CRM), provided in Attachment (L-2) and submit it as the first page of Volume 2 (Mission Support), and as a separate electronic file." Does this mean that the CRM is limited to one page? The CRM is not limited to one page.

10 Section L, Part B, 5

The RFP states "The following is a list of Section L Cost Attachments (CAs) that the Offeror shall utilize to provide cost information for this volume:

Attachment L-6 Cost Attachments Includes the following:

CA-1 Prime Cost Breakout Spreadsheet CA-2 Subcontractor Cost Breakout Spreadsheet"

The RFP included CA-1 and CA-2, but it did not include an Attachment L-6. Please confirm that all required RFP documents have been released.

Yes, all RFP documents have been released.

Attachment L-6 is referring to CA-1 and CA-2.

Section L Page 272, Paragraph 4.4 Proposal Submission

The RFP requests that one paper copy and one electronic copy on a CD-ROM of Table PP-1 (Past Performance Contract Data); Table CE- 1 (Corporate Experience Element Contract Reference Matrix); and Annex B (Final Versions of Previous SOW/PWSs/Other Supporting Documentation for Past Performance and Corporate Experience) be submitted two weeks prior to the submission date/time specified on Standard Form 33 (Block 9).

Will the Government please clarify that only the Tables mentioned above along with the content of Annex B are submitted two weeks in advance or is it the Governments intent that completed Vol(s) 3 and 4 are submitted two weeks in advance?

The PP-1 and CE-1, and Annex B are requested to be submitted two weeks prior to proposal submission date.

Section C, Page 80, Para 3.2.7 Communication Security

Will the Government verify that there is COMSEC equipment onboard the ATMO vessels for which contractor personnel will exercise control via a COMSEC Hand Receipt or similar custody procedures?

This effort will not require COMSEC equipment on board the ATMO vessels.

Section C, Page 126, Para 3.3.35.5.3 Range Clearance Operations

This section states “During Range clearance operations, the Contractor shall be required to provide a captain and/or crew to operate the vessel. The number of crew members will depend on mission requirements. The captain/crew mix will occasionally consist of a combination of Contractor and Government personnel.” Are these combination crews predictable? Are they generally tied to similar mission support sets? When captain/crew mixes include both contractor and Government personnel, to whom do the contractor personnel report while supporting underway operations? The same questions apply to PWS 3.3.35.5.6.

1. The combination of crews can vary depending on the mission and availability of the ATMO Pax River personnel.

2. Each mission can differ on the number/combination of personnel required.

3. When supporting underway operations, the Captain is responsible for all vessel operations and the mission support lead is responsible for all mission support decisions (assigned at time of mission).

Section C, Page 135, Para 3.3.47 Vessel Support Services

How much lead time does the Government normally provide between notification of the need for surge vessel(s) and the requirement for augmentation vessels to be on station? Should the contractor anticipate crewing these augmentation vessels with existing ATMO Pax River crews, or will augmentation crews also be required? If temporary augmentation crews are required, do the same wage determination requirements apply to them that are in effect for full-time crew personnel? Will the Government provide details on any COMSEC, physical security, or other special requirements that are associated with augmentation vessels?

1. The Government typically provides a lead time of 2-3 weeks for notification of surge vessel(s) requirements.

2. Vessel Support Services provide the crew for the augmentation vessels, however, Contractor mission support personnel will be on board to operate equipment essential to the mission.

3. Augmentation crews are included in the cost of the Vessel Support Services.

4. There is no COMSEC requirements for this effort.

Section C, Page 136, Para 3.3.47 Vessel Dry Docking Services

Will the Government provide results of the most recent drydocking inspections on the ATMO Pax vessels? Will the Government provide a nominal schedule of the upcoming planned maintenance availability periods for its vessels? Will the Government provide the contractor with the results of the inspections specified in PWS 3.3.48.2.1 and 3.3.48.2.2?

Results from the most recent drydocking inspections are specifically for the Government. The ATMO Pax owned vessel the "Relentless" is docked every five years. Other vessels are docked annually. Other vessel maintenance is dependent on material condition and the amount of funding available.

Section C, page 143, Para 3.4.8 Table; page 162, Para 3.4.9.40; and Attachment CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet, Base Year, Rows 53-54

There is a discrepancy between the SOW and Attachment CA-1. The SOW indicates that the labor category “Engineer, Radar Cross Section, Senior (KEY)” is a KEY position only. But CA-1 indicates there is both a KEY and Non-KEY instance of this labor category.

Will the Government clarify this in the SOW and/or Attachment CA- 1? Note: Any corrections made to CA-1 will need to be applied to all Option Years.

It is the Government's intent to have the offeror bid both positions in the CA-1. However, only one position will be considered key for Evaluation purposes. Please see the forthcoming Amendment 0001 for clarification.

Section C, page 143, Para 3.4.8 Table; page 169, Para 3.4.9.60; and Attachment CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet, Base Year, Rows 85

There is a discrepancy within the SOW and Attachment CA-1. The SOW table on Pg 143 matches CA-1 title as follows, “General Operations Manager, Deputy, Journeyman.” However, the labor category description on SOW Pg 169 does not include the modifier, “Journeyman.” Will the Government clarify this in the SOW and/or Attachment CA-1? Note: Any corrections made to CA-1 will need to be applied to all Option Years.

Please see the forthcoming Amendment 0001.

Section C, page 143, Para 3.4.8 Table; page 170, Para 3.4.9.61; and Attachment CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet, Base Year, Rows 86

There is a discrepancy within the SOW and Attachment CA-1. The SOW table on Pg 143 matches CA-1 title as follows, “General Operations Manager, Senior (KEY).” However, the labor category description on SOW Pg 170 does not include the modifier, “Senior.”

Will the Government clarify this in the SOW and/or Attachment CA- 1? Note: Any corrections made to CA-1 will need to be applied to all Option Years.

Please see the forthcoming Amendment 0001.

Section C, page 144, Para 3.4.8 Table; page 186, Para 3.4.9.101, and Attachment CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet, Base Year, Rows 136

There is a discrepancy between the SOW and Attachment CA-1. The SOW includes the labor category title as follows, “Subject Matter Expert, Range Electronic Warfare Threat Definition.” However, the labor category In CA-1 does not include the modifier, “Definition.”

Will the Government clarify this in the SOW and/or Attachment CA- 1? Note: Any corrections made to CA-1 will need to be applied to all Option Years.

Please see the forthcoming Amendment 0001.

20 Section H, Page 229 Are offerors only required to provide a copy of teaming arrangements if the offeror proposes teaming arrangements on an exclusive basis?

In accordance with clause 5252.215-9505 Exclusive Teaming Arrangements which Inhibit Competition, the Prime Offeror shall provide a "copy of all teaming arrangements".

Attachment CA-1, Prime Cost Spreadsheet Summary Tab

Columns I, M, and S, rows 452 thru 454 do not match the total costs of the BY thru OY 9’s Travel, Material, and ODCs. There are formula errors on columns I and M rows 452 thru 454. Would the Government fix the formulas and confirm the total travel, material, and ODCs is equal to $349,067,010?

Yes, please see the updated CA-1 and CA-2 attachments with the forthcoming Amendment 0001.

Attachment CA-1, Prime Cost Spreadsheet Overtime Premium

RFP section 5.3.2.1, page 290, states on Overtime and Premium pay “If it is offeror’s policy to pay premium, in addition to the direct labor rates, provide a detailed explanation of how the premium rates/pay are calculated…” The Attachment_CA_1 Excel template does not account for any Overtime rate premium on the direct labor. Will the Government confirm the offeror may add a column to add the Overtime rate?

Columns K and O are designed for Offerors to enter their overtime direct labor rates for ATR and ATMO positions respectively. Offerors should enter in overtime direct labor rates in columns K and O for each contract year. If Offerors have additional premiums over their direct and or overtime rates, a calculation should be added within the given cells and columns. Offerors must explain the premiums within their cost narratives so that the Government can trace any formulas provided within these cells. Offerors shall not add additional columns to the spreadsheets. Please see the updated instructions in the CA-1 and CA-2 attachments in the forthcoming Amendment 0001.

Section C, Sections

3.4.8 and 3.4.9, Section L, Part B 2.1.2 b), Atch CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet 5.21

Section L 2.1.2 b) requires offerors to describe potential challenges in finding qualified personnel for hard to fill labor categories and lists several examples. One of the listed examples is Information Security Analyst, which does not appear to be one of the labor categories listed in the SOW or in Attachment CA-1.

Question: Will the Government identify the labor category associated with the Information Security Analyst?

The labor category Information Security Analyst can be found in the Statement of Work paragraphs, 3.4.9.62-3.4.9.64 and in Attachment CA-1 at row 87-89.

Atch CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet 5.21

There appears to be an error in the formulas that calculate the total Travel, Material, and ODCs on the Summary tab. The Summary tab formulas for cells M452, M453, and M454 pull data from the Option Year ODC subtotal cells or from empty Option Year cells.

Question: Will the Government correct the Summary tab Travel, Material, and ODCs formulas and provide a revised Attachment CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet_5.21?

Yes, please see the updated CA-1 and CA-2 attachments with the forthcoming Amendment 0001.

Volume 5, 5.3.2.1 Atch CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet 5.21

"The RFP states "The Government considers these rates realistic as they are based off of historical rate information. This information is provided to all Offerors to ensure the realism of direct labor rates."

However, the table does not include historical rates for all labor categories and locations listed in Attachment CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet_5.21. Missing are historical rates for multiple labor categories based in Mayport, Key West, Oceana, and Pt. Mugu.

Question: Will the Government provide historical rates for all labor category locations listed in Attachment CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet_5.21?

Please see the forthcoming Amendment 0001.

Atch CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet_ 5.21

While working with Attachment CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet, Offeror noticed the following cells had missing formulas:

Tab: Base Year, Cells M63; O63; M125; M127; M129 Tab: Option Year 4, Cells M123; M125 Tab: Option Year 5, Cells M123; M125; O32 Tab: Option Year 6, Cell M120 Tab: Option Year 8, Cells I44; I46 Tab: Option Year 9, Cells O32 Question: Will the Government reissue the Attachment CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet with completed formulas in these cells?

Yes, please see the updated CA-1 and CA-2 attachments with the forthcoming Amendment 0001.

Section C. Paragraphs

3.4 Labor Categories

& Qualifications,

3.4.9.1 Labor Category

Functional Descriptions and Attachment CA-1 Prime Cost Spreadsheet

There appear to be multiple inconsistencies in the numbers of personnel listed in Section C, Paragraphs 3.4.9.1 with those listed in Attachment CA-1. For example, Attachment CA-1 lists 1 FTE on line 5 for the category "Captain, Master," while Paragraph 3.4.9.1 lists the number of Security Clearances required as "(2) Secret." Similarly, Attachment CA-1 lists 9 FTEs on line 91 for the category "Engineering Technician VI" while Paragraph 3.4.9.47 lists "(4) Secret" and “(6)” Top as the Security Clearances required for that labor category.

Question: Will the Government align the number of personnel in Attachment CA-1 with the position descriptions, work locations, FTE counts, and clearance levels for personnel in Section C, Paragraphs 3.4, 3.4.1, and 3.4.2?

The number of security clearances is not intended to indicate the total number of FTEs for a given labor category. The number in parenthesis indicates the number of FTEs that are required to have the specified clearance.

28 Table G-4 Please confirm that offerors are not required to print Volume 5 CA-1 Prime Cost Breakout Spreadsheet and CA-2 Subcontractor Cost Breakout Spreadsheet.

In accordance with Table G-3, all Offerors shall submit a paper copy of the Section L, Volume 5 Cost inclusive of CA-1 and CA-2.

Proposal Format and Submission

Will the Government please allow offerors to use a font size of no smaller that 8pt font in figures, in order to provide a clearer presentation of information in figures?

Section L, Part A, paragraph 2 states that graphs and tables should be presented in no smaller than a 10 point font. In addition, text utilized in charts, figures and graphics should also be no smaller than a 10 point font and may use a font type selected by the offeror.