19R0018_questions_and_answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N00421-19-R-0018
About this file
This document contains a sources sought notice for logistics support services and a draft performance work statement. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division is seeking capabilities statements from small businesses to provide program management, business process improvements, requirements engineering, cybersecurity, technology support, and test and evaluation services in support of aviation readiness and resources analysis. The estimated six-year contract value is $40-90 million with performance at government sites in Patuxent River, Maryland as well as sites in North Carolina, California, and Virginia. Capabilities statements are due by October 31, 2018 and address experience, skills, and the ability to perform at least 50% of work requirements. The contract is anticipated to be awarded in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019 as a small business set-aside.
Government responses to solicitation questions.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N0042119R0018_Amendment_0004.pdf | ||
| N0042119R0018_Amendment_0003.pdf | ||
| Attachment_P6_Cost_Summary_Spreadsheet_Rev1.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_P7_Fully_Burdened_Labor_Rates_Rev1.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| N0042119R0018_Amendment_0002_Final.docx | DOCX document | |
| N0042119R0018_Amendment_0002_Final.docx.pdf | ||
| N0042119R0018_Amendment_0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_4_CSP.pdf | ||
| Attachment_3_OCI_Vendor_List.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_P7_Fully_Burdened_Labor_Rates.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Instructions_for_Attachment_P1_CPAQ.pdf | ||
| N00421-19-R-0018.pdf | ||
| A001.pdf | ||
| A004.pdf | ||
| Attachment_P1_Past_Performance_Information_Form.pdf | ||
| Attachment_1_Draft_DD254.pdf | ||
| Attachment_2_Data_Item_Transmittal_Form.doc | DOC document | |
| A002.pdf | ||
| Attachment_P2_CPAQ.pdf | ||
| Attachment_P6_Cost_Summary_Spreadsheet.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| A003.pdf | ||
| Draft_PWS.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 22
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
| Question # | Questions received under N0042119R0018 | NAWCAD Answer |
| 1 | Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award states that relevance of Past Performance is to be evaluated based on Scope, Complexity, and Magnitude, with Magnitude defined as “contract dollar value (approximately $40M-$90M) and contract length (approximately five years).” This solicitation is for 43 FTEs, with 70% of this workforce at the Junior or Journeyman level. Thus, any reasonable pricing for this effort over five years would more likely be in the $25M-40M range, not $40M-$90M. Since this is a Small Business Set-Aside under NAICS Code 541330, meaning average total receipts of Offerors must be below $40.5M over the past three years, this exceptionally high Magnitude standard seems unsuited to this Solicitation. Could this Magnitude level be reevaluated and adjusted to a level more appropriate to this Small Business Set-Aside Solicitation, such as a level equal to the Price bid by the Offeror on this Solicitation? | Amendment 0001 Updated magnitude contract dollar value in Section M, Part B, 2.0, paragraph 2. |
| 2 | Section L, paragraph 2.1 states that the Offeror shall submit up to five Past Performance Information Forms as the Prime Contractor and no more than two forms for each principal subcontractor. Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award states that relevance of Past Performance is to be evaluated based on Scope, Complexity, and Magnitude. (1) Since only the incumbent can cite a single Past Performance that exactly matches the Scope, Complexity, and Magnitude of this Solicitation, would multiple Past Performances by a competing Offeror that taken together meet or exceed the Scope, Complexity, and Magnitude of this Solicitation be considered equal to or greater than the Scope, Complexity, and Magnitude of this Solicitation? (2) Would not meeting or exceeding the Scope, Complexity, and Magnitude of this Solicitation through multiple qualifying Prime Contracts be indicative of even greater Scope, Complexity, and Magnitude than meeting or exceeding the Scope, Complexity, and Magnitude of this Solicitation through just one Prime Contract? | NAVAIR will not be changing the way past performance is evaluated. You are encouraged to send in your best representations showing the criteria listed in the RFP. |
| 3 | Section L, Volume 2 Past Performance requirements in this solicitation are unusually extensive, with unlimited pages of narrative--yet with a “requested” submission just two work-weeks following Solicitation release (since 15 September is a Sunday and the release date of 23 August was a Friday) and with the Labor Day Holiday in between. With realistically nine Past Performance write-ups between the Prime Contractor and two principal subcontractors, with a deadline on questions related to Past Performance of 2 September (Labor Day) and responses bearing on Volume 2 structure and content not to be published until sometime later, this short deadline combined with the potential Scope, Complexity, and Magnitude of the Volume, seems to offer an unfair advantage to the incumbent now performing this work. Respectfully request that the deadline for Volume 2 (see Section L, Part A, Paragraph 4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION) be changed to match that of the rest of the Proposal. | Amendment 0001 Clarified language in Section L, Part B, 2.0, paragraph 4 |
| 4 | Section L, Part A, para 3.0 table states there is a 2 page limit per resume. For resumes, it is difficult to demonstrate required experience in 2 pages using 12 pt font. Would the Government consider allowing 3 pages or 10 pt font for resumes? | Amendment 0001 updated resume page limit in Section L, Part A, 3.0, paragraph 3, table 1.2 |
| 5 | RFP Amendment 01 dated 29 Aug 2019, page 9, section “VOLUME 2 PAST PERFORMANCE” states: “Volume 2 deadline remains unchanged to be submitted with the proposal at the solicitation due date”. However, the RFP dated 23 Aug 2019, page 87, section “4.0 Proposal Submission” states: “The submission date for all Volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP. It is requested that Volume 2 Past Performance information be submitted 10 days prior to the submission date specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP”. |
a. What is the exact mandatory due date of Volume 2 Past Performance to the government?
b. If Volume 2 must be submitted 10 days prior to the submission date specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP dated 23 August 2019, does Volume 2 need to be resubmitted with the rest of the proposal on the due date specified in the SF 33?
c. Given the confusion with respect to when Volume 2 is due to the government and the Labor Day holiday, request an extension to the proposal due date. Amendment 0002 was issued to remove the conflicting information from paragraph 4.0 proposal submission.
Only the questionnaires are requested earlier than proposal submission. All volumes, including past performance, are submitted by solicitation due date.
NAWCAD did not extend solicitation as we have a very tight schedule for completing evaluation and award and there are still 3 weeks left to submit the proposal.
| 6 | Attachment_P1_Past_Performance_Information_Form.pdf – Would the government allow conversion of this form to a MS Word document for submission? This is to maintain Volume submittal consistency. | Conversion to MS Word is acceptable for the P1 Past Performance Information Form. |
| 7 | 5252.228-9501 LIABILITY INSURANCE (NAVAIR) (MAR 1999) (d) has a requirement stating “Aircraft public and passenger liability: $200,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, other than passenger liability; $200,000 per occurrence for property damage. Passenger bodily injury liability limits of $200,000 per passenger, multiplied by the number of seats or number of passengers, whichever is greater.” |
| Q: As the requirements stated in Section C does not specify work that would be performed on an airstrip, runway, hangar, or within the vicinity of an aircraft, will the government consider removal of this requirement? | NAWCAD's interpretation of the clause is that it is only for coverage of contractor employees while on travel under the contract, not for contractor aircraft operation or similar. It is only included because we will have a cost reimbursement contract and clause 52.228-7 has been included in the RFP. | |
| 8 | The RFP Sect L – Part A, Para 3.0 states “It is requested that Volume 2 Past Performance information be submitted 10 days prior to the submission date specified in Block 9 of the SF 33of the RFP. |
Q: Will the government clarify the due date for Past Performance as NLT 2 pm on Monday, September 16th
Q: Consistent with table in Section L , para 3.0, is this delivery required in CD/DVD format or will the government consider email delivery of Past Performance files?
Q: Does delivery of Past Performance on September 16th preclude delivery of Past Performance as part of the entire submission in CD/DVD format? Amendment 0002 was issued to remove the conflicting information from paragraph 4.0 proposal submission.
Only the questionnaires are requested earlier than proposal submission. All volumes, including past performance, are submitted by solicitation due date. Volume 2 in its entirety should be delivered with the whole proposal by proposal due date.
Volume 2 should be delivered in CD/DVD format. CPAQs may be delivered via email.
9 The RFP Sect L – Part A, Para 4.0 states “Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as two (2) electronic copies as specified in the table below. The table below supersedes the copies requested in Block 9 of the Standard Form (SF) 33.”
| Q: Will the government please confirm that proposal content and volumes for delivery is two (2) electronic copies as specified in the table and NOT a sealed original and two (2) copies as stated in Block 9 of the SF 33? | Proposal content and volumes for delivery is two (2) electronic copies as specified in the table and NOT a sealed original and two (2) copies as stated in Block 9 of the SF 33. The Government is moving towards paperless contracting files. | |
| 10 | The RFP Sect C –Para 3.1.2.2, states “The [contractor] facilities shall maintain a SECRET clearance.” Will the government please clarify the intent of this requirement? However, the DD254 does not reference the need for safeguarding of classified information. |
| Q: Will the government clarify that this is intended for the contractor to obtain and maintain a secret facility clearance level? | Amendment 0003 updated SOW paragraph 3.1.2.2, Physical Facilities, to remove the requirement for facilities to maintain a SECRET clearance. No classified storage is required. | |
| 11 | The RFP Sect C –Para 3.4, defines that all Labor categories, except Technical Writer and Administrative Services Manager, have minimum education requirements. |
| Q: Will the government consider additional experience as an educational substitute? | All allowable substitutions are included in the RFP. No additional substitutions will be granted. | |
| 12 | The RFP Sect L – states in Para 2.0 “The Offeror shall provide two complete copies of the proposal to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) as electronic files fully compatible with Microsoft Office 2016.” Para 3.0 states “Section B prices shall be provided separately in two (2) digital data copy in MS Office 2010 Excel format on CD-ROM or DVD media.” |
| Q: Can the government confirm that only the Excel pricing spreadsheets needs to be MS Office Excel 2010 compatible, while the narrative should be compatible with MS Office Word 2016? | Section B may be provided in the pricing volume in MS Word and additional files for Section B should be provided in MS Excel. The pricing spreadsheets should be provided in Excel. The entire narrative should be provided in MS Word. | |
| 13 | Attachment P7 Fully Burdened Labor Rates, doesn’t appear match the RFP labor category titles, quantities, locations, or sites. |
| Q: Can the Offeror update Attachment P7 to reflect the RFP (LOE table contained on Page 95 and 96)? | Amendment 0003 revised Attachment P6 and P7 to correspond to the labor category titles, hours, and locations specified in the RFP, pages 95-96. | ||
| 14 | Section H, Clause 5252.209-9510 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, (b) Scope states that the restrictions apply to supplies, services, and other performance rendered with respect to the suppliers and/or equipment listed in Attachment 3. Attachment 3 is blank and Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments cites the Date of Attachment 3 as “TBD.” Q: Are we correct to assume that Attachment 3, and therefore the restrictions of Clause 5252.209-9510, will be applied at the Task Order level following award of the Single Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract? | Attachment 3 will be applied at the contract level. At this time the Government has not identified any supplies or services for which the restriction of 5252.209-9510(e) apply. However, pursuant to the requirements of 5252.209-9510(g), future supplies or services may be incorporated in Attachment 3, thus invoking the restrictions of 5252.209-9510(e). | |
| 15 | Can you confirm that since the terms of any potential OCI are not defined in the solicitation and not mentioned in Section M of the solicitation, that any potential OCI consideration will NOT be a factor in an award decision? If the potential for OCI will be considered in making an award decision, could you clarify how that issue will be evaluated and include that criteria in the solicitation? | OCI must be identified by the Offeror pursuant to 5252.209-9511 and if there is a conflict it may impact award decision. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .