Q&As_to_RFP_N00421-18-R-0040_Posting.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N00421-18-R-0040
About this file
This document contains questions and responses related to Request for Proposals number N00421-18-R-0040 for Integrated Warfare Test and Evaluation Services. The solicitation seeks proposals for test and evaluation support services at various government sites, including COMOPTEVFOR. Key details include labor categories and education requirements for positions like Program Manager, Engineer, and Systems Analyst. Offerors should follow proposal formatting instructions and include a cross-reference matrix. The performance period is from April 2020 to April 2025.
Additional Questions 22 and 23
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
Sheet1
| Industry Comments/Questions and Government Responses in Response to RFP # N00421-18-R-0040 FBO Posting on 6 August 2019 | ||||
| Question # | RFP Reference | Page # | Industry Comments/Questions | Government Responses |
| 1 | Section C 3.1.2.2 | 11 | Will the Government reaffirm the previous responses to Draft SOW and Draft RFP questions in that VTC capability will not be required at contractor facility or that any collaborative online system (Skype, VTC, etc) to support online meetings would be suitable? | The Government will allow for any collaborative system that is compatible with the Government sites. Paragraph 3.1.2.2 will be amended to reflect the change from "shall have VTC capability" to "shall have VTC capability or any collaborative system that is compatible with Government sites"... |
| 2 | Section B B-1, Section C 3.4.1, & Section L Part B 3.5.2 | 3, 21, & 87 | The table on page 3 says “Program Manager, Sr.” and “Offsite”. Table 1 on page 21 says “Program Manager” and “Onsite”. The table on page 87 says “Program Manager, Sr.” and “Offsite”. Is it correct to assume that these all refer to the one and only Program Manager and that the individual is working “Onsite”? | Yes, all three of the referenced Senior Program Manager labor categories are for the same ("one and only Program Manager") and should all indicate "Off-Site". The Government has amended Table 1 on page 21 to correctly state "Program Manager, Senior (Key)" and "Off-Site". See attached amended RFP. |
| 3 | 5252.211-9507 & 5252.215-9503 | 34 & 89 | The first reference cites the POP as beginning on 1 April 2020 and the second reference states that the anticipated Award date is 1 April 2020. Typically Award precedes start work by several months or weeks. Can the Government correct the Award date to the anticipated award date? | The Government has updated 5252.211-9507 in the RFP to state, "The contract shall commence on 1 May 2020 and shall continue for a five (5) year ordering period through 30 April 2025." See attached amendment. |
| 4 | Section M: Part A 1.0, 2.0, & 3.0; Part C 5.0 Clause 5252.215-9524 | 91-92 & 97 | The last referenced clause (5252.215-9524) state that this is an Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procurement which is in contradiction with the other references that state that this is a Best Value Full Trade Off procurement. Is it correct to assume that the clause 5252.215-9524 is inadvertently included and the Government intends to remove this reference? | Clause 5252.215-9524 will not be included; therefore, the Government has removed 5252.215-9524 from the solicitation. See attached amendment. |
| 5 | Section B B-1, Section C 3.4.1 & 3.4.4, & Section L Part B 3.5.2 | 4, 21, 27, & 88 | The table on page 4 says “Information Assurance Analyst, Sr.” Table 1 on page 21 says “Information Security Analyst, Sr." The table on page 87 says “Information Assurance Analyst, Sr.” The labor category description in Table 3 on page 27 appears to be describing an Information Security Analyst. Please provide the correct labor category and description/education requirements. | The correct labor category is Information Security Analyst; therefore, table 3 on page 27 is correct. The Government has amended pages 4 and 88 to correctly state "Information Security Analyst, Sr." See attached amended RFP. |
| 6 | Section L Part A 2.0 | 77 | The RFP States: “All pages should be numbered with section and page numbers.” Depending on the length of section content, section numbering may not naturally appear on each page. Integrating section numbers into the header/footer or into the page numbering would require each section to start at the top of a page, thereby forcing a break and potentially losing page count to unusable space. (1) Could the Government please clarify the instructions for including section numbers in the cited reference? (2) In section 3.0 on page 78, offerors are instructed to use paragraph numbers that “correspond to the volume, book, section, and element, etc.” As the section number cited in 3.0 is nested within the paragraph number, how does section number cited above correspond to this numbering requirement? | Offerors should use their discretion when integrating information into the headers/footers as this is not a requirement of the RFP. Section numbers on page 78 of the RFP under 3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES will be revised within the Table as follows: The section column labeled "Section", Section 2 will be revised to read 2.0; Section 3 will be revised to read 3.0; and Section 4 will be revised to read 4.0. Therefore, offerors can correspond the revised section numbers to this numbering requirement. |
| 7 | Section L Part A 2.0 | 77 | The RFP states: “Graphs and tables shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph.” Certain graphics and tables include information that may not be easily or effectively presented in a grid format. As such, this requirement may restrict the offeror’s ability to present information in the clearest and most efficient format. (1) Does this requirement apply to all types of graphical illustrations or only to numerical graphs? (2) Does this requirement apply to tables? If so, please clarify the instructions for providing non-numerical data in this format. | ALL graphs and tables provided in response to this solicitation shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt font; of which, the RFP states "and should contain a grid". This is at the offeror's discretion and is not a requirement. |
| 8 | Section L Part A 3.0 | 78-79 | The RFP states: “The Offeror shall submit a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) for the Technical Volume…..The CRM should be a single integrated matrix and cross-reference the proposal volumes and paragraphs to specific RFP requirements, as well as other parts of the proposal that contain relevant information.” The CRM is referenced as being “for the Technical Volume” and the example shows only Volume 1 references. However, the same paragraph instructs offerors that the matrix is to be “a single integrated matrix and cross-reference the proposal volumes and paragraphs.” (1) Should the CRM include cross-references for all proposal volumes or for the Technical Volume only? (2) Could the Government please confirm that the CRM is to be submitted within the Technical Volume only (i.e., no copies submitted within Volume 2 and 3)? | The CRM must include a cross-reference for the Technical Volume only and be submitted within the Technical Volume only. Under 3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES, page 78, the Government will revise the wording from:“a single integrated matrix and cross-reference the proposal volumes and paragraphs” to “a single integrated matrix and a cross-reference for the technical proposal volume and associated paragraphs. |
| 9 | Section L Part A 3.0 & Section L Part B 1.1.1-1.1.2 | 78 & 80 | The RFP states: “Proposal information must be structured such that its Volume/paragraph number matches the Proposal Instructions Volume/paragraph number provided in section “Part B Specific Instructions” to which it is responding, although the Offeror may add lower tier subparagraphs…..” How does this requirement apply to the Sample Tasks? Section 1.1.1 contains no instruction and requests no information independent of the information requested in response to 1.1.2. The Offeror shall address the following in the proposal: 1.1 Understanding of the Work – Written Response to Sample Tasks: 1.1.1 Each response should include the following information and follow this outline: 1.1.2 Sample Tasks:…… What information should offerors provide specific to 1.1.1? Can offerors assume that Sample Tasks should be numbered as below? Sample Task 1: 1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.1.1, 1.1.2.1.2 Sample Task 2: 1.1.2.2, 1.1.2.2.1, 1.1.2.2.2 | There will be no response for Section L Part B 1.1.1. The Offeror shall address the sample task items at Section L Part B 1.1.2. Numbering is at the Offeror's discretion. |
| 10 | Attachment P-1 | N/A | Past Performance Attachment P-1 is a PDF document with various fields available to add text. Working within the sections available to provide Contract Effort Description and Demonstrated Systemic Improvement Information is very cumbersome, especially for lengthy write-ups. Can Attachment P-1 be made available as a Word document. | An attachment P-1 (Word Doc) will not be provided; although, offerors may add additional pages (as necessary) for the "Contract Effort Description" and "Demonstrated Systematic Improvement Information" sections. Offerors may type "See Attached" in the blocks. |
| 11 | Section C 3.4.2 | 22 | As worded in the 3.4 Personnel Requirements section, there seems to be room for multiple interpretation of the degree and substitution allowances. The final sentence in paragraph 3.4.2 on page 22 appears to be missing the words “experience for.” Suggest should read “Certain Professional Labor categories cannot substitute EXPERIENCE FOR a Bachelor’s degree, such as Engineering.” To further clarify the intent of this statement would the Government also consider also adding the following sentence in Table 3 at the end of the Degree/Experience Required statements for the Journeyman Engineer and Junior Engineer entries: “Relevant experience may NOT be used as a substitution for the degree requirement.” | The Government has amended the RFP to include "EXPERIENCE FOR" to the final sentence in paragraph 3.4.2 on page 22. See attached amended RFP. After review, no further changes will be made in Table 3. |
| 12 | Section C 3.4.2 | 22 | Assuming this is consistent with the Government’s intent, for clarification purposes would the Government consider appending the following to the page 22 Table 2 Master’s Degree substitution statement: “For Engineering Disciplines, experience alone cannot be used as a substitution for a Master’s Degree requirement.” Intent here is to clarify that for engineering disciplines one cannot “daisy chain” the two substitutions and replace a master’s degree with a bachelor’s plus four years additional experience and then replace that bachelor’s with 6 years additional experience – effectively replacing a Master’s degree with no degree and 10 years additional experience. | After review, the Government has determined that no changes will be made to page 22 Table 2 Master's Degree substitution. To clarify, no substitution for a Bachelor's Degree is allowed for Engineering labor categories. Table 2 allows a substitution of 4 years experience plus a Bachelor's Degree for a Master's Degree. |
| 13 | Section C 3.4.3 & 3.4.4 | 22 | Definitions of College Degree/Degree Majors and Skills are provided; however, a Physical Science degree is not uniquely defined. Table 3 Section 3.4.4 includes the term Physical Science in the Degree/Experience required column. Are the degrees and skill areas listed under Technical Disciplines synonymous with Physical Sciences? | No, the degrees and skill areas listed under Technical Disciplines are not synonomous with Physical Sciences. Table 3 has been updated as follows: for the Program Manager labor category, "Master's Degree in an Engineering, Business, or Technical Discipline;" for the Engineer labor categories, "Degree in an Engineering Discipline, Physics, or Math." |
| 14 | Section C 3.4.3 & 3.4.4 | 22 & 23 | For the Program Manager, the education requirement calls for a Master’s degree in Engineering, Technical Discipline or Physical Science. Section 3.4.3 College Degree/Degree Majors and Skills provides a definition of Business discipline. Also, of note, the education requirement in the draft solicitation for the Program Manager called for a degree in engineering, business or operations research. We respectfully request that the Government consider including Business Discipline as a category in the Degree/Experience requirement for the Program Manager. | The Government has amended the RFP to include Business Discipline for Program Manager (Key) Degree/Experience Required in Table 3. See attached amended RFP. |
| 15 | Section C 3.4.4 | 26 | For a Senior Systems Analyst (non-key), the required education and experience is defined as a Master’s degree and eight years of experience in project support in the aircraft test and evaluation field. The draft RFP N0042118R0040 (page 23 of 112) provided that, “In lieu of a degree, 12 years of relevant engineering and acquisition experience may be substituted. A minimum of 6 years (8 years for key personnel) experience in project support in the aircraft test and evaluation field.” We respectfully request that the 12 years’ relevant experience in lieu of a Master’s degree be included in the Degree/Experience requirement listed in table 3 for this labor category (non-key). | After further review, Table 3 will not be updated; although, offerors may use the substitution criteria in Table 2, page 22 which provides an example of the requested substitution of 10 years relevant experience. |
| 16 | Section L Part B 1.1.1 | 80 | Part B 1.1.1 refers to an outline which the sample task responses should follow, but no outline is given. Should there be one? | No, there should not be an outline provided in Part B 1.1.1. The outline which the sample task responses should follow is at the discretion of the Offeror. |
| 17 | Section L Part B 3.5.2 | 88 | A 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. In response to the Draft Solicitation, the question was asked, “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?” In its response posted July 31st, the Government stated, “Yes. This will be updated to the solicitation.” We respectfully request the Government consider assigning a Senior Engineering Technician position to support the requirements at COMOPTEVFOR. | The RFP posted on 6 August 2019 is the current requirement for a Systems Analyst, Senior (COMOPTEVFOR, Onsite). See page 88 of 97. If the requirement(s) change, the labor category can be re-evaluated. |
| 18 | Section M Part A 3.3 | 84 | Page 84 of 97, Section M, Paragraph 3.3 states, “Offerors that propose a fully burdened per employee labor cost exceeding the labor tripwire shall provide rationale in their cost proposal narrative section that justifies the reasonableness of the tripwire cost for the applicable employees.” NAVAIR Note 4200, Labor Rate Tripwires for Services, of 1 May 2017 directs use of a fully burdened labor rate of three hundred thousand dollars ($300K) per year for any employee, within any labor category, in lieu of the tripwires outlined in Attachment (1) of the NAVAIR SRRB Guidebook. Further, the NAVAIR Communique 17-31: NAVAIR Note 4200, Labor Rate Tripwires for Services further states that, “The tripwire rate of $300K per year applies to the labor cost for individual employees regardless of the number of hours associated with the cost.” |
QUESTION: To clarify this using an extraordinary example, would a person with a fully burdened rate of $299.00 per hour, who is proposed for 1,000 labor hours per year be considered to exceed or be under tripwire?
| Yes, regardless of the number of hours associated with the cost, a person with a fully burdened rate of $299.00 per hour would exceed the tripwire of $300K per year. Based on the example provided, if an employee was proposed at a fully burdened rate of $299.00 an hour, this would equate to a full man year (1,920) at $574,080.00; thereby, exceeding the $300K annual tripwire. The example of 1,000 hours at $299.00 an hour only justifies that the total does not exceed the $300K annual tripwire, but it also does not justify fair & reasonable pricing to the Government. Therefore, "regardless of the number of hours associated with the cost", the tripwire rate of $300K per year applies to the labor cost. Note: In accordance Section M, 3.0 COST/PRICE, Total Professional Employee Compensation Plan, states, "In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), various price analysis techniques and procedures will be employed to ensure the prices being proposed for this requirement are fair and reasonable. To assist in the overall determination of price reasonableness, the Government will identify all instances where a proposed fully burdened labor cost exceeds $300K annually per employee. This also applies to a fully burdened subcontractor employee labor cost, inclusive of the prime contractor’s pass-through burden. An exceeded tripwire may ultimately be determined unreasonable absent justification." | |||
| 19 | Section L-1, 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes; Section J; Attachment P-1 | 83 | The Proposal Instructions do not indicate a page count limit for Volume 2, however the form includes a “text box” in the “Contract Effort Description” section that limits the printable text to approximately 9 actual printed lines. |
Is it the Government’s intent to be able to review and print the required narrative in Attachment P-1, as noted on Page 83 or 97 in the Solicitation, or will any text lines beyond the 9 lines showing be viewed electronically by scrolling down the text box insert?
Please clarify if the form can be expanded or corrected to provide for the No Page Limit noted in Section L-1, 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes.
| Yes, it is the Government's intent to be able to review and print the required narrative in Attachment P-1, as noted on Page 83 of 97 in the Solicitation. No, text lines beyond the 9 lines showing will not be viewed electronically by scrolling down the text box insert. No, the form cannot be expanded or corrected to provide for the No Page Limit noted in Section L-1, 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes; however, additional pages may be attached to Attachment P-1, as necessary. | ||||
| 20 | Attachment P-1 | N/A | Past Performance Attachment P-1 is a PDF document with various text-box fields available to add required write ups. When working in electronic format, the text entered in Contract Effort Description can be read by scrolling down, however when the form is printed out, the text is truncated to approximately 9 lines of print and eliminates visibility of all other texts. As there is no Page Count limit to Past Performance Volume, can the Contract Effort Description text field be expanded, or could the document be made available as a Word document. | No, the Contract Effort Description text field cannot be expanded, nor will the document be made available as a word document; however, additional pages may be attached to Attachment P-1, as necessary. |
| 21 | Section M, Part B, 2.0 Past Performance | 93 | The relevancy requirements related to Magnitude and Dollar Value, for Past Performance, generally encompass contracts with a typical PoP duration of 5 years, which would divide into an annual $5.5M revenue to meet the $27.5M value for relevancy. Would the Government consider a contract of less than typical duration (i.e., 3 years vs. 5 years) to be relevant, if it has at least an annual revenue rate of $5.5M/year *3yrs = $16.5M total contract revenue, which would equate to $27.5M if it were a typical 5-year PoP? | Yes, the Government would consider a contract of less than typical duration (i.e., 3 years vs. 5 years) to be relevant based on an annual revenue of at least $5.5M. |
| ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES AS OF 6 SEPTEMBER 2019 | ||||
| 22 | SECTION L: PART A 3.0 & PART B 2.1 | 78 & 83 | The Table on page78 states that Volume 4 Annex 1 is to submitted as 1 Original and I Copy and 1 CD-ROM. Later on page 83 (in the third paragraph of Section 2.1) it states to provide 1 electronic copy of the SOW/PWS for each contract reference as Annex 1 to the Past Performance Volume. Would the Government clarify if it only wants electronic copies (on a CD-ROM), or if it wants printed copies (1 Original and 1 Copy) as well. | To clarify, the Offeror is expected to follow the table on page 78 and submit Volume 4 Annex 1 as 1 Original and 1 Copy and 1 CD-ROM. |
| 23 | SECTION L: PART A 3.0 & PART B 2.1 | 78 & 83 | When providing SOW/PWS for each contract reference as Annex 1 to the Past Performance Volume on the CD-ROM, does the Government want all the SOW/PWS's in a single file, or can each be provided as a separate clearly labled file on the CD-ROM? | To clarify, the Offeror may provide each SOW/PWS as a separate clearly labeled file on the CD-ROM. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .