RFP_N00421-18-R-0044_Questions_27_Aug_2018.pdf

Questions/Answers for AIR 6.8.5 Solicitation N00421-18-R-0044

27 August 2018

Question 1: Section 3.1 Compatibility, Page 10. The links provided to access the hardware and software core build configuration requirements for the current NAVAIR Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN) IT operating environments cannot be accessed via non CAC-enabled computers.

Will the Government provide the core build configurations in a format that Industry can review with non CAC-enabled computers?

Answer: Thank you for your feedback. The Government intends to provide the Core Build Plan as an attachment in an amendment to the solicitation.

Question 2: Section 3.1.2.1—Work Locations. The RFP shows nine sites, but the LOE on Page 85 only depicts eight. TSD Orlando is not listed. Is it the Government’s position that there will be no labor hours at TSD Orlando for the four-year ordering period?

Answer: Per the solicitation, Section C, paragraph 3.1.2.1, one of the work locations is listed as TSD Orlando. The Government does not have an estimate on labor hours for TSD Orlando at this time.

Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 3: Section 3.1.2.1. The RFP states, “55 percent of work to be performed at Contractor site within 50 miles of each Government site with exception of Tinker AFB, OK. Government site(s) include: Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP)/Fleet Readiness Center, (EAST) at Cherry Point, NC; Naval Air Technical Service Center (NATEC)and Naval Aviation Depot/Fleet Readiness Center (WEST),and Naval Air Warfare Center(NAWC),- Aircraft Division (NAWC AD) Det at North Island, CA; NAWC AD China Lake, CA; NAWC TSD Orlando, Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP)/Fleet Readiness Center (SOUTHEAST) at Jacksonville, FL; Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Patuxent River, MD; NAWC AD Patuxent River, MD; NAWC AD, Lakehurst, NJ, and Tinker AFB, OK.” FRC West is an F/A-18 base in Lemoore CA, which is not a location on the LOE. Lemoore is not part of North Island, which is 366 miles away. Is it the Government’s intent that there will be no labor hours at Fleet Readiness Center (FRC) West, located in Lemoore, CA?

Answer: There are no labor hours required at Fleet Readiness Center (FRC) West located in Lemoore, CA. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 4: Section L -1, 3.0, Page 76. The volume breakdown states, “Page Recommendation - Technical is recommended at 45 pages with Understanding of the Work as 25 pgs., Key Personnel 15 pgs. (6 resumes), and Management Plan 5 pages.” Since it is only a recommendation, can the 45 pages be exceeded? If not, can the page count be reallocated between the three parts of the technical as long as the 45 pages are not exceeded?

Answer: The page limitations found in Section L-1, Part A, paragraph 3.0 are only recommendations. Volume 1 page recommendation of 45 pages total may be exceeded, if necessary. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 5: Section C, 3.1.2.1., Page 10. The RFP states that approximately 45% of the work will be performed at the Government site and 55% at the Contractor Site. Can the Government provide a breakdown by labor hours so that Attachment P6 can be completed using the correct rates for each labor category?

Answer: Per Section L-1, Part B, paragraph 3.5.2, the Government has provided an estimate of the labor hours for the entire four year ordering period. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 6: Page 79 of the RFP states, “For proposed current or contingent Key Personnel (two resumes per labor category only), provide a resume of the work assignments, training, etc., that demonstrates the experience and specialized qualifications of each key person proposed. Offerors shall not propose prospective employees for labor categories designated as key...” Is it the Government’s position that offerors provide named employees for the six key resumes only, or is it the Government’s intent that offerors provide named employees for all the key labor hours provided in the RFP?

Answer: Per Section L-1, Part B paragraph 1.0(B), “Offerors shall not propose prospective employees for labor categories designated as key.” Therefore; even though the offeror is only required to provide six resumes total (two resumes for each of the following three labor categories Manager, Senior; Computer Specialist, Senior, and Logistics Manager, Senior) the requirement that offerors shall not propose prospective employees for labor categories designated as key is still in effect. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 7: Page 79, Section L, Part B, 1.0, B, Key Personnel Resumes. The RFP states, “For proposed current or contingent Key Personnel (two resumes per labor category only), provide a resume.” Page 86, Section L, Part B, 3.5.2, Labor Hours further states “the government requires only two (2) resumes for each key labor category.” The LOE table on page 86 provides a total of 23,212 hours for the Manager, Senior role, which equates to 12.14 FTEs using the 1920 work-year prescribed, or 3.022 FTEs per year given that this is a four (4) year ordering period. Will the Government define the number of billets per labor category, since they are expressed in fractions of an FTE?

Answer: Thank you for your feedback. The Government does not intend to define the number of billets for this effort as the level of effort man hours have been provided for the entire four year ordering period. Per Section L-1, Part B, paragraph 3.5.2, “For evaluation purposes, the Offeror shall propose the labor categories/hours as outlined…” Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 8: Page 27. The WD occupation code provided for “Drafter/CAD Operator” (30060) and “Data Management Specialist” (14100) needs to be clarified, as the occupational codes listed for these positions refer to job families and not to a particular level.

Can the government provide the specific codes/levels required for these two positions?

Answer: A detailed listing of SCA covered positions can be found in a BLS Directory of Occupations at: https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/wage/SCADirV5/SCADirectVers5.pdf; this directory provides specific and detailed tasks that a qualified employee must be able to perform in order to be designated in a position level. In addition, the Government intends to update the solicitation to reflect Drafter/CAD Operator as 30062 Drafter/CAD operator II and Data Management Specialist as https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/wage/SCADirV5/SCADirectVers5.pdf

14102 Computer Systems Analyst II in Section C, paragraph 4.6 and Section L-1, Part B, paragraph 3.5.2.

Question 9: Solicitation Requirements: Section J, Attachment 09 - WD-CA, Ventura 15-5625 r6, Attachment 10 - WD-MD, St. Mary's 15-4279 r13, Attachment 11 - WD-CA, Kern 15-5603 r7, Attachment 12 - WD-NC, Craven 15-6781 r5, Attachment 13 - WD-FL, Duval 15-4539 r5, Attachment 14 - WD-NJ, Ocean 15-4195 r5, Attachment 15 - WD-CA, San Diego 15-5635 r8 and Attachment 16 - WD-NJ, Orange 15-4553 r6. Does the Government intend to incorporate the newest WDs, dated 07/17/2018 (which increase the wages and H&W amounts) into this solicitation?

Answer: Thank you for your feedback. The Government intends to incorporate the newest WDs in an amendment to the solicitation.

Question 10: Solicitation Requirements: Section B and the P6 - Cost Summary Spreadsheet. Per the CLIN structure in Section B and the lack of the hours broken out by contract year, is it the Government's intent for an offeror to break the costs out by contract year, as outlined in the P6 - Cost Summary Spreadsheet, or can the P6 - Cost Summary Spreadsheet be revised to capture the contract costs as a whole?

Answer: The Offeror is required to provide all of the information required in Section L-1, Part B, paragraph 3.3 in its cost volume. The Government would expect to see a break out per year due to potential fluctuations in direct labor rates (due to escalation) and indirect rates from year to year.

Section B shall include a total price roll up from all four years. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation. In addition, the Government intends to provide a new Attachment P6 in an amendment to the solicitation.

Question 11: Page 75, paragraph 2.0—Proposal Format. The RFP states, “…and for information not supported by MS Office products, with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on a CD-ROM…” Is it the Government’s intent for the contractor to install the latest Adobe Reader on the CD-ROM to accompany pdf files?

Answer: Per Section L, Paragraph 2.0, “The Offeror will provide one complete copy of the proposal to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) as electronic files fully compatible with Microsoft Office 2010 and for information not supported by MS Office products, with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on a CD-ROM.” Thus, if the information is not supported by MS Office, the Government would require a PDF file that can be viewed by the latest Adobe Reader on the CD-ROM.

Question 12: Reference: Section C paragraphs 1.0, 3.2.1, 3.2.3.3.1. Section L 3.5.2 Labor hours.

Attachment 16 WD_15_4553 Orange County. Will the Government clarify if work is to be performed in Orlando, as Sections C lists work locations at NAWCTSD Orlando FL. However, no hours are assigned to this location in Section L.

Answer: See the Government’s answer to Question 2. The Government does not have a labor hour estimate for TSD Orlando at this time. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 13: Reference: Section C paragraph 4.6 and Section L 3.5.2. Both sections list the SCA labor category of Data Management Specialist 14100. The WD lists 14100 as Computer Systems

Analyst. Will the Government confirm the correct labor category description, and/or the correct

WD Code?

Answer: See the Government’s answer to Question 8. The SCA identifies Data Management

Specialist as SCA 14100 Computer Systems Analyst. The SCA code will be update to reflect SCA

14102 Computer Systems Analyst II

Question 14: Reference: Section L 3.5.2 Level of Effort By Site

Can the government clarify if the Computer Specialist, Junior (Gov't Site) is a duplicate as it appears twice in the table?

LABOR

CATEGORY

CHINA

LAKE

NORIS PT MUGU CHERRY

POINT

JAX LKE PAX TINKER TOTAL

Computer

Specialist, Junior(Gov't

Site)

0 3869 0 0 0 0 0 0 3869

Computer

Specialist, Junior

(Contractor

Site)

3248 11300 0 0 464 0 464 0 15476

Computer

Specialist, Junior (Gov't

Site)

15475 23214 0 0 0 0 0 0 38689

Answer: Thank you for your feedback. The Government intends to combine the Computer

Specialist, Junior (Gov’t Site) hours in a pending solicitation amendment. The hours listed for NORIS should be combined to reflect 27,083 hours.

Question 15: Reference: Attachment P6 Cost Summary Sheet. The P6 references the “Seaport e” maximum pass thru and fixed fee amounts. Are these applicable to this IDIQ contract?

Answer: Thank you for your feedback. SeaPort-e is not applicable to this requirement. The

Government intends to revise Attachment P6 to remove the references to SeaPort-e.

Question 16: Reference: Attachment P6 Cost Summary Sheet, summary tab and Section B. Section

B states that CLINS 0002 -0006 are not separately priced from CLIN 0001. Are offerors expected to complete the summary tab, which breaks down the costs by CLIN?

Answer: In the Level of Effort by Site table, Section L-1, Part B, paragraph 3.5.2, the Government did not provide a break-down of hours per appropriation. Therefore, the Offeror is not required to provide a break-down per CLINs 0002-0006. CLINs 0002-0006 are not separately priced (NSP) and will be utilized at the task order level. CLIN 0001 shall include the total labor for the CPFF CLINs for the entire four year ordering period. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation. See also the

Government’s answer to Question 10.

Question 17: Reference Attachment 2 Contractor (Baseline) Capability Requirements 11(2) User

Distribution File Formats. Attachment 2 provides a link to the NATEC website to refer to Naval Air

Systems Command PDF Technical Manual Conversion/Preparation for Web Posting Policy, located under NAVAIR Technical Data Policies and Processes/Technical Manuals/Distribution/Policy

Documents. As the site cannot be accessed externally, will the Government provide the referenced documents for review or the correct website?

Answer: Thank you for your feedback. The Government intends to provide this policy as an attachment in an amendment to the solicitation.

Question 18: Reference: L-[1] Part A 2.0, Page 75, L-[1] Part A 3.0, Page 76

Discussion: “The Offeror will provide one complete copy of the proposal to the Procuring

Contracting Officer (PCO) as electronic files fully compatible with Microsoft Office 2010 and for information not supported by MS Office products, with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on a CD-

ROM. The Offeror will ensure that the Price/Cost Volume is provided on a separate CD-ROM. Each

CD-ROM is to be labeled for content and the Offeror’s name. If a discrepancy exists between the original paper copy of the proposal and the disk copy, the paper copy will take precedence.”

The directions for proposal submission indicates only CD copies are required, but there is also language stating “paper copy will take precedence.” It is unclear if the copies required in the table on page 76 are paper copies or CD copies. Please clarify if paper copies are required, and if so how many of each volume. Please clarify the number of CDs required for each volume.

Answer: Thank you for your feedback. The Government intends to revise Section L-1, Part A, paragraph 2.0 to clarify that the Government requires one complete paper copy along with an accompanying electronic copy. The Government also intends to revise Section L-1, Part A, paragraph

3.0 to clarify that 1 original and 1 electronic copy are required.

Question 19: Reference: L-[1] Part A 3.0, Content and Volume Table, page 76

Discussion: “Page recommendations for each volume, if any, are also specified in the table below;

title and table of contents pages do not count towards the page limit.”

The directions for “Page Recommendation” are unclear. There is some language that indicates this is a “page recommendation”, and other language that suggests this a “page limit”. Please clarify whether the maximum page limit for the Technical Volume is a “recommendation” or a “limit.”

Please confirm whether information in excess of the 45 pages will be evaluated.

Answer: Please see the Government’s answer to Question 4.

Question 20: Reference: L-[1] Part A 2.0, Page 75 Discussion: “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.” Please clarify if a 10 pt font is acceptable for drawings and illustrations (graphics) in addition to graphs and tables.

Answer: Per Section L-1, Part A, paragraph 2.0, “drawings may be any size but should be folded to approximately 8.5 x 11 inch standard size and will count as 1 page. Graphs and tables shall be presented in no small than a 10 pt font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph. Graphic resolution, including such data as tables or charts, should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.” Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 21: Reference: L-[1], Part A, 3.0, page 76 Discussion: The government 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.” If Offerors follow the government’s numbering sequence in Volume 3, there will be multiple sections numbered 3.3(b) due to the individual items required in that one section. In Volume 3: PRICE/COST, will the government allow volume/paragraph numbers at the 3.x level (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5) with Offerors adding lower tier subparagraphs such as 3.1.1, 3.1.2, etc.?

Answer: The proposal shall match the proposal instructions volume/paragraph number provided in the solicitation instructions to which it is responding per Section L-1, Part A, paragraph 3.0. The Offeror may add lower tier subparagraphs to identify information in that section. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 22: Reference: L-[1] Part A 2.0, page 75 Discussion: “Written proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12 pt Normal font (no reduction permitted).” May Offerors use a larger font size for headings, emphasis, cover page titles, etc.?

Answer: Offerors may not use alternative font size. Per Section L, Part A, paragraph 2.0, “written proposals must be formatted using Times New Roman 12 pt (no reduction permitted).” Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 23: Reference: L-[1], Part A, 3.3(b), page 82 Discussion: Contingent offer letters are required for key personnel contingent hires. If key personnel are existing employees of the Offeror, does the government require a contingent offer letter or is payroll verification sufficient to meet the verification requirement?

Answer: Current employees, regardless of key or non-key status, shall be verified as stated in the solicitation. Per Section L, Part B, paragraph 3.3(b), “the Offeror and proposed subcontractors shall provide…payroll verification for currently employed proposed personnel, and any other information necessary to substantiate the rates proposed. Payroll verification shall consist of a form containing the title, direct labor rate, and a signed certification by an authorized representative of the company that the information contained in the form is correct. For key personnel contingent hires, the offeror shall provide contingent offer letters outlining salary information for contingent hire employees.”

Thus, a contingent offer letter is only required for a contingent hire. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 24: Reference: Attachment P6 Cost Summary Spreadsheet Discussion: The Site column indicates whether a position is contractor-site or government-site work.

However, there is no column to indicate the location of each position (i.e. Cherry Point, China Lake, etc.). Will the government allow Offerors to add a Location column to the P6?

Answer: Thank you for your feedback. The Government intends to update the Attachment P6 to indicate the site locations.

Question 25: Reference: Attachment P7 Annual Fully Burdened Labor Attachment Discussion: The Instructions worksheet states the contractor shall enter the corresponding Position Number as found on Attachment XX. Will the government please confirm where the Individual Designator can be found? Does the Individual Designator distinguish the Location as well?

Answer: There should be traceability between the offeror’s Attachment P6 and the Attachment P7.

The Individual Designator column is used to trace between the Attachment P6 and Attachment P7;

whether it is by name, prospective hire or an employee code. The Government intends to update Attachment P7 to provide this clarification.

Question 26: Reference: Attachment P7 Annual Fully Burdened Labor Attachment Discussion: Instructions state “Enter the Proposed Labor Category, as recorded in the Prime or Subcontractor's accounting system, that correlates to each of the Government solicitation Labor Category on that row.” Column C on the Prime Burdened Labor Rates worksheet is pre-populated with the government labor category title. If the Prime or Subcontractor’s accounting system title differs from the government labor category title, does the government want the Prime to change the labor category title in Column C to match the accounting system?

Answer: In Attachment P7, the Offeror may insert the title of the labor category in which it will be utilizing in Column C to match the accounting system as necessary. The proposed position must be consistent with the Government’s Labor Categories and match the experience and/or educational requirements of the position. Please propose the labor categories in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 27: Reference: SOW 3.1.2.2 Meeting(s) Support, DD254, page 10 Discussion: “The Contractor shall have the capability to conduct meetings at the classification levels up to SECRET within 50 miles the following Government locations: Cherry Point, NC, Patuxent River, MD, Jacksonville, FL, and North Island, CA. The contractor meetings shall be capable of accommodating a minimum of 25 persons and have a Video Teleconference (VTC) capability (non- GFE). Additionally, the contractor shall ensure there is capability to conduct meetings with presentations. This contract does not include the leasing or renting of facilities.”

The DD254 states No Safeguarding Requirement and we are only to be accessing classified information/material at a Government or contractors facility. Please clarify the discrepancy between the SOW and the DD254. Will the government confirm safeguarding is not required at contractor-site locations?

Answer: There are no safeguarding requirements for Contractor sites under this contract. There will very few circumstances where the Contractor support personnel under this contract will access classified information. If required, access of classified material will be at a Government facility or prime or sub-contractor facility. The Government intends to clarify paragraph 3.1.2.2 and 3.2.3.3.1 in an amendment to the solicitation to remove the requirement to conduct meetings at the classification level up to SECRET. The Government intends to provide the following language in paragraph 3.1.2.2: “The Contractor shall have the capability to conduct meetings within 50 miles of the following Government locations: Cherry Point, NC, Patuxent River, MD, Jacksonville, FL, North Island, CA and Lakehurst, NJ.” In addition, the Government intends to provide the following language in paragraph 3.2.3.3.1, “Minimum Security Requirements are defined in Attachment 4, DD254.”

Question 28: Reference: Volume 3 - Price/Cost Discussion: To provide an adequate amount of leave and price such leave in our proposal, Offerors need the years of service by labor category for incumbent personnel. Will the government please provide the years of service by labor category of incumbent personnel?

Answer: The Government does not intend to disclose that information. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 29: Reference: SOW 4.6 SCA Labor Qualifications, page 27; L-[2], Part B, 3.5.2, SCA, Discussion: The following SCA categories need clarification:

- Administrative Assistant – Occupational Code referenced is 0120, but should be 01020.

- Data Management Specialist – SOC 15-1211 is Computer Systems Analysts. The Occupational Code referenced is 14100, but should be 14101, 14102, or 14103 if this position is a Computer Systems Analyst. The SCA Directory of Occupations definition for the Computer Systems Analyst group is technical in nature, but the SOW requirements do not support that mapping.

- Drafter/CAD Operator – SOC 17-3010 is a heading category and needs a further level defined. The Occupational Code referenced is 30060, but should be 30061, 30062, 30063, or 30064.

- Technical Writer – The Occupational Code referenced is 30460, but should be 30461, 30462, or 30463. Would the government please clarify the referenced SCA positions?

Answer: Thank you for your feedback. The Government intends to update the SCA labor categories as follows in an amendment to the solicitation:

Labor Category BLS SOC Code SCA Code

Drafter/CAD Operator II

17-3010 SCA 30062

Technical Writer II 27-3042 SCA 30462

Data Management Specialist Computer Systems Analyst II

15-1211 SCA 14102

Administrative Assistant

43-6011 SCA 01020

Question 30: Reference: Page 10, Section 3.1.3, CDRL A006 Discussion: Section 3.1.3 CDRL A006 is titled “Protection Implementation Plan & OPSEC Plan”. The actual CDRL A006 document is titled “OPSEC Operation Security.” There is no requirement in Section 3.2.6, 3.2.6.1, or 3.2.6.2 on Page 17 for the contractor to deliver a PPIP to the Government, only to develop, implement, and maintain a facility level PPIP.

In order for a contractor to develop, implement, and maintain a PPIP, the Government must first provide the contractor with a Program Protection Plan (PPP). Does the Government want both a PPIP and an OPSEC plan? If a PPIP is required, will the Government provide the contractor with a

PPP identifying the Critical Information (CI) that requires protection based on anticipated contract tasking in order for the contractor to develop, implement, and maintain a facility level PPIP?

Answer: Thank you for your feedback. The Government intends to remove CDRL A006 in an amendment to the solicitation based on removing the requirement for a SECRET facility clearance.

Please see the Government’s answer to Question 27 for further information.

Question 31: Reference: SOW Section 3.4.1, page 22-23 Discussion: “Contractor shall have a documented quality system compliant with the guidance provided by ISO 9000:2005 and ISO 9001:2008, with specialized application guidance as provided by the appropriate parts of ISO 9004:2009….”

These three ISO Standards have been superseded by 9000:2015, ISO 9001:2015, and ISO 9004:2018.

To provide the highest quality standards, will the government require compliance with the newest ISO Standards (9000:2015, ISO 9001:2015, and ISO 9004:2018)?

Answer: Thank you for your feedback. The Government intends to revise Section C, paragraph 3.4.1 to reflect the new standards in an amendment to the solicitation.

Question 32: Reference: RFP, Attachment 5, item i Discussion: File naming conventions and header data shall be approved by the government.

Does this include the government providing the contractor with the necessary Data Module Code (DMC) assignments for each new Data Module (DM) at the start of work?

Answer: The Contractor will develop the necessary Data Module Code (DMC) assignment for each new Data Module during contract execution. The Government will approve the DMC assignments.

Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 33: Reference: RFP, Attachment 5, item c Discussion: Further research will not be required by the contractor to render the material complete and technically accurate. Will the Government please define “technically accurate”?

Will the source data be clear/concise and written against the most current published version of the technical manual with the Work Package (WP) or Data Module (DM) clearly defined?

Answer: Technically accurate is defined as, procedures/processes are in accordance with the correct source data as per NAVAIR engineers. It does not mean it is “manually ready” in terms of simplified technical English, reading level or DM clearly defined. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 34: Reference: RFP, Attachment 5 Discussion: Internal and External References During conversion, is it the government’s expectation that all internal and external references be researched and corrected?

Answer: The Government does not expect all internal and external references be researched and corrected. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 35: Reference: Attachment 5, item a Discussion: Government Furnished Information (GFI)

Is it the government’s intention to provide GFI revisable digital master files that are already NAVAIR compliant?

Answer: The Government intends to provide GFI revisable digital master files that are NAVAIR compliant during contract execution. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 36: Reference: RFP, Attachment 5, item a Discussion: Management of Data Module Requirements List (DMRL) Is it the government’s expectation that creation or update of XML include the management of the

DMRL?

Answer: During contract execution, it is the Government’s expectation that the contractor will modify the DMRL to show additions, deletions, and changes. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 37: Reference: Attachment 5, item a Discussion: MIL-STD-3001 Is it the government’s expectation that the contractor will identify the MIL-STD-3001 table matrix for MIL-STD-3001 conversions?

Answer: MIL-STD-3001 Appendix A of Part 1 contains matrices that list all applicable technical content requirements for the development of complete TMs for aircraft weapon systems, aeronautical equipment, airborne weapons/equipment, training systems, and support equipment covering operation and maintenance at all maintenance levels through depot. During contract execution, Appendix A Part 1 Matrices will be provided by the Government as part of the task order.

Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 38: Reference: RFP, Attachment 5 Discussion: Paper Deliverables Will the Government please identify which line item costs should include paper deliverables?

Answer: Paper deliveries not required for the Fixed Priced items; however, there is requirement for PDF deliveries. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 39: Reference: RFP, Attachment 5, item x Discussion: Functionality of Graphics Is it the government’s expectation that updates of existing graphics include adding hotspots to each graphic?

Answer: It is not the Government’s expectation that updates of existing graphics include adding hotspots to each graphic. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 40: Reference: RFP, Attachment 5, item k Discussion: Government Furnished Information (GFI)-provided Data Modules When the data module is provided by an external source, will the contractor be responsible for reviewing it to confirm compliance with the correct specification and version of maintained technical publication?

Answer: The contractor is not responsible for reviewing for compliance and version of publication as part of Attachment 5. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 41: Reference: RFP, Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items Discussion: Each FFP line item has exactly one cost regardless of the volume of pages or the consistency of the source data for the task. Will the Government confirm that tiered pricing is not accepted, and that all unit prices must be the same, for small or large task orders?

In other words, is the contractor expected to provide a single rate (price) that applies to pages in a large volume of consistent content, the same as pages in a small volume of inconsistent content?

Answer: Thank you for your feedback. The Government does not intend to revise Exhibit B to include tiered pricing. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 42: Reference: RFP, Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items Discussion: Multiple line items where the source includes raster images. For all line items where the source includes raster images, should pricing include researching unreadable content in text and graphics? For example, when a graphic contains a panel that cannot be read on the current graphic, should the contractor apply effort to locating the same panel elsewhere in the library or contact the government to supply missing and unreadable information?

Answer: For unreadable/missing images/text, it is the Government’s expectation that the contractor will contact the Government to supply the information. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 43: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items 0115 and 0116 Discussion: S1000D conversion requires that source data be structured and coded in accordance with a DMRL. DMRLs supplied by other sources often contain errors. This is not applicable for data converted to non-S1000D specifications; however, there is only one line item for pricing. Is the Government’s expectation that pricing for these line items include correcting errors in the supplied DMRL?

Answer: Pricing for correcting errors are covered under CPFF tasking and are not part of the pricing for FFP line items 0115 and 0116. The Government’s expectation is that the contractor will contact the Government for incorrect DMRLs and not utilize a line item under FFP Exhibit B. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 44: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items 0115 and 0116 Discussion: S1000D conversions often require that content be split, merged, duplicated, and reordered. Is the split, merge, duplication, or reordering of content specified in DMRL notes to be included in the cost of this line item?

Answer: Analysis that require content be spilt, merged, duplicated and reordered are covered under CPFF tasking and not included as part of the cost for this line item. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 45: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items 0115 and 0116 Discussion: For S1000D conversion, source data may be written in work packages that contain multiple procedures with combined initial setups or introductory material that applies to a set of procedures. Should the pricing for this line item include duplicating introductory material or initial setups when splitting a work package into multiple data modules?

Answer: Pricing for analysis such as managing/processing duplication, introductory material, and initial set ups are covered under CPFF tasking and are not part of the pricing for FFP line items 0115 and 0116. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 46: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items 0115 and 0116 Discussion: Source data often includes indications of content that is applicable to specific tail numbers or applies only in certain conditions. Applicability indicators are not always consistent in source material. Even when the source is structured markup, the applicability is not always marked up in tags. Should the pricing for these line items include identifying and tagging applicability?

Answer: Pricing for Identifying and tagging applicability are covered under CPFF tasking and are not part of FFP line items 0115 and 0116. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 47: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items 0115 and 0116 Discussion: Applicability statements can be very complicated. Some systems have thousands of applicability statements used in their data. Should the pricing for these line items include requirements to generate and reference an applicability repository?

Answer: Pricing for managing and processing applicability are covered under CPFF tasking and are not part of FFP line items 0115 and 0116. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation. 0

Question 48: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items 0115 and 0116 Discussion: S1000D offers common information repositories as a mechanism to reference common information throughout a library of publications. Should the pricing for these line items include building common information repositories as part of the conversion process?

Answer: Pricing for building common information repositories are covered under CPFF tasking and are not part of FFP line items 0115 and 0116. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 49: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items 0115 and 0116 Discussion: In source data, ranges of references are authored inconsistently and must be tagged properly (including each item in the range). Should the pricing for these line items include identifying how ranges have been authored in the source data and instantiating each item when a range is specified in the content? For example, See Fig 1 thru Fig 3 becomes Fig 1, Fig 2, and Fig 3 with the appropriate tagging for the links.

Answer: It is NAVAIR engineering & logistic responsibility to ensure consistency in ranges of references and correct figures are referenced. In addition, pricing for inconsistencies are covered under CPFF tasking and are not part of FFP line items 0115 and 0116. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 50: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items 0115 and 0116 Discussion: Source content often contains acronyms that may have slightly different or completely different meanings for the same acronym. It can be very difficult to identify whether a combination of all capital letters in source content is actually an acronym and may not be possible to find the definition. Should the pricing for conversion line items include tagging acronyms?

Answer: It is the Government’s expectation that FFP line item 0115 and 0116 include tagging acronyms. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 51: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items 0115 and 0116 Discussion: Source data may contain troubleshooting diagrams.

Should the pricing for conversion line items include extracting or OCR-ing text from troubleshooting diagrams and tagging to the S1000D fault schema?

Answer: It is the Government’s expectation that FFP lines items 0115 and 0116 include tagging troubleshooting diagrams to S1000D fault schema. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 52: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items 0115 and 0116 Discussion: Source data may not map directly to the target XML schema or DTD and must be restructured, rearranged, or default content populated or produce valid XML. Should the pricing for conversion line items include restructuring or auto-generation of default content to ensure XML is valid?

Answer: It is the Government’s expectation that FFP line items 0115 and 0116 include restructuring or auto-generation of default content to ensure XML is valid. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 53: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items 0115 and 0116 Discussion: When converted content is published, in some cases, the converted content may not publish properly in the target viewer. Should the pricing for conversion line items include time for identifying and reporting stylesheet issues (I.e., proving the converted data is correct)?

Answer: It is the Government’s expectation that FFP line items 0115 and 0116 include time for identifying and reporting stylesheet issues. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 54: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items 0115 and 0116 Discussion: When converting parts data, source data figures may contain existing hotspots. Should pricing for conversion line items include creating the appropriate hotspots in the IPD XML based on hotspots contained in the source data graphics?

Answer: It is the Government’s expectation that FFP line items 0115 and 0116 include creating the appropriate hotspots in the IPD XML based on hotspots contained in the source data graphics.

Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 55: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line items 0117 thru 0121 Discussion: It is possible to convert graphics from raster to vector using automated tools. These tools generally produce a graphic with a series of small lines and arcs rather than proper geometry of solid lines, boxes, circles, arrows, etc. Should the pricing for all raster to vector conversion items include redrawing of proper geometry, clean lines, corners that meet properly, etc.?

Answer: It is the Government’s expectation that FFP line items 0117 thru 0121 include raster to vector conversion items include redrawing of proper geometry, clean lines and corners that meet properly. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 56: Reference: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 - FFP line item 0118 Discussion: Line item 0118 includes cleanup and modification/replacement of text and symbols, (arrows, etc.) as required.

a. Should pricing include standardizing fonts and sizes for text callouts?

b. Should pricing include standardizing line weights and other common objects (e.g. sweep arrows) throughout all graphics on the task?

Answer: It is the Government’s expectation that FFP line item 0118 includes standardizing fonts and sizes for text callouts and standardizing line weights and other common objects. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 57: Reference: RFP, Clause 5252.204-9502, page 56 Discussion:

Requires completion of ‘locator form’ for each employee requiring a permanent badge for authorized entrance to government facilities, there is no attachment for locator form.

Is this the most updated clause for this requirement (the date is Oct 2005)? Please attached required form.

Answer: Clause 5252.204-9502 (OCT 2005) is the most recent clause for Requirements for Local Security System. Per the clause, “Initial information shall be provided as each individual is assigned to this contract by using the Locator Form provided as an attachment to this contract.” The Government intends to provide this attachment upon contract award.

Question 58: Reference: Attachment 5 Requirements and Unit Descriptions for TM;

Exhibit B FFP Item Discussion:

Attachment 5 and Exhibit B contain the following inconsistencies:

- f. (UNIT) DATA MODULE CHANGES TO EXISTING TECHNICAL MANUALS/DATA: DATA MODULE

CHANGE - DIGITAL SGML/XML) TO DIGITAL (SGML/XML) FORMAT

This unit is not listed in Exhibit B.

- g. (UNIT)DATA MODULE CREATION FOR EXISTING IETMS /DATA: DATA MODULE CREATION -

DIGITAL SGML/XML) TO DIGITAL (SGML/XML) FORMAT.

This unit is not listed in Exhibit B.

- aa. (UNIT-PAGE) COMPARISON OF TECHNICAL DATA MEDIA.

This unit is not listed in Exhibit B.

- ab. (UNIT-PAGE) COMPARISON OF TECHNICAL DATA MEDIA.

Clarify this description is for Unit 0127 in Exhibit B.

- ac. (UNIT-PAGE) COMPARISON OF TECHNICAL DATA MEDIA.

Clarify this description is for Unit 0128 in Exhibit B.

Please clarify. If necessary, provide anticipated # of pages for f., g., and aa.

Answer: The Government intends to update Exhibit B in an amendment to the solicitation to include the following:

f. (UNIT) DATA MODULE CHANGES TO EXISTING TECHNICAL MANUALS/DATA: DATA MODULE CHANGE - DIGITAL SGML/XML) TO DIGITAL (SGML/XML) FORMAT – 10,000 pages per year

g. (UNIT)DATA MODULE CREATION FOR EXISTING IETMS /DATA: DATA MODULE CREATION - DIGITAL SGML/XML) TO DIGITAL (SGML/XML) FORMAT - 2,500 pages per year

aa. (UNIT-PAGE) COMPARISON OF TECHNICAL DATA MEDIA- = 125 pages per year

ab. (UNIT-PAGE) COMPARISON OF TECHNICAL DATA MEDIA – This is the same as Unit # 0124

ac. (UNIT-PAGE) COMPARISON OF TECHNICAL DATA MEDIA – This is the same as Unit # 0125

Question 59: Reference Document / Section: Exhibit_B_FFP_Item-_May_23_2018 Referenced Language: The Government did not include number of pages for Unit Numbers 110, 113, 115,117. Is the contractor to omit these Fixed Price Items from their calculation? If not, can the Government please provide number of pages for these unit numbers?

Answer: The Government intends to update Exhibit B in an amendment to the solicitation to include the following:

Unit # 110 = 200 pages per year Unit #113 = 1,000 pages per year Unit #114 = 200 pages per year Unit # 117 =208 pages per year

Question 60: Reference Document / Section: RFP Section L; 3.0 VOLUME 3: PRICE/COST PROPOSAL, 3.3 Price/Cost Information and RFP Section M, 4.0 PRICE/COST, Total Professional Employee Compensation Plan Referenced Language: The Government reference NAVAIR labor tripwires, however they are not broken down by function and/or labor category. Can the Government please clarify whether the $300K annually per employee applies to all functions and/or labor categories? If not, can the Government please provide what the applicable tripwire is for each function and/or labor category?

Answer: The tripwire applies to all labor categories identified in the solicitation. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 61: Reference Document / Section: RFP Section L; 3.0 VOLUME 3: PRICE/COST PROPOSAL,3.3 Price/Cost Information, (b) Direct/Indirect Rates Referenced Language: The Government states that “For key personnel contingent hires, the offeror shall provide contingent offer letters outlining salary information for contingent hire employees.”

Can the Government confirm that if Key Personnel are being fulfilled by subcontractors, that a redacted version can be submitted by the prime offeror and an unredacted version can be submitted in the sealed cost information of the subcontract teaming partner?

Answer: Per Section L-1, Part B, paragraph 3.2(c), “If subcontractors are proposed, they shall provide the same information required for the prime contractor.” Thus, the requirement from Section L-1, Part B, paragraph 3.3(b) “For key personnel contingent hires, the offeror shall provide contingent offer letters outlining salary information for contingent hire employees” would pertain to either the prime or subcontractor. Therefore; only an unredacted version is required, whether it is from the prime or the subcontractor. Please propose accordingly.

Question 62: Reference Document / Section: RFP Section L; 2.0 VOLUME 2: PAST PERFORMANCE Referenced Language: The government states “The Offeror shall submit no more than five Past Performance Information Forms as the Prime Contractor, no more than two forms for each principal subcontractor, and/or no more than two forms for each JV team member.” Due to the fact that a JV is considered to be a single prime offeror, will the Government modify this requirement to reflect:

“The Offeror shall submit no more than five Past Performance Information Forms as the Prime Offeror, and no more than two forms for each principal subcontractor” and removing “no more than two forms for each JV team member?” This modification allows for the same number of PPIFs for each Prime Offering team.

Answer: Per the solicitation, Section L-1, Part B, paragraph 2.1, “The Offeror shall submit no more than five Past Performance Information Forms as the Prime Contractor, no more than two forms for each principal subcontractor, and/or no more than two forms for each JV team member.” Per Section M, paragraph 2.0 “under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an Offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. When proposals are received from joint ventures, specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual JV team member’s relevant past performance.” The Government does not intend to revise the past performance requirements.

In addition, per the FAR 19.101(7)(iii), the rules governing 8(a) program joint ventures are described in 13 CFR 124.513.

Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 63: Reference Document / Section: SOW 4.0 Personnel Qualifications – 4.4 Experience and Education Level Definitions, 4.5 Professional Services Labor Qualifications, and 4.6 Services Contracting Act (SCA) Labor Qualifications Referenced Language: N/A Can the Government please clarify whether or not there are Experience and Education Level qualifications for the SCA positions?

Answer: See the Government’s answer for Question 8.

Question 64: Will the Government please provide a list of anticipated Government Furnished Property (GFP) / Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)?

Answer: The anticipated Government Furnished Property (GFP) / Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be defined at the task order level. The GFP/GFE normally consist of NMCI asset, phone, and desk. It may also include access to/use of such tools as IETM viewer and common source database software. It will not normally include TM authoring software. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 65: Reference Document / Section: SOW Section 3.1.2 Work Locations and Facilities/

3.1.2.1 Work Location(s)

Referenced Language: The Government states that “Approximately 45 percent of work will be performed at the Government site and 55 percent of work to be performed at Contractor site within 50 miles of each Government site with exception of Tinker ARB, Tinker OK. Government site(s) include: Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP)/Fleet Readiness Center, (EAST) at Cherry Point, NC; Naval Air Technical Service Center (NATEC)and Naval Aviation Depot/Fleet Readiness Center (WEST),and Naval Air Warfare Center(NAWC),- Aircraft Division (NAWC AD) Det at North Island, CA; NAWC AD China Lake, CA; NAWC TSD Orlando, Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP)/Fleet Readiness Center (SOUTHEAST) at Jacksonville, FL; Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Patuxent River, MD; NAWC AD Patuxent River, MD; NAWC AD, Lakehurst, NJ, and Tinker AFB, Tinker, OK. Will the Government please clarify whether it is the intent of the Government to require that the Contractor maintain an office within 50 miles of EACH of the listed sites? If so, can the Government please confirm that the entire proposing Contractor team (versus only the Prime Offeror) can fulfill these requirements?

Answer: The entire proposing Contractor team (versus only the Prime Offeror) can fulfill these requirements. Please propose in accordance with the solicitation.

Question 66: Reference Document / Section: SOW 3.1.2.2 Meeting(s) Support Referenced Language: The Government states that “The Contractor shall have the capability to conduct meetings at the classification levels up to SECRET within 50 miles the following Government locations: Cherry Point, NC, Patuxent River, MD, Jacksonville, FL, and North Island, CA. The contractor meetings shall be capable of accommodating a minimum of 25 persons and have a Video Teleconference (VTC) capability (non-GFE). Additionally, the contractor shall ensure there is capability to conduct meetings with presentations.