N00421-18-R-0038_Final_RFP_Questions_-_2.pdf

Number REF/#: Industry Question/Comment Government Response

1 L.2.2

Q&A 2, number 39 states that the Transition Phase-In Plan is outside the suggested page count. This is not stated in the final RFP

Please confirm that the Transition Phase-In Plan is not part of the suggested page count

The "Suggested Page" Count is provided as a guide, only, and is not a required maximum page count. Please provide all necessary information within the appropriate Volume.

Section L, Part

B, Volume 5 -

Cost

Section 5.3.2.1 – Direct Rates – The Government states, “If proposed rates for prospective hires are less than the range of rates for direct labor rates shown below, the Government will adjust the proposed direct rates to the bottom of this rate range identified in the table. Question: Will the Government please clarify the rates take in to account the clearances required for these positions? The direct rate range table included in Section L, Volume 5 is considered accurate for all labor categories. Offerors are permitted to bid above the provided direct labor rate.

RFP Section

5.3.2.1 – Direct

Rates on page

Paragraph 8 states that “The table below provides a rate range of direct labor rates for all of the labor categories identified under this solicitation (exclusive of Key Personnel).” When compared to Attachment_CA-

1_Prime_Cost_Spreadsheet_5.21.xlsx, there appears to be Labor Categories and Locations that are not listed within the

Rate Range Table.

For instance, Attachment_CA_1_Spreadsheet_5.21.xlsx lists Computer System Analyst, Senior positions at both Patuxent

River, MD and t. Mugu, CA (rows 17 & 18 respectively). However, the Rate Range table lists a rate range for the

Computer System Analyst, Senior at Patuxent River and does not provide a rate range for the location at Pt. Mugu, CA.

Similarly, rate ranges are not provided in the Rate Range table for the following Attachment_CA_1_Spreadsheet_5.21.xlsx positions:

Row Position Location

26 Engineer, Junior Pt. Mugu, CA

28 Engineer, Journeyman Pt. Mugu, CA

30 Engineer, Senior Norfolk, VA

31 Engineer, Senior Pt. Mugu, CA

38 Engineer Electrical, Senior Pt. Mugu, CA

43 Engineer, Software, Junior Pt. Mugu, CA

45 Engineer, Software, Journeyman Pt. Mugu, CA

51 Engineer, Systems, Senior Pt. Mugu, CA

96 Management Analyst, Journeyman Norfolk, VA

105 Operations Manager, Journeyman Pt. Mugu, CA

Question – Is the Government planning to provide Rate Ranges for the eleven positions noted above?

Please see Amendment 0001.

4 TE-10

The Government responded in question 9 of Q&A Response (N00421-18-R-0038_DRFP_Questions_-_5.pdf) that they intended to provide a document similar to the Technical Exhibit (TE)-10 of the prior acquisition. TE-10 mapped Labor

Categories and quantities to Functional Support Areas (such as Aerial Targets, Radar, etc.) and to the corresponding SOW reference.

Question – Does the Government still intend to provide this documentation?

Please see the FBO posting for Technical Exhibit 10 (TE-10).

Section C, Page

56, Para 3.1.2

Work Locations and Facilities

Key West, FL is not listed, yet is included throughout the SOW, including Para 3.4.8 Labor Qualifications. Will the

Government update Para 3.1.2 to include Key West, FL?

Paragraph 3.1.2 is updated in Amendment 0001.

Section C, Page

71, Para 3.1.8.1

Transition

Will the Government provide their expectations with respect to demonstrating the current status of the MIS at the Post-award conference?

The Awardee shall provide MIS development status at the Post-Award Conference.

Section C, Page

72, Para 3.1.10

Training and

Certifications

The first paragraph in this SOW section states, “Contractors shall provide Government procedural training as required to organizational personnel in support of this SOW.” Will the Government provide a list of this training and make the training material available?

Training material will be provided during transition.

Section C, Page

177, Para

3.4.9.79

This paragraph provides the labor category description for the key labor category “Operations Manager, Aerial Targets Site

Lead, Journeyman.” Twice in the description it mentions Dam Neck; however, the table in paragraph 3.4.8 on page 142 list the location for this key labor category as Norfolk, VA. Please confirm the location for this key labor category.

Norfolk oversees all operations at both Norfolk and Dam Neck. All Aerial Targets operations are conducted at the Dam Neck site. For bidding purposes Offerors shall reference locations as specified in CA-1.

Section L, Page

268, Para 2.1.2

Operating

System and

Applications

This paragraph requires signed documents, such as “letters and other signed documents,” to be provided as fully searchable

Portable Document Format (.pdf) files. If an offeror only has scanned PDF files for items such as teaming agreements, Government-provided Statements of Work, and/or Government-provided DCAA/DCMA audits, reports, and

Determinations, will the Government allow offerors to include such non-searchable PDF files in their submission?

All Portable Document Format (.pdf) files must be searchable.

Section L, Page

270, Table G-2, Offeror

Electronic File

Naming

Convention

This table requires several files to be provided in both MS Word (.docx) and Portable Document Format (.pdf) files. Some of these files (SOWs/PWSs/DCMA and DCAA reports, audits, and determinations/teaming agreements) do not exist in

.docx format. If the documents are not available in .docx format, will the Government allow only .pdf submittals?

As stated in Proposal Format and Submission Para 2.1.7 Note:

"The offeror should provide both a .pdf and docx version if they are available. If not, a .pdf version only is acceptable."

Section L, Page

278, Para 3, Volume 3 –

Corporate

Experience

This paragraph requires offerors to submit Table CE-1 “as the first section of Volume 3 (Corporate Experience) as a separate electronic file.” Should this statement read “as the first section of Volume 3 (Corporate Experience) AND as a separate electronic file?

The Offeror shall provide the CE-1 as stated in Section L Volume 3 (Corporate

Experience) paragraph 3. The CE-1 file is a .xlsx it will need to be a separate electronic file outside of the .pdf/.docx part of the volume. It should be the first section of the volume.

Section L, Para

4, Page 280

In the second full paragraph discussing Annex B, the RFP states: “Offeror shall provide two electronic copies of the complete final versions of the SOW/PWS or other supporting solicitation/contract documentation from each contract or delivery/task order reference identified in Attachment L-1 Table ES-2 (Relevant Contract Summary).” It then states: “For contract references that contain delivery/task orders, additionally provide the work description for each specific delivery/task order.” Please clarify the difference between these two requirements. Is the work description different than the PWS/SOW for these delivery/task orders or does the second statement mean that all delivery/task orders for that reference contract should be delivered whether they are relevant or not?

The Work Description refers to Attachment L-5 PP-1, the Offeror will provide a brief description. Please see Amendment 0001 for the clarifying language in Section

L, Volume 3, second full paragraph. The PWS/SOW excerpts provided by the

Offeror are intended to validate the information provided.

SOW/PWS for task/delivery orders that are not considered relevant are not required.

Section L, Pages

285 and 291, para 5.3.1.1 and

5.3.2.7

RFP section 5.3.1.1 states “Offeror shall not deviate from the Government provided labor categories and hours or the

Travel, Material and ODC estimates provided in the CA 1 attachment.” However, section 5.3.2.7 – ODCs states the offeror can apply our burden to the Government provided estimate. Will the Government confirm offerors can add burdens on the

Government provided ODC estimates as provided in CA 1? Offerors can add burdens on the Government provided ODC estimates as provided in

CA 1.

Section L, Page

286, para

5.3.2.1

RFP states that for all prospective hires, offerors must propose the rate range provided by the Government. Also for the

SCA positions, the offeror must propose at or above the AWD minimum rate. If the rate range of the SCA position is above the SCA AWD minimum, are offerors required to propose the rate range minimum?

For prospective hires, Offerors are required to propose in accordance with the rate ranges, all of which should be at or above the AWD minimum rate for the associated

SCA labor category.

Section L, Page

286, para

5.3.2.1

The list of labor categories with rate ranges by location provided in RFP page 287 does not match the labor categories list by location in the Excel attachments CA 1 and CA 2. Will the Government revise the list that was provided in RFP page

287? Please see Amendment 0001.

Section L, Page

287, Direct

Rates Table

Can the Government confirm the Configuration Management Specialist, Junior LCAT is the same LCAT as Configuration

Management Analyst, Junior?

Please see Amendment 0001.

Section L, Page

290, para

5.3.2.3

The RFP states “Offerors shall certify in writing that any proposed Fringe or other indirect rate is in compliance with the applicable Area Wage Determination.” Does the Government require a specific format for the certification?

The Government does not require a specific format for the certification.

Section L, Page

DFARS 252.227-7017 Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions

Question: Offerors assertions in response to this clause is to be submitted as an attachment to its offer. Can the

Government please clarify where this information should be provided? We recommend that it be provided in Volume 6 in accordance with Section L, Part B, Paragraph 6(e)(2).

Yes, concur with the recommendation. Offerors shall submit this information IAW

Section L, Volume 6 (e) (2).

Section M, Page

303, Para II A, Mission

Support

This paragraph states “the Government will only consider strengths in element 2.3 Technology/System/Process Approach.”

If an offeror’s proposed Management Approach contains elements that will benefit the Government and reduce risk during contract execution, would the Government consider assigning strengths to such elements?

In accordance with Section M of the solicitation, “the Government will only consider strengths in element 2.3 Technology/System/Process Approach.” However, a "Risk

Reducer" may be assigned to a proposed management approach that is evaluated to be consistent with the definition of that evaluation term in Section M of the solicitation.

Attachment L-1

Instructions, Item 6

Should the Statement “…are similar to evaluation areas 4.1.1 through 4.1.n.” refer to evaluation areas 3.1.1through 3.1.n?

Attachment Vol 3 L-3 CE Table is updated to correct the language in Item 6 in the

Instructions.

Please see Amendment 0001.

Draft RFP Q&A

#5 of 16 May

2019 Labor

Category

Mapping

In the referenced Q&As, the Government stated that Technical Exhibit (TE) 10, “TE10_ATR-

ATMO_Staffing_Information.xlsx, which mapped labor categories to functional support areas, would be provided with the final RFP. This file was not among the files provided on fbo.gov with the final RFP. Will the Government provide this file?

Yes, please see posting to FBO.

Technical

Library

Will the Government confirm that there are no changes to the technical library issued with the DRFP on 21 Feb 2019, other than the additional Technical Exhibit 10?

There have been no changes to the Technical Library CD previously provided.

Section L, Part

B Specific

Instructions, Volumes 1, 3, and 4, and

Section M

Section L 3.0, L 4.3a., and M III. B. mention that CAGE Code information related to Table ES-2 (Relevant Contract

Summary) will be used in the relevancy determination for Corporate Experience and Past Performance. However, Section M does not provide further information on how the content of Volume 1 - Executive Summary will be evaluated.

Question: Will the Government provide information on how the other information in Volume 1 will be evaluated?

Section L, Volume 1 Executive Summary requests information that will be utilized in multiple Volumes, therefore, Volume 1 is not specifically evaluated separately.

Section L, Part

B, Volume 2 –

Mission

Support

The first sentence states, “Note: This volume shall not contain any reference to cost aspects of the offer”; however, the instructions state that RFP Annex A, Volume 2 Table SB-1 Small Business Requirement, shall be used to provide information for this volume. Annex A includes the Total Proposed Contract Value (including options) in addition to the amounts to be subcontracted.

Question: Would the Government please confirm that Annex A, as provided, must be included with the Mission Support

Volume?

Annex A will be submitted as a separate electronic file and is not a requirement for

Section L, Volume 2. However, the information provided in Annex A will be utilized for the Government's evaluation of element 2.4 Small Business Utilization.

Section L, Part

B Specific

Instructions, Section 4.2

Relevant

Contract Data, Section 4.3.a.

Relevancy

Attachment L-5

Table PP-1

(Past

Performance

RFP states, “All detailed information and comparative analysis of past performance contract references to this solicitation’s requirements shall be provided in Volume 4 (Past Performance), Section 4.3 (Evaluation), of the Offeror’s proposal”.

Question: Please clarify what is meant by “comparative analysis of past performance contract references to this solicitation’s requirements”. Is the Government referring to PWS requirements or the six Evaluation Elements in the Corporate

Experience section?

For Section L, Volume 4 Past Performance, the Offeror shall provide a comparative analysis between the tasking provided in the Solicitation Statement of Work and the

Offerors past SOW/PWS contract reference.

Section L, Part

B Specific

Instructions, Section 3.

Volume 3 –

Corporate

Experience, Section 3.1.5.b.

The RFP states, “Offerors must also demonstrate GOPs/FOPs were approved by providing the cover sheet signed by the

Government Flight Representative (GFR) for each applicable contract referenced.”

Question: Will the Government identify whether the required GOPs/FOPS cover sheet submittal refers to a specific

GOPs/FOPs? The amount of approved GOPs we have on just one of our referenced contracts will provide an additional 20+ pages for this volume. Please clarify the GOPs/FOPS cover sheet submittal requirement.

Question: Will the Government please allow submission of the FOPS/GOPS cover sheet as Annex E with unlimited page count. Please clarify that it is part of the early submission.

GOPs and FOPs are not requested as early information. Offerors will provide the

GOPs/FOPs information in accordance with Volume 3.

Attachment L-1, Table ES-2

Relevant

Contract

Summary

The ES-2 form in Attachment L-1 lists three (3) contracts for Subcontractor A.

Question: Will the Government confirm the form may be modified to allow each subcontractor to include more reference contracts? Attachment L-1 ES-2 Table may be modified to permit each subcontractor to include additional contract references.

Answers to

Questions

Issued 16 May

2019, Answer

Regarding Table CE-1, the answer states, “The CE-1 (Excel) will contain a brief description and Volume 3 (MS Word) will contain a detailed comparative analysis…”

Cells C1-C5 require contractual information, and the remaining cells in Column C specify entry of Applicable PWS/SOW

Section Paragraphs applicable to Column B.

Question: Will the Government modify CE-1 by adding in an additional row, so that offerors may provide the brief description referred to in answer 14?

Correction, CE-1 does not request Offerors to provide a "brief description of the work".

Section L, Part

A General

Instructions

Section 2.1.7

Table G-2

Section 3, Table

G-3

Section 4.1

There are discrepancies in the required Annex A content listed in Section L and in the G-2 and G-3 tables. Three tables are listed for inclusion in Annex A: Table G-2 lists Table T-1 (Small Business Goals), Table G-3 lists Table SB-1 (Small

Business Requirement), and Part B Volume 2 2.4.a).4) lists Table SB-1 Small Business Requirement.

Question: Will the Government confirm that the offeror is to submit one table in Annex A, the Small Business Goals table on the Prime SB Subcontracting Goals tab of Annex_A_SBSP_SBG.xlsx? For Annex A, the Offeror shall submit its Small Business Subcontracting Plan and

SB-1 Small Business Requirement. Please see Amendment 0001.

Section L, Part

A, 3.

The third paragraph of Section L Part A 3. states, “Additionally, the individual subcontracting reports for the past performance volume is not included in the suggested page count...,” but no other mention of individual subcontracting reports is contained in the RFP.

Question: Will the Government confirm that offerors are not required to submit individual subcontracting reports and remove the referenced statement?

Offerors will not need to submit the Individual Subcontracting Reports. Please see the updated language in t Amendment 0001.

Section L 2.

Proposal Format and Submission

Question: Please confirm that headers and footers are excluded from the margin and font requirements. Headers and footers are excluded from the margin and font requirements.

Section L. Table

G-2 Offeror

Electronic File

Naming

Convention

Question: Will the Government confirm that the Mission Support Cross Reference Matrix is excluded from page count in order to provide greater detail for the Evaluation Team?

The "Suggested Page" Count is provided as a guide, only, and is not a required maximum page count. Please provide all necessary information within the appropriate Volume.

CRM Section

2.1.2

Recruitment

Page 274 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.” The CRM to includes SOW references for each Section L Volume or Paragraph Number. However, the MS-1 CRM table lists SOW 3.4.2.7, but there is no SOW 3.4.2.7.

Question: Will the Government remove the reference to SOW 3.4.2.7 or provide an updated SOW paragraph number?

MS-1 CRM has been updated. Please see Amendment 0001.

Volume 2 –

Mission

Support; 2.1.4

Key Personnel

Will the Government please consider removing the Key Personnel Resumes from the Mission Support suggested page count, with offerors submitting as an Annex to Volume 2 – Mission Support outside of page count.

The "Suggested Page" Count is provided as a guide, only, and is not a required maximum page count. Please provide all necessary information within the appropriate Volume.

Section 3.

Proposal

Content and

Volumes

RFP states, “Each binder must contain the following information using tabs and dividers:” and lists items a through g.

Question: Is it the Government’s intent for us to use tabs and dividers for all items a through g? Please clarify.

Offerors shall use tabs and dividers when providing paper copies to the Government.

Section 3.

Proposal

Content and

Volumes

Table G-3 and Attachments L-3 and L-5. RFP states “Relevant Portions of Final Versions of Previous SOO/SOW/PWSs for Past Performance and Corporate Experience” is to be included as Annex B.

Question: Both Attachments L-3 and L-5 request relevant PWS paragraphs. Will the Government please clarify if Annex B is to be included in Volume 3 Corporate Experience or Volume 4 Past Performance?

Annex B shall be provided separately, and will be utilized in both Section L, Volume

3 and Volume 4.

Attachment CA-

1, Prime Cost

Spreadsheet

2.21

The pricing template does not appear to account for premium on overtime hours. Please confirm the pricing template accounts for OT Premiums

Please see the updated instructions in the CA-1 and CA-2 attachments in

Amendment 0001.

Attachment L-4

– PPQ

The main heading on Attachment L-4 – PPQ is labeled as Volume 3. Can the Government please confirm that it is acceptable for the contractor to change this to reflect the correct volume number, Volume 4?

Yes, please update this heading to the correct volume number, Volume 4.