RAPID MAC RFP Questions_Answers (12.04.19).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NAWCAD-WOLF- RAPID MAC Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N00421-19-R-0074
About this file
This document contains a sources sought notice and draft statement of work for a multiple award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division is seeking capabilities statements from small businesses to provide engineering, integration, and mission support services across six pools: systems accreditation and certification, audiovisual multimedia decision aide technologies, government owned/contractor operated and contractor owned/contractor operated information surveillance and reconnaissance, shipboard combat systems, embarkable systems, and airborne mission systems. Interested parties were required to submit capabilities statements by June 7, 2019 addressing their relevant experience, technical skills, and ability to perform at least 50% of the work. The notice also outlines facility clearance and security requirements. The anticipated contract type is cost-plus-fixed-fee with an estimated period of performance of seven years and total labor hours of 1,468,692.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 24
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question | RFP Reference | Question | Answer | Power Point Presentation | |
| 1 | N/A | Will bidders need to be bidding on all 6 functional areas to be compliant? | No; see Section A, Summary | See Slide 24 | |
| 2 | N/A | How many total awards do you expect across these 6 Pools (e.g. 3 or more awards for each Pool for a total of 18 or more)? | The number of awards will be based on the number of offers - there will be no imposed limit. | See Slide 24 | |
| 3 | N/A | Will each pool only be either Small Business set-aside or Unrestricted, or a combination of both? | As additional questions were asked/additional feedback was provided on this topic during the Pre-Solicitation Conference, we have decided to hold our repsone. We will fully respond to all of the questions on this topic in our January 2020 Q&A posting. | See Slide 21 & Slide 24 | |
| 4 | N/A | Can we assume the statement above only applies to Pool 1? And the rest of the pools will be Full and open regardless of company size? Or is should we expect that regardless of the pool, …” NAICS Code 541330 represents the majority type of work anticipated across the MAC. I represent a small company that has less than 500 people, but has greater than $41.5M in annual revenue. We are trying to understand if we will be excluded from this opportunity due to our NAICS Code. | One NAICS code is selected for the whole contract. If your company has asserted under the NAICS code of 541330, your company is able to tender an offer. If your company's revenue is greater than $41.5M, your company would be considered large under this code. | N/A | |
| 5 | N/A | The Future Airborne Capability Environment (Face™) is referenced in the DRAFT SOW as an “applicable document”. Will there be a requirement in the RFP for FACE compliant software? | The documents listed in Section 2.0 will be applied as applicable at the task order level. Requirements for FACE compliant software will also be determined at the task order level. | N/A | |
| 6 | Pg. 105, | ||||
| 3.0 Content | Is a separate CRM required for Volume I, Volume II, and Volume III, or is a single matrix for all volumes sufficient? - Where should it go? (e.g., should it be included as an Annex to Volume 1 and/or 2 and 3? After the TOC in each Volume? | A CRM is only required under past performance. | See Slide 27 & Slide 28 | ||
| 7 | Pg. 108, | ||||
| 2.1.2 | Does this statement mean no more than 5 Past Performance Forms for ALL Pools (5 total) or EACH Pool (i.e., up to 5 in each Pool = 30) | No more than 5 Past Performance pages per pool. | See Slide 27 | ||
| 8 | Pg. 108, | ||||
| 2.1.2 | If only 5 PP Sheets are allowed (for each or all Pools), are the 2 that Subcontractors can submit included in the 5, or in addition to the 5 (so, 7 total) | An additional 2 pages are allowable per subcontractor. | See Slide 27 | ||
| 9 | Pg. 112, | ||||
| 2.1.3 | Can an offeror add an additional "Continuation Page" to the actual Past Performance Information Form in order to include all necessary information in the Contract Effort Description Box (rather than create an additional document for the "Continuation Page") | Yes; the offeror may add an additional "Continuation Page" to the actual Past Performance Information Form in order to include everything as one document. | N/A | ||
| 10 | Pg. 112, | ||||
| 2.1.3 | If the answer to the question above is No, does the Government recommend a naming convention for the Continuation Page? (so as not to be confused which contract it belongs to?) | N/A - The answer above is yes. | N/A | ||
| 11 | Pg. 112, | ||||
| 2.1.4 | Does the Government require the Offeror to submit their most recent CPAR as an attachment in Volume II (e.g., as Annex 3)? | Past 5 years; see Section 2.1.2 | N/A | ||
| 12 | Pg. 112, | ||||
| 3.4 | Section 3.4 states that written consent from Principal Subcontractors and team members is required to allow the Government to coordinate potential past performance issues. This is also requested in Volume II (Section 2.1.2). Does the Government want these consent forms provided in both Volume II and Volume III? If not, which Volume? | See Section 2.1.2 - (Needs to be removed from Section 3.4) | N/A | ||
| 13 | N/A | How many MAC awardees does the Government anticipate in each Pool? | See question 2. | See Slide 24 | |
| 14 | Pg. 107, | ||||
| 2.1 | Will the Offeror be required to establish Past Performance for Task Order submissions if selected as a MAC Awardee? | See page 62, clause H-2(e)(2); Task Order Procedures. Our intention is to award based on best value in the manner that is most advantageous to the Government. This may or may not include additional evaluation of Past Performance. Determination will be made at the Task Order level. | See Slide 26 | ||
| 15 | Pg. 119, | ||||
| 3.0 | Per 2.0 Past Performance Section within the Evaluation Factors, the RFP states: "The Government will use a magnitude of $5M or greater for Pool 1" to evaluate the past performance. Does that mean a contract valued at $5M per year, or the overall contract amount? | As additional questions were asked/additional feedback was provided on this topic during the Pre-Solicitation Conference, we have decided to hold our repsone. We will fully respond to all of the questions on this topic in our January 2020 Q&A posting. | N/A | ||
| 16 | Pg. 16, | ||||
| 3.1.2.1 | Is it the intent that the "primary facility" is the primary facility for providing support to that specific task order for which the work location is "Contractor site"? That is, the Contractor's headquarter location may be in another state, but the Contractor would provide a facility that meets the requirement for a specific task order? | The primary facility is the location where the work is being done. Headquarters can be in a different state. See 3.1.2.1; the work is to be completed at a facility within 50 miles of NAS PAX / Webster Field. | See Slide 20 | ||
| 17 | Pg. 16, | ||||
| 3.1.2.3 | "Because of the hands-on effort that may be required by a TO, the Contractor's facility may be required to assemble, test, and store GFE." Because this requirement is task order specific, please confirm that this is not a requirement for the overall IDIQ | Yes; this requirement is Task Order specific, not for the IDIQ overall. | N/A | ||
| 18 | Pg. 16, | ||||
| 3.1.2.4 | "The Contractor shall have an approved Property Management System and adequately protect Government Property." Is an approved Property Management System required for award of the IDIQ or will the ACO request/sponsor the required audit post-award based on task order requirements? | No at the MAC level and Yes at TO level | N/A | ||
| 19 | N/A | How are these services currently being performed? Under contract? In-house? | These services are not currently being performed under other contracts. This is a new requirement. | See Slide 22 | |
| 20 | N/A | If these requirements are currently being performed under a contract… Who is the Contractor? What is the contract number? When does the contract expire? What is the current contract value? | These services are not currently being performed under a contract. | See Slide 22 | |
| 21 | Pg. 18, | ||||
| 3.1.4.1.4 | Section states that overtime cannot be charged directly to the Contract unless first approved in writing by the Chief of the Contracting Office (CCO). Will the COR be allowed to approve overtime as the SOW states that the contract will support embarked units? | When a request is made, the CCO must approve overtime up to a certain dollar amount. If that is approved, any charges up to that amount are approved by the COR. | N/A | ||
| 22 | Pg. 21, | ||||
| 3.2.2.2 | The LCAT table in Section 3.2.2.2 differs significantly from the table provided with the Estimated_LOE_for_Sources_Sought.pdf document. Can the government please confirm which table is correct as this greatly affects our recruitment and retention strategy? | Page 21, Section 3.2.2.2 refers only to those labor categories that must have a clearance above secret. | N/A | ||
| 23 | Pg. 119, | ||||
| 2.0 | #1 - Page 2, Section SF 30, NOTES, #5: Offerors can propose one, multiple, or all of Pools 2 through 6. |
Pool 1 is strictly reserved as a small business set- aside.
#2 - Page 63, Section H-2, (f) (1) (iii): All task orders under Pool 1 is total small business set-aside. Task Orders under Pools 2 through 6 shall be full and open competition.
#3 - Page 119, Section M, Part B, 2.0, 3rd paragraph: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant the Past performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use a magnitude of $20M or greater for Pools 2 through 6. The Government will use a magnitude of $5M or greater for Pool 1. The Government will use the following aspects to determine relevancy for this evaluation.
Question: In #1 and #2 above where offerors can propose one or more Pools (where Pool 1 is for small business set-aside only) and #3 identifies the magnitude for Pool 1 ($5M) vs magnitude for Pools 2 through 6 ($20M or greater); for a small business to propose in Pools 2 through 6, shouldn't the
| magnitude for small business' be $5M for each Pool? | As additional questions were asked/additional feedback was provided on this topic during the Pre-Solicitation Conference, we have decided to hold our repsone. We will fully respond to all of the questions on this topic in our January 2020 Q&A posting. | N/A | |
| 24 | Pg. 106, | ||
| 1.1.1 | Section L states that Pool 1 is reserved for small business. Since Pools 2-6 are unrestricted / full and open, is there a requirement for Small Business Participation for any of those pools? Failure to require SB Participation will likely make pools 2-6 non-competitive for a significant portion of work against the large established PAX River area companies. | Any task order awarded to a large business that is greater than $700k will be required to submit a small business plan. As per the DRAFT RFP, Pools 2-6 are unrestricted. | See Slide 21 & Slide 24 |
| 25 | Pg. 107, | ||
| 1.1.1 (1) | Are companies allowed to team on multiple pools with different companies as either a Prime or Subcontractor? | Yes | N/A |
| 26 | Pg. 17, | ||
| 3.2.1.5.2 | Will the government consider the use of the subcontractor facilities with AS9100D certification? | As additional questions were asked/additional feedback was provided on this topic during the Pre-Solicitation Conference, we have decided to hold our repsone. We will fully respond to all of the questions on this topic in our January 2020 Q&A posting. | N/A |
| 27 | Pg. 16, | ||
| 3.1.2.2 | What level classification VTC is anticipated? Suggest Unclassified telephone and Unclassified VTC capability | Some task orders may require classified VTC and/or telephone up to secret. | N/A |
| 28 | Pg. 19, | ||
| 3.1.10 | Will the government consider ISO 9001:2015 certification as acceptable for applicable task orders that require quality assurance? | RFP language to be updated. ISO 9001:2015 or ISO 9001:2008 requirements will be directed at the task order level. | N/A |
| 29 | Pg. 2, |
Section SF-30,
| Blk 14 | Note 2 states that the maximum value of the contract will not exceed $249,720,364.08. Does the Government have an estimate of the maximum value for each of the Pools, 1-6? Or a ratio of how that work will be spread across the Pools? | No, Contracts will be awarded with a Min (10k) and Max (249M). We only have overall numbers at this time. | See Slide 25 |
| 30 | Pg. 4, |
Section B,
| Item 0003 | Section B, Item 0003 RAPID - Operational Flight Hours states it is FFP. Can the Government confirm that the requirements for these hours will be rigidly define in the task orders; i.e. number of flights/missions, duration, period of time, etc.? | The requirements for flights, missions, duration, period of time, aircraft requirements, location, storage, etc. will be provided at TO. | N/A |
| 31 | Pg. 4, |
Section B,
| Item 0004 | Item 0004 ODC Travel states "ISO 0001 and 0002". Can the Government confirm if 0003 should also be included? | Mobilization and demobiliztion, if applicable to the TO, to occur under CLINS 0001 and 0004. Operational tasking under CLIN 0003. | N/A |
| 32 | Pg. 9, | ||
| Tab-Pool/SOW | The table that cross references each Pool to the SOW paragraphs that apply does not have Pool 1 checked for SOW paragraph 3.1.4.1.5 Hazard Pay. Can the Government confirm that this SOW paragraph does not apply for Pool 1? | Hazard pay does not apply to pool 1. | N/A |
| 33 | Pg. 11, | ||
| Tab-Pool/SOW | The table that cross references each Pool to the SOW paragraphs that apply does not have the SOW paragraphs 3.3.1.8, 3.3.1.9, 3.3.1.10 checked for Pool 5. Can the Government confirm that these SOW paragraphs do not apply for Pool 5? | Paragraphs do not apply to Pool 5. | N/A |
| 34 | Pg. 16, |
Section C,
| 3.1.2.2 | SOW paragraph 3.1.2.2 states that the Contractor shall have the capability to host and conduct meetings at the classification levels determined by the Task Orders, up to Secret. If required by the TO, the conference room should hold a minimum of twenty (20) persons and have VTC capability... Does this mean that the Contractor should be able to host Classified/Secure VTCs? | Some task orders may require classified VTC and/or telephone up to secret. | N/A |
| 35 | Pg. 18, |
Section C,
| 3.1.4.1.4S | Section C, SOW paragraph 3.1.4.1.4 Overtime states "Overtime cannot be charged directly to the Contract unless first approved in writing by the Chief of the Contracting Office (CCO)." Can the Government identify who the CCO is? | See Question 21. | N/A |
| 36 | Pg. 19, |
Section C,
| 3.1.9.3 | Section C, SOW paragraph 3.1.9.3 Safety Training and Surveys states "Contractor employees shall complete Safety Training as directed by the Safety Office and the COR or as directed by local command or instruction." Does the Government have a list of anticipated training, and does the Government pay for the cost of this training? | Government specific training will be funded by the Government. If it is specific to LCAT qualification (i.e. Cyber Awareness, etc.), will be funded by the Contractor. | N/A |
| 37 | Pg. 23, |
Section C,
| 3.2.9 | Section C, SOW paragraph 3.2.9 states that "Contractor owned information systems that process, store, display, manipulate, or transmit CLASSIFIED Government information shall be Certified and Accredited by the appropriate Designated Approving Authority. Defense Security Service (DAA DSS)." Will the Government sponsor the Contractor in support of obtaining the certification and accreditation? | The Government does sponsor contractors when it is required based on the circumstances and the situation. Roughly speaking, ~90% of the work will not require Government sponsor. The remaining ~10 that may require Government sponsor will be sponsored as appropriate. | N/A |
| 38 | Pg. 28, | ||
| Section C, 3.3.3.2.4 | Section C, SOW paragraph 3.3.3.2.4 states "The Contractor shall assist with maintaining a database for the FMS Weapon System transactions." Is the database Government of Contractor developed and managed? | The database is Government-owned, but Contractors can be granted access for updates. | N/A |
| 39 | Pg. 37, | ||
| Section C, 3.4.14.4 | Section C, SOW paragraph 3.4.14.4 Commercial Pilot, Senior, BLS Code 53-2012 contains the function, education, certification, and experience requirements for this labor category. Does the Government have additional requirements or an additional labor category that should be considered for pilot/operation of unmanned aircraft? | Personnel must meet FAA requirements for the air vehicle being piloted. It is anticipated that for smaller unmanned aircraft such as Group 1 and Group 2 UAVs, commercial pilot may not be required but will be satisfied by other LCATs with appropriate FAA training as defined at the TO. | N/A |
| 40 | Pg. 39, | ||
| Section C, 3.4.14.8 | Is the required experience for the Management Analyst (Program Manager), Sr. in addition to the 10 years required for a Senior Labor Category, or is it that 8 or the 10 years must meet the specialized experience requirements? | 8 to 10 years to meet the specialized requirement. | N/A |
| 41 | Pg. 39, |
Section C,
| 3.4.14.10 | Can the Government please confirm the Information Security Specialist, Senior, in paragraph 3.4.14.10 is the same as the Information Security Analyst, Senior, listed under paragraph 3.4.13 and paragraph 3.4.7.5? | RFP language to be updated. Paragraph 3.4.14.10 to be changed to Information Security Analyst, Senior BLS SOC 15-1212 to be consistent with table in 3.4.13 and paragraph 3.4.7.5. | N/A |
| 42 | Pg. 40, |
Section C,
| 3.4.15 | The table in Section C, SOW paragraph 3.4.15 is labeled "Non-professional, Non-SCA Labor Qualifications." However in the table it provides SCA codes for the two (2) labor categories listed. Can the Government confirm if the Aerospace Structural Welder and the Air Crew Members/Mobile Equipment Operations Occupations are not SCA labor categories? | Due to specific experience requirements, these two LCATs are not being considered SCA. | N/A |
| 43 | Pg. 55, | ||
| Section G | Clause 5252.232-9529 Incurred Cost Reporting and Progress Reporting for Services (NAVAIR)(JUN 2014) sub-paragraph (b)(2) Labor references "Hourly Tripwire". Will this language be updated to refer to the current NTE annual price of $300k? | This Tripwire is an annual cost >$300K. If a person's compensation is above the Tripwire and that person is approved for work on the contract, the incurred costs are reported at an hourly level on the Hourly Tripwire Tab. | N/A |
| 44 | Pg. 55, | ||
| Section G | Clause 5252.232-9529 Incurred Cost Reporting and Progress Reporting for Services (NAVAIR)(JUN 2014) sub-paragraph (b)(3) ODCs, including Travel and Material states "A copy of the travel voucher with accompanying receipts shall be provided upon request." If the Contractor has an approved accounting system can this requirement be waived? If it can be waived, can that requirement flow down to subcontractors who have a approved accounting systems? | No. | N/A |
| 45 | Pg. 55, | ||
| Section G | Clause 5252.232-9529 Incurred Cost Reporting and Progress Reporting for Services (NAVAIR)(JUN 2014) sub-paragraph (b)(3) Other Direct Costs (ODCs), including Travel and Material states "The following statement regarding ODCs and Labor shall also be included, if applicable: 'No fee has been applied to ODCs, ad the applicable fee and pass through rate do not exceed those identified in NAVAIR Clause 5252.215-9512, Saving Clause.'" Can the Government provide a copy of the clause and what the maximum pass through is? | The clause will be available in full text in the final RFP. There is no maximum pass through. | N/A |
| 46 | Pg. 62, | ||
| Section H-2 | H-2(e) states that Task Orders may be issued on either a competitive or non-competitive basis. Can the Government provide the process for determining when a sole-source task order will be issued? | See Question 14. The determination will be made at the Task Order level. | See Slide 26 |
| 47 | Pg. 103, | ||
| Section L, A | Section L, Part A, provides the definition for a Principal Subcontractor as providing at least 20% of the proposed Level of Effort (LOE) or one (1) or more Key Personnel. Since the solicitation does not require a Cost Volume or Key Resumes, the ability to determine if a subcontractor is a Principal Subcontractor would need to be determined at the Task Order level. Can the Government confirm this is the case? | The final RFP will be updated to remove "at least 20%." | N/A |
| 48 | Pg. 103, | ||
| Section L, A | Can subcontractors be added post award? | Yes. | N/A |
| 49 | Pg. 108, | ||
| Section L, B | Section L, Part B, Volume 2 Past Performance, paragraph 2.2.1, states that "Offerors shall not submit more than five Past Performance Information Forms as the Prime Contractor, and no more than two forms for each principal subcontractor." A Principal Subcontractor is defined as one that has at least 20% of the Level of Effort or provides one or more Key Personnel. Since the solicitation response does not include a Cost Volume or Key Resume, determination of a Principal Subcontractor cannot be made. Based on this, are subcontractor Past Performance Information Forms still to be submitted? | See Question 47. Principal Subcontractor provides one or more Key Personnel. Yes, Past Performance Information forms are to be submitted. | See Slide 27 & Slide 28 |
| 50 | Pg. 112, |
Section L,
| Part B, 2.1.3 | Section L requires offerors to submit both a SOW and a cross reference matrix as Volume 2, Annex 2, for each past performance reference contract with the CRM demonstrating how the SOW of the past performance contract aligns with the RFP SOW. This indicates a need for a CRM for each reference contract submitted. However, the RFP also provides a sample CRM with the left most column indicating contract number. This appears to indicate the government may be looking for a single CRM covering all Past Performance References. Can the Government please provide clarification as to whether the requirement is for offerors to submit a Single CRM for all past performance reference contracts (1 CRM), or if the requirement is to have a CRM for each past performance reference contract submitted (up to 5 CRMs)? | One CRM per pool | Slide 27 & 28 - Stacey |
| 51 | Pg. 21, |
Section C,
| 3.2.2 | Section C, paragraph 3.2.2 lists the DoD Security Clearance Levels required for specific labor categories. Does the government anticipate that TSI/SCI will be needed for any of the labor categories? | TO may require LCATs in accordance with 3.2.2 to hold TS/SCI. | See Slide 20 |
| 52 | Pg. 7, | ||
| 1.0 | Could you clarify or define the statement "that complement or add to (but will not…" in Section 1.0 Scope? This statement would mean that bidding for a separate project or task would have no overlap. Does that remove a company from bidding on the NAVAIR 4.11 RAPID MAC (OMS 24818) if the requirements are different, but the results are the same? | As additional questions were asked/additional feedback was provided on this topic during the Pre-Solicitation Conference, we have decided to hold our repsone. We will fully respond to all of the questions on this topic in our January 2020 Q&A posting. | See Slide 24 |
| 53 | Pg. 7, | ||
| sub-paragraph 5 | RAPID MAC contractors will be competing for Task Orders that complement or add to (but will not duplicate) the current services in the six (6) functional areas outlined below provided within the NAWCAD Wolf Portfolio. |
| Is the Government intent to award each pool to more than one contractor? | Yes. | See Slide 24 | |
| 54 | Pg. 15, | ||
| 3.1.1 | Will the Government provide a copy of the non-Navy RDT&E network Standard Operating Procedures with the final RFP? | If applicable, the Standard Operating Procedures will be provided at TO. | N/A |
| 55 | Pg. 15, | ||
| 3.1.1 | Can the Government de-conflict the following statements: "Portables are to be used for remote/web access only." and "The use of portables and docking stations on the network is prohibited." | RFP language to be updated, statement "Portables are to be used for remote/web access only" will be removed. "The use of portables and docking stations on the network is prohibited " will be revised to "The use of RDT&E network assets on networks other than the RDT&E network is prohibited." | N/A |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .