QAs_Final.pdf

N0042119R0024 - Draft RFP Questions and Answers

Q1: Does the government intend to release this RFP on the Seaport-NXG IDIQ or will it be a stand- [alone] contract released via [FBO]?

A1: The Government intends to release this RFP via FBO.

Q2: Page 6 of the Section L – Draft RFP states that the Prime must submit 3 past performance references, each Principal Subcontractor may submit up to 2 past performance references, and each Joint Venture (JV) Member may submit up to 2 past performance references. If the JV is the prime that is responding to the RFP, is it allowable that either members of the JV can provide the 3 required past performance references?

A2: If the offeror is a JV formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation, the offeror shall submit up to two (2) past performance references from each of the JV team members in lieu of the three Past Performance Information Forms for the Prime Contractor. Section L, Paragraph 2.1 has been revised to clarify this requirement.

Q3: Section L 1.2 states that resumes are to be provided for the key positions described in Section C paragraph 3.4, which includes a Senior Management Analyst. However, there are no labor hours assigned for this position in Section L paragraph 3.5.2. Please confirm whether or not offerors are required to provide a resume for the Senior Management Analyst. If yes, will the Labor Hours be updated in the final RFP to account for this key personnel position?

A3: Yes, offerors are required to provide a resume for the Senior Management Analyst. Section L, Paragraph 3.5.2 has been updated to reflect Management Analyst (Senior) and remove the duplicate Acquisition Analyst (Junior).

Q4: Section L, Part B, 1.0 Volume 1: Technical, 1.2 Workforce: Key Personnel Resumes, Pg .5: How many resumes per each KEY LCAT position are required? For example, the Acquisition Analyst, Senior position has 11,520 labor hours per year. At 1920 hours per year per FTE this implies there could be more than one KEY resume requirement for this LCAT.

A4: The number of resumes required for submission with an offeror's proposal are one (1) resume each for each of the Key Labor Categories. Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.2 will be revised to reflect the number of resumes required for each key labor category.

Q5: Section L, Part A, 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes, Pg 2. confirm 2 pages per Key Personnel Resume.

A5: Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3.0 will remain as written. Two pages per resume is correct.

Q6: Draft SOW, 3.4.1.2, Pg. 23. Will there be specific clearance requirements under certain labor categories (i.e Secret, Top Secret, Secret with SSBI)?

A6: Per Paragraph 3.2.2 of Section C, all tasks to be performed under this effort are unclassified. All Contractor personnel must be eligible to perform Non‐Critical Sensitive work as defined by SECNAV M‐

5510.30. All Contractor personnel are required to have a favorably adjudicated Tier‐3 investigation.

from the Office of Personnel Management. There are no security clearance requirements for any labor categories at this time.

Q7: Draft SOW, 3.2.2, Pg. 6. Will there be a DD254 Security Designation with this work? If so what will be the classification requirement. There is none cited.

A7: Per Paragraph 3.2.2 of Section C, all tasks to be performed under this effort are unclassified. A DD‐ 254 will not be required or included.

Q8: Draft SOW, 3.1.8, Pg. 6. 12. When is the transition out plan due to the government? CDRL A002

A8: CDRL due dates will be included in Block 16 of the CDRLs. CDRL A002 (Transition Out Plan) is due to the government 120 days prior to the end of the contract.

Q9: Draft SOW, 3.2.8.2, Pg. 11. 13. When is the Cyber Security Plan due to the government? CDRL A012

A9: CDRL due dates will be included in Block 16 of the CDRLs. CDRL A012 (Cyber Security Plan) delivery date and content for all documents will be determined during the initial Cyber Security Kickoff meeting, to take place prior to System Requirements Review (SRR) or 45 days after contract award, whichever occurs first.

Q10: Section L, Sec. 3.5.2, page 12 chart lists the labor category for Acquisition Analyst Junior twice.

Should one of these positions be listed as Management Analyst, Senior? If so what are the labor hours for this position?

A10: Section L, Paragraph 3.5.2 has been updated to reflect Management Analyst (Senior) and remove the duplicate Acquisition Analyst (Junior).

Q11: Section L, Sec 3.0, page 2, PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES chart does not specify an overall page count for the Technical Volume. Please confirm total page count for this volume.

A11: The total page count for the volume is the sum of the two elements (Workforce and Management Plan), which includes two pages per key personnel resume and ten pages for the Management Plan.

Q12: The FBO posting states that NAVAIR anticipates this effort to be a CPFF single-award IDIQ contract.

Is the intent to have fully burdened labor rates from which to place task orders?

A12: Yes, see B‐1 clause included in Section B of complete RFP.

Q13: Requiring small business offerors to have a DCMA approved accounting system substantially reduces the population of offerors to compete for this requirement. Would NAVAIR consider changing the contract type to firm fixed-price?

A13: Circumstances do not allow NAVAIR to define its requirements sufficiently to allow for a fixed‐price type contract. Therefore, the Government intends to procure these services as cost‐reimbursable.

Q14: Will the IDIQ ceiling equal 50 FTEs as identified in Section L paragraph 3.5.2?

A14: The FTEs included in Section L will be used for proposal purposes and to establish the ceiling of the

IDIQ.

Q15: If the exact number of FTEs is known, would NAVAIR consider changing the contract to a C-type contract with a base plus four (4) option years?

A15: The FTEs included in Section L will be used for proposal purposes and to establish the ceiling of the IDIQ. The exact number of FTEs is not known at this time.

Q16: Can NAVAIR provide additional detail in regard to the type of support required for software development / maintenance services as identified in SOW paragraph 1.0?

A16: These service requirements can be found in Paragraph 3.3.6 of Section C.

Q17: Can NAVAIR provide the names and licenses of the exact software to be developed and maintained?

A17: These requirements will follow Paragraphs 3.3.6 of Section C.

Q18: Section L states “The Offeror shall also provide documentation verifying that it has a DCMA approved Accounting 10. System in accordance with DFARS clause 252.242-7006, or state that its Accounting System has not been approved by DCMA.” If the offeror’s accounting system has not been approved by DCMA will this exclude an offeror from being considered?

A18: NAVAIR has determined that a Cost Plus Fixed Fee pricing arrangement is the most appropriate for this effort. Because of the CPFF arrangement, an awardee is required to have an approved Accounting System.

Q19: Section L, A.4.0 (page 3) – The instructions require that “Volume 2 Past Performance information be submitted fourteen (14) days prior to the submission date specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP.” Is it NAVAIR’s intent to receive the entirety of Volume 2 14 days prior to the proposal submission date, or is the requirement only that past performance questionnaires (PPQs) be sent to customer past performance references (Government PMs/CORs, Prime contractor PMs, etc.) no later than 14 days prior to the proposal due date?

A19: It is requested that the entirety of Volume 2 be provided 14 days prior to proposal submission date. Please refer to Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1 for instructions when submitting Past Performance Questionnaires. Past Performance Questionnaires will be provided directly to the Contract Specialist from the Government POC.

Q20: SOW 3.1.2.1, Work Location (page 3) – The requirement for work to be performed at the Contractor site located within a ten (10) mile driving vicinity of NAVAIR/NAWCAD, Patuxent River MD appears to favor the incumbent contractor and limit competition. As only 26% of the work will be performed at the Contractor site, will NAVAIR consider removing this requirement? If not, can subcontractor facilities or a contingent lease agreement be used by bidders to satisfy this requirement?

A20: The requirement will remain as written; however, this will not be evaluated as part of the source selection. No proof of facilities or lease agreements need to be provided in order to satisfy the requirement. This requirement shall be met by period of performance start date.

Q21: Section L, B.1.2 (pgs 5-6); SOW 3.4.1.6, Key Personnel (page 29) – The requirements for key personnel (specifically that “key personnel shall be either current employees or contingent hires” and that “Offerors shall not propose a prospective employee for a key labor category”) strongly favors the incumbent contractor(s) and limits the ability of other bidders to compete for the contract. Would NAVAIR consider making the Key Personnel requirements less restrictive, allowing for resumes from prospective employees and/or providing access to current incumbent key personnel who will continue work on the contract in the event of transition to a new Contractor?

A21: “Resumes from prospective employees” would indicate that there is a contingent setup. Please review the definitions of a contingent hire and a prospective hire found at Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3.3(e). There is nothing that prohibits a potential offeror from approaching a current contract employee and using them as a contingent hire for their own purposes.

Q22: SOW, Page 23, Section 3.4 Labor Category Definition states that “The Contractor shall be responsible for employing personnel having at least the minimum level of education, training, and experience as stated under each labor category specified herein in order to successfully accomplish the tasking outlined in the SOW. Required experience must be related to the respective SOW area for which they will support.” Will the government provide a mapping of each position to the SOW areas? Further, if a position supports multiple SOW areas, must the experience be the required number of years (e.g., 10 years for a Senior level position) in each SOW area? Is this experience in addition to any experience specified in Section 3.4.1.5 (e.g., A Senior IT Specialist requires 5 years of SharePoint, Qlik, and .Net programming)? If this position is mapped to SOW elements 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 are we to assume the person needs 10 years in 3.3.5 Systems Engineering, 10 years in 3.3.6 Process Automation/Help Desk/Security/SharePoint/.net Administration, and also needs 5 years in SharePoint, Qlik, and .Net programming?

A22: The Government will not provide a mapping of each position to the SOW areas. The experience requirements are included in the functional description, not at the SOW tasking level. Section L, Paragraph

3.4 has been updated to clarify.

Q23: SOW, Page 27, the labor category description for the Acquisition Analyst, Journeyman requires two (2) years of experience as an IPT lead or sub-IPT lead. Would the government consider other supervisory experience as a suitable substitution? Or additional DoD acquisition experience as a suitable substitution?

A23: Labor category description in SOW for Acquisition Analyst, Journeyman has been updated.

Q24: Section L, page 10, paragraph 3.3(f) references an approved purchasing system. Please clarify if this should read approved accounting system.

A24: The wording is correct as written. Reference FAR 52.244‐2(c) for further clarification.

Q25: Section M, page 3, section 2.0, Past Performance, states “The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is the relevancy of the Past Performance reference when compared to the requirements of this solicitation. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than most performance of lesser relevance.” Then on page 5 under Past Performance Relevancy Ratings it states “In regards to scope, the Government will take the following into consideration: Acquisition Management (SOW Paragraph 3.3.1), Acquisition Planning and Execution (SOW Paragraph 3.3.2), Acquisition Administration (SOW Paragraph 3.3.3). In regards to complexity, the government will take the following into consideration: services that support multiple customers simultaneously and ever changing priorities while ensuring task completion within required due dates.” It appears the government only wants to see past performance in 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3 and is leaving out major pieces of the SOW in evaluating offerors. Are 3.3.4 Program Management, 3.3.5 Systems Engineering, 3.3.6 Process Automation/Help Desk/Security/SharePoint/.net Administration, and 3.3.7 Financial Management insignificant components of the SOW?

A25: All taskings included in the SOW are considered vital to successful execution of this effort. Section M, Page 5 identifies three areas of the SOW (3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3) that most thoroughly capture the essence of this effort when analyzing past performance. The language will remain as written.

Q26: Is this opportunity related to RFI N00421-19-R-0008? It appears that there is overlap in the PWSs for these opportunities in section 3.3.6. Has N00421-19-R-0008 been combined with this opportunity?

A26: The opportunities presented under N00421‐19‐R‐0008 and N00421‐19‐R‐0024 may appear to have some similar tasking but are two different and distinct requirements. Language has been updated in Section C, paragraphs 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 accordingly.