DRAFT_RFP_Government_Responses_to_Industry_Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N00421-18-R-0040
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a draft request for proposal for integrated warfare test and evaluation services. The solicitation number is N00421-18-R-0040 and is being issued by the Department of the Navy Naval Air Systems Command Naval Air Warfare Center. Key details include that the draft statement of work is for industry review and comment, with questions and comments due by 11:30 am Eastern on August 11, 2018. The work includes support for aircraft test and evaluation in areas such as data access, support evaluation, testing, performance evaluation and cybersecurity testing. Labor categories and locations are also addressed in the questions and answers.
DRAFT RFP Government Responses to Industry Comments/Questions
View the file
Other files
Show all 31
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A's INDUSTRY QUESTIONS/COMMENTS AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSES FOR THE AIR-5.1.12 INTEGRATED WARFARE TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT SERVICES DRAFT RFP SOLICITATION # N00421-18-R-0040
| QUESTION/COMMENT # | DRAFT RFP REFERENCE | INDUSTRY QUESTIONS/COMMENTS | GOVERNMENT RESPONSES |
| 1 | Section A. Item (6) | Does the government anticipate the requirement for the contractor to process or store SAP materials at the contractor's facilities? | No. Item 1.b for the DD 254 defines the level of safeguarding required. |
| 2 | Item 3.3 | The Draft RFP covers most IWED/5.1.12 areas, it does not include support for Training Systems T&E (5.1.12.10). Does the Government intend to include support for Training Systems T&E in this effort? | No. Training Systems T&E is done at NAWCTSD, Orlando Fl. |
| 3 | Items 3.3.1 - 3.3.6 | "Data access", "support evaluation", "support testing", and "performance evaluation" are all stated, however, data evaluation or evaluation or test data is not stated. Are there unique T&E engineer / data science support requirements in terms of anticipated analysis methods to be used, tools, or software coding development skills to be used in data capture, reduction, and distribution; Are there unique T&E engineer / data science personnel qualifications needed to fill data science roles; Are there unique T&E engineer / data science personnel experience thresholds or preferences needed to fulfill data science roles in support of the detailed requirements? Recommendation: Include data sciences functions and details within section 3.3.11, pg. 18. | Data analysis requirements are not uniquely specific. |
| 4 | Item 3.3.6 | Cyber Security T&E does not specifically call out access to the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communication System (JWICS) network although it appears that it may be required. Does the Government anticipate a requirement for contractor access to JWICS (government site)? | Access to JWICS will not be required. |
| 5 | Item 3.3.6 | Would the Government consider adding specific labor categories aligned with the cyber workforce such as Computer Scientist or Information Assurance Analyst for addition to the SOW? | The Government is evaluating the addition of Computer Scientist and Information Assurance Analyst labor categories. |
| 6 | Item 3.4.1 | Would the government consider the addition of a Junior Engineer, Junior Engineering Technician, Mid-Level Systems Analyst, and Junior Systems Analyst to the available labor categories for potential needs in the out-years of the contract? | The Government is evaluationg the addition of Junior Engineer, Junior Engineering Technician, Mid-Level Systems Analyst, and Junior Systems Analyst labor categories. |
| 7 | Item 3.4.1.1 | The summary table indicates a certain number of Full Time Equivalents (FTE) per labor category; and calls for a number of key positions in certain for each labor category. Comparing section L to the table and based on the total labor hours it seems clear that key positions indicated in the table are additive to the FTE requirement. Are key positions indicated in the table in section 3.4.1.1 to be considered additive to the number of FTE for the position? For clarity, is the total FTE requirement for Senior Engineers, 35? | Yes. Table 3.4.1.1 calls for adding Key with FTE to obtain the total for any Labor category. |
| 8 | Items 3.4.1.1 & 3.4.4 | Do the Journeyman labor categories listed on pages 22 and 23 of the draft RFP maps to the mid-level Summary of Labor Categories table on page 19? | Yes. The mid-level Labor categories equate to Journeyman Labor categories. |
| 9 | Items 3.4.2 & 3.4.4 | The personnel requirements and minimum personnel requirements do not list labor categories that have DoD approved baseline certification requirements. Does the government anticipate adding DoD Approved Baseline certification requirements to any labor categories in the final RFP? Does the Government intend that all labor categories listed could apply to cyber workforce? | There are no certification requirements for any of the labor categories. All labor categories listed could apply to cyber workforce where appropriate. |
| 10 | Item 3.4.2.4 | This section refers to "Degrees in the Professional Engineering functional area specified below..." and includes five (5) Majors. Section 3.4.3 provides a broader definition of Engineering and Engineering discipline and includes twelve (12) Majors. The labor category descriptions in Sect 3.4.4 for Senior Program Manager, Senior Engineer, Journeyman Engineer, and Senior Analyst seem to align to the broader definition provided in Sect 3.4.3. In its special notice response on January 30, the Government offered to consider the below recommendation prior to the release of the solicitation. Recommendation: If Sect 3.4.2.4 applies to or limits the qualifying Majors for any of the labor categories so, we recommend adding key engineering and science degrees into this section, such as Industrial, Mechanical, and Computer Science Engineering and Physics, Statistics, Human Factors, and Mathematics degrees. | Agree with the recommendation. This will be updated to the solicitation. |
| 11 | Item 3.4.2.7 | Section 3.4.2.7 provides a substitution for a master’s degree and PhD. In its special notice response on January 30, the Government responded to a request for a substitution for a bachelor’s degree, stating in the response that a bachelor’s degree may be substituted for 6 years additional work experience in the field or associate degree plus 4 years additional work experience in the field. In the updated draft RFP, section 3.4.2.7 was not amended in the draft statement of work to include the latter substitutions. Recommendation: Amend section 3.4.2.7 to allow that a bachelor’s degree may be substituted for 6 years additional work experience in the field or associate degree plus 4 years additional work experience in the field. | Concur with the recommendation. This will be updated to the solicitation. |
| 12 | Item 3.4.4 | Journeyman Engineer labor category description states in parentheses ‘(6 years for key personnel)’. The table on page 19 says the number of key personnel in this labor category is 0. Kindly request confirmation that there are no Key personnel required for Journeyman Engineer labor category? | There is no Key for the Journeyman Engineer. This will be corrected. |
| 13 | Item 3.4.4 | The education requirement for a Journeyman Engineer allows for a bachelor’s or postgraduate degree in an engineering or physics discipline. The education requirement for a Senior Engineer allows for a bachelor’s or postgraduate degree from an engineering discipline. As stated, it does not include an allowance for a physics discipline. For the Senior Engineer, would the Government include an allowance for a bachelor’s or postgraduate degree in a physics discipline? | Yes. |
| 14 | Item 3.4.4 | The Senior Systems Analyst position description allows for 12 years of relevant engineering and acquisition experience to be substituted for a degree. The position description calls for a minimum number of years’ experience in project support in the test and evaluation field. May the years’ relevant experience being substituted for a degree be concurrent with the minimum years’ experience required? | Yes. |
| 15 | Item 3.4.4 | The Senior Systems Analyst position description requires a minimum of 6 years’ experience in project support in the aircraft test and evaluation field. In the case of a position supporting Cybersecurity T&E, could years’ experience within the Department of the Navy in cybersecurity evaluation be included with aircraft T&E experience to meet the minimum number of years project experience? | Yes. |
| 16 | Item 3.4.4 | The experience requirement for the Journeyman Administrative Assistant calls for no specific experience. Based on recent NAVAIR solicitations, the journeyman level requires between three- and ten-years’ experience. For the Journeyman Administrative Assistant positions, would the Government consider incorporating a minimum experience, or desired level or type of experience into the RFP? | Yes, the Government will identify the amount of experience and an update to the solicitation will be made. |
| 17 | Section L. Item 4.5.2 | A Journeyman Engineering Technician billet has been assigned to Point Mugu. Does the government anticipate this billet would support Electronic Warfare Systems T&E or Mission Planning Systems T&E? | Yes for Electronic Warfare Systems T&E or Mission Planning Systems T&E. |
| 18 | Section L. Item 4.5.2 | A key Senior Systems Analyst billet has been assigned to COMOPTEVFOR. DoD Cyber Workforce qualifications uniquely places emphasis on certifications and in addition to valuing field experience, rather than degree requirements. If this billet is intended to support Cyber Security T&E, would the Government consider assigning a key Senior Engineering Technician position to support the requirements at COMOPTEVFOR? | Yes. This will be updated to the solicitation. |
| 19 | Section L | PART A, 3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES, states that there is no page limit for Past Performance. Section L Pages 96 and 97 states “The Offeror(s) shall complete the Past Performance Information Form, Attachment P4, for each past performance reference performed within five years of the solicitation release date.” Additionally, the section states “The Offeror(s) shall provide a narrative on each Past Performance Information form in the “Contract Effort Description” area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions specified in Section M of the solicitation.” The current form is 2 pages and is limited to displaying or printing eight (8) lines of text of the Contract Effort Description. Would the Government consider modifying the format for Attachment P4 to allow the Contract Effort Description to be entered without page limit? | The Government will update the RFP to "No Page Limit" |
| 20 | Section C. Items 3.4.1.1 & 3.4.4 | The chart on page 19 indicates “Seniors” and “Mid Level”, however in the qualifications descriptions on pages 22 -23 and 101, the labor categories indicate “Journeyman”. Please provide clarification for the labor category titles. | Mid Level will be changed to Journeyman. This will be updated to the solicitation. |
| 21 | Section L Item 4.3(h) | Escalation on labor indicates, “Offerors, including subcontractors, shall address escalation for all Non-SCA labor categories”. Are there any labor categories that the Government considers SCA? | Yes, there will be SCA as well as Non-SCA labor categories in this RFP. Those SCA labor categories will be identified when the RFP is released. |
| 22 | Section L Item 4.4 | Please confirm that Subcontractors are not required to submit a Total Professional Compensation Plan. | The RFP will be updated to reflect that subcontractors will be required to submit a Total Professional Compensation Plan. |
| 23 | Section L Item 4.5.1 | Please confirm that the Government wants the Offeror to use the amounts provided in the chart per year, adding burdens, if applicable. | Yes, the Offeror is required to use the amounts provided in the chart per year, adding burdens, if applicable. |
| 24 | Section L Item 4.5.2 | The sum of hours for Year 1 and the Total Hours is off by 80 hours, and it appears 80 hours is missing from Year 1 for the “Systems Analyst, Sr. (Pax River, Onsite)” labor category. | Will change Systems Analyst, Sr. (Pax River, Onsite)* This will correct all other totals. |
| 25 | Section C Items 3.1.2.1 & 3.4.1.1 and Section L Item 4.5.2 | Work location requirements varies. Can the Government clarify the work locations for all labor category positions? | The Government will clarify in the solicitation all work locations. |
| 26 | Part A, Paragraph 3.0 of Section L describes a cross-reference matrix that helps “ensure that all solicitation requirements are addressed” in the technical volume. This section also limits the page count for responses to the three sample tasks to 3 pages each. Part B, Volume 2, Paragraph 4.1 of Section L requires the offeror demonstrate an “Understanding of the Work”; however, the specific sample tasks and the sample task response outline are TBD. Finally, Part B, Paragraph 1.0 of Section M states the following: “The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements.” If the intent is for the contractor to show an understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements of each element in the SOW, would the Government consider including an Understanding the Work Section (with additional page count) to address all SOW elements, in addition to the 3 pages per Sample Task. | No. The responses to the sample tasks are considered sufficient to determine the ability of each Offeror to meet all of the Government requirements as stated in the SOW. | |
| 27 | Does the Government anticipate the number of FTEs to be 86.5 at the beginning of the contract period of performance, or is there anticipated to be a ramp up to that level over some period of time? | The Government anticipates 60 FTEs by contract start. The Government's requirements will vary and this total is expected to increase during the contract PoP. | |
| 28 | Respectfully request that additional consideration be given to reducing the number of Key Personnel. This is based on an observation of multiple NAWCAD solicitations whereby the percentage of Key Personnel were significantly less, to include a recent opportunity of similar size and scope within the Air 5.1 Department that required 3 Key Personnel. The inordinately large number of Key Personnel will provide a significant advantage to incumbent contractors and hinder competition. | The Government will consider lowering the amount of key personnel, however, our analysis is based on the number of Government teams and large Government programs. We determined a total of 7 Key personnel to be optimum. | |
| 29 | Program Manager is listed as Key but only ½ man year requested. Given the importance of this position, suggest consideration be given to making this person full time directly supporting the Program. This seems especially reasonable for support of 86 personnel on a wide array of tasks. | Yes. The Government will make this position full time. This will be updated to the solicitation. | |
| 30 | We noted in the answers provided to questions to the DSOW, that the Government evaluation determined a NAICS of 541715 Exception for Aircraft, Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts with the 1500-size standard, however, it was listed as TBD in the DRFP. As this is essential to teaming make up, we request the Government replace the TBD with 541715 Exception for Aircraft, Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts. | The "TBD" in the Draft RFP will be replaced with NAICS 541715 Exception for Aircraft, Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts with a 1500 size standard. | |
| 31 | Given the VTC obsolescence, as indicated in Government’s answers provided to questions to the DSOW, please confirm that 3.1.2.2 is not requiring a secure VTC capability at contractor’s site. | Confirmed. Paragraph 3.1.2.2 does not require a secure VTC capability at the contractor's site. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .