N00421-19-R-0101_Amend_0005.docx

N0042119R0101

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been modified:

AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1 Changes and Questions & Answers to the Request for Proposal (RFP) include:

(The revised information has been highlighted within this modification to easily note what has been changed.)

· Section C, Statement of Work, Paragraph 3.1.9.5: Removed the reference of paragraph (e) (1) and replaced with paragraph (e).

· Section J, Attachment P(4), Revised the Cost Summary Spreadsheet Tab as follows:

· Removed: “Maximum Pass Through Allowed by SeaPort-e IDIQ Contract”

· Removed: “Maximum Fixed Fee Allowed by SeaPort-e IDIQ Contract”

· Removed the statement “When analyzing pass through costs, the Government will consider prime offeror fee on subcontractor price as an element of pass through as explained in the Section H Savings Clause of the MACs. In Section B, however, prime offeror fee on subcontractor price is a fee element rather than a cost element. Prime offeror fee on subcontractor price should be included in the fee column (rather than the cost column) of Section B.”

Q1: What is the specific process to receive the copy of the Assess Only Standard Work Package (SWP) that is called out in Sample Task 3?

A1: In reference to Section L-1, Part B, Volume 2.0, Paragraph 2.1, Sample Task 3, the potential offeror shall request the SWP by submitting the CAGE code to the Contract Specialist designated in Section L-1, Part A. The Contract Specialist will then verify that the provided CAGE Code is an Authorized Department of Defense (DoD) Provider via https://sam.gov. Once the CAGE code is verified, the Contract Specialist will provide via an encrypted e-mail through Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Department of Defense (DOD) Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) at https://safe.apps.mil/ as Government Furnished Information (GFI).

Q2: Would the Government consider a Multiple Award Contract (MAC) of 2 to 3 awardees, Hybrid contracts with Firm Fixed Price CLINs for core known work and Cost CLINs for unknown and innovation insertions?

A2: The contract strategy will remain as is. The contract strategy is for a Single Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Cost Plus Fixed Price (CPFF) contract.

Amendment 2 Questions & Answers and Changes to the Request for Proposal (RFP) include:

(The revised information has been highlighted to easily note what has been changed.)

· Section H, NAVAIR Clause 5252.209-9510 (e)(1) has been revised to reflect the period of prohibition.

· Section J, Attachment P3, Past Performance Information Form has been revised to include a MS Word Version.

· Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3.0 has been revised.

· Section L, Part A, Paragraph 4.0 has been revised to remove the following language “It is requested that Volume 3 Past Performance information be submitted 14 days prior to the submission date specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP.”

· Section M, Part B, Paragraph 5.0 has been revised.

Q3: Will the government consider Contractor Teaming Arrangements (CTA)?

A3: Section L, Part B, Volume 1, Paragraph 1.4 addresses Contractor Team Agreements.

Q4: The RFP does not provide a requirement for an acronym list. Is an acronym list desired? If so, can provisions be made in the instruction such that the acronym list does not count against provided page limitations?

A4: Acronym lists are required and are excluded from the page limitations. Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3.0 has been revised.

Q5: On page 65, Section L (4.0) states “it is requested that Volume 3 Past Performance information be submitted 14 days prior to the submission date specified in Block 9,” presumably to allow time for Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaires to be routed and processed (if included in proposal submissions). Can the Government clarify whether the remainder of Volume 3 (i.e., PPIFs, work descriptions, and subcontractor consent forms) is also requested to be submitted 14 days prior to the submission date specified in Block 9?

A5: In reference to Section L, Part A, Paragraph 4.0, only the Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaires (CPAQs), Attachment P2, shall be submitted to the Contract Specialist within 2 weeks of the Program Manager receiving the request to complete the assessment. This allows the Program Manger 2 weeks to complete their assessment while also ensuring the Contract Specialist receives all CPAQs on or before the proposal due date specified in Block 9 of the SF33. The rest of Volume 3 shall be submitted NLT the proposal due date. For clarification purposes, Section L, Part A, Paragraph 4.0 has been revised to remove the sentence requesting that the entire Volume 3 be submitted 14 days in advance.

Q6: On page 70, Section L states “The Offeror shall submit written consent from its principal subcontractor(s) and JV team member(s) that will allow the Government to coordinate any past performance issues directly with the Offeror.” Can provisions be made in the instruction such that the requested consent pages do not count against provided page limitations?

A6: Written consent from subcontractors and JV team members are excluded from the page limit. Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3.0 has been revised.

Q7: In the required Attachment P3, Past Performance Information Form, the Contract Effort Description field allows the user to scroll through the section to review/add text that expands beyond the visible area of the field. However, when this file is printed (as required by the RFP), a large portion of the text entered is not printed. Will the Government allow offerors to submit copies of the text contained in this field in a separate continuation page so printed copies will match electronic copies? If so, can the Government increase the page limit for the Past Performance Volume to 30 pages to account for the additional formatting required for each of the contract references?

A7: A Microsoft Word Version has been attached. The page limit will not be increased.

Q8: In Section L, Volume 2, the Technical Proposal, can provisions be made to provide a 2-page allocation for the “Understanding of the Work” section as a lead into the Sample Tasks?

A8: Proposal instructions will remain unchanged.

Q9: On page 25, Section C, 4.5.1 Labor Qualification, would the government consider adding a Junior level position which allows NQV Level 1 or NQV Level 2 without the additional certification requirements?

A9: This labor category will not be required under this contract.

Q10: Referencing Section C, 4.5 Labor Qualifications on pages 22-24, there are four labor categories listed on these pages that are not listed in the table in Section L, 4.5, pages 74-75: Project/Management Analyst, Junior; Software Developer, Junior; Computer Systems Analyst, Junior; Computer Programmer, Junior. Can the government clarify the discrepancy between the two sections and if hours are to be included in Section L?

A10: The Table in Section L provides a snapshot of the projected requirement and is provided for bidding purposes only. In contract execution it is possible that Junior level labor categories may be executed for these positions.

Q11: Referencing Section L, 3.0, page 71, the language states that the P2 Attachment/CPAQ is to be sent to the “Program Manager who is the Assessing Official”. Can the government confirm that the Contracting Officer Representative should be receiving the CPAQ request?

A11: The Program Manager, who is familiar with contract performance and therefore able to complete the assessment, should receive the CPAQ. This individual may or may not be the Contracting Officer Representative.

Q12: In Section H, page 42, Organizational Conflicts of Interest (Services), box (e) (1) is checked, but there is no period of prohibition provided. Can the government clarify?

A12: The clause has been revised to reflect the period of prohibition.

Q13: On page 82, Section 5.0, there is a statement that “the evaluated cost/price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the Proposed Year 5 by (2) two to establish an estimated monthly amount. The monthly amount will then be multiplied by six to establish the estimated cost for the six-month option to extend services.” Can the government clarify that it was intended to say that the Year 5 amount would be divided by (12) to establish a monthly estimated amount?

A13: Section M, 5.0 has been revised.

Amendment 3 Questions & Answers and Changes to the Request for Proposal (RFP) include:

(The revised information has been highlighted to easily note what has been changed.)

· Section C, the chart under Paragraph 4.5, the language “and CISSP or GSLC-Global Security Leadership Certificate or CISSM-Certified Information Security Manager” has been removed under the “Certifications” column for the Information Security Analyst, Journeyman.

· Section C, Paragraph 4.5.1, the “Certification Requirements” under “Information Security Analyst (Journeyman, Senior)” have been revised.

· Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1, Sample Tasks 1 and 2 have been revised.

Q14: Please define the term enterprise IT in the context of this Sample Task 1. Does it include new digital age technologies that might not widely be considered enterprise IT (e.g., virtual reality, additive manufacturing)? Does it include IT associated with or resident in airframes and weapons systems (i.e., more operational technology)?

A14: Enterprise IT: IT designed to meet the demands of a large organization. Enterprise IT may include digital age technologies such as virtual reality that can fulfill requirements for availability, compatibility, reliability, scalability, performance and security across the organization. It could include IT associated with or resident in airframes and weapons systems.

Q15: The Sample Task 1 question states the response should “...address applicable technical analysis, cost-benefit, and security concerns”. Are those the only areas of analysis requested/permitted. Is there a standard or minimum list of applicable areas for analysis that NAVAIR uses/can share.

A15: Technical Analysis, Cost-benefit, and Security should be addressed, additional analysis is permitted and suggested.

Q16: Is the 3 month NTE timeline in Sample Task 1 intended to be for all possible technologies/domains?

A16: Request the vendor’s plan for evaluation of Emerging Technologies not exceed 3 months. Technology changes rapidly and a long-term evaluation process could result in selecting an outdated technology.

Q17: Given the page count restriction, does the response to Sample Task 3 need to include any actual evaluation of the three (3) products identified using the proposed alternative approach to the SWP, or just the approach and a description of the resulting reports’ content?

A17: The response should include just the approach.

Q18: RFP Page 23 of 84: The certification requirements for both the Information Security Analyst Senior and Information Security Analyst Journeyman include Security+, Navy Fully Qualified Validator Level 2, and CISSP or GSLC-Global Security Leadership Certificate or CISSM Certified Information Security Manager. Will the government please verify these certification requirements are the same for both the Senior and Journeyman level labor categories?

A18: The certification requirements for the Information Security Analyst (Journeyman) have been updated in the solicitation, Section C, paragraph 4.5 Labor Qualifications

Q19: RFP Pages 22-24 of 84: A number of the BLS codes included in the RFP appear to be outdated or nonexistent. Will the government please provide an updated list of all labor categories and the correct BLS code?

A19: All BLS codes included in the RFP are from 2018 Standard Occupational Classification System. This is most recent Occupational Classification System used by the BLS. Below is a link to the correct BLS page.

https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/major_groups.htm

Q20: Would the Government consider a T&M contract-type that would require offerors to develop an inclusive list of labor categories that support the entire scope, including transformation, and provide a Time and Materials (T&M) rate card based upon these labor categories?

A20: The contract strategy will remain as is. The contract strategy is for a Single Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Cost Plus Fixed Price (CPFF) contract.

Q21: A program of this magnitude will likely have multiple projects with requirements of varying degrees of stability. For the vendor to perform on projects with stable requirements, would the Government consider allowing FFP and T&M task order awards? Executing projects under FFP & T&M incentivizes scope control and management, reduces administrative overhead, and mitigates schedule and cost risk for the Government.

A21: The contract strategy will remain as is. The contract strategy is for a Single Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Cost Plus Fixed Price (CPFF) contract.

Q22: Will the Government consider conducting oral presentations as an element of its technical factor evaluation to describe the Digital Transformation approach on sample task 1? Would the Government consider potentially adding an additional evaluation factor or another sub-factor under the Technical Factor (Part B)?

A22: The evaluation factors will remain unchanged.

Q23: Would the Government consider adding evaluation requirements to include user centric service delivery approach?

A23: The government will evaluate the sample task responses in accordance with Section M. This does not preclude offers from offering use of a user centric delivery.

Q24: Will the Government consider including organizational change as a key component of sample task 1 and 2 response? This should include a strong focus on stakeholder & organizational alignment, leadership engagement, communications and user readiness, in addition to traditional training-centric change management assessment.

A24: Section L, Volume 2, Sample Tasks 1 and 2 have been updated to address organizational change.

Q25: Would the Government consider requiring two out of the five past performance submissions come from commercial experience with leading digital transformation?

A25: The proposal instructions for past performance will remain unchanged.

Q26: The vision for digital transformation references changes to business models. Section 3.3.2.9 references “Business process improvement support”. Can the government elaborate on this support need? Is there a need to conduct business process reengineering or is there a preference to overlay existing business processes on top of new digital technologies?

A26: Both scenarios are possible based on individual task order requirements.

Q27: Section M includes “Understanding of the Work” as one of the evaluation factors. The description further includes a reference to “understanding of the requirements. To what extent will the Government value understanding of the functionality supported by the legacy technology? Would the Government consider sharing existing business process architecture or relevant context for existing NAVAIR operations documentation for offerors to consider in their responses?

A27: The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with Section M, Evaluation Factors For Award. The Government will provide Government Furnished Information, as required, to complete performance under individual Task Orders.

Q28: RFP page 20, paragraph 3.3.2.10; When it says, “Data Architecture, Design, Engineering, and Management Support. The Contractor shall provide data architecture, design, engineering, and management support to include:” Will the government provide updated security classification guides to address data aggregation, or, will it be a function of this effort?

A28: The Government will provide Government Furnished Information as required to complete performance under individual Task Orders.

Q29: RFP page 20, paragraph 3.3.2.11; When it says, “Digital Solutions and Technology Development and Acceleration/Development Security Operations (DevSecOps) Support. The Contractor shall provide digital solutions technology development and acceleration / DevSecOps support to include:” Does the government envision the vendor using the Navy’s Compile to Combat in 24 Hours (C2C24) or similar instance in the prototyping (i.e.. Platform as GFE)? Or, are there specific PaaS or platform technologies the government wants included in the AoA for this effort?

A29: DevSecOps support could include C2C24 or similar DevSecOps platforms. Offerors must be able to support DevSecOps technologies and practices independent of platform.

Q30: RFP page 20, paragraph 3.3.2.12; When it says, “Virtual / Digital Integrated Modeling Environment (IME) and Capability Based Acquisition (CBA) Support. The Contractor shall provide virtual / IME and CBA support to include:” Are there specific industry standards or qualifications the government is looking for adherence to? Any environment limitations we should be aware of?

A30: The Government will provide Government Furnished Information as required to complete performance under individual Task Orders.

Q31: RFP page 66, paragraph 1.0; The referenced section states that the offeror is to list the CAGE code, DCMA, DCAA, and DFAS points of contact and DoDAACs for the Prime and all proposed subcontractors and team members. Can the government please clarify if they are also requesting the “signed representations, certifications and acknowledgements and/or System for Award Management (SAM), signed SF33 for basic solicitation and each amendment, as applicable,” from proposed subcontractors or are these documents strictly to be submitted only by the prime offeror who is submitting? If the government is requesting these documents to be submitted from the proposed subcontractors, can they be submitted under Section 1.2 so as not to impact the Offeror’s 10 page limitation to address the other required information?

A31: Only the Prime is required to submit signed representations, certifications and acknowledgements and/or System for Award Management (SAM), signed SF33 for basic solicitation and each amendment, as applicable.

Q32: Reference Amendment 0002 – The Microsoft Word version of Attachment P-3 Past Performance Information Form provided in this amendment uses Calibri 11 point font. Please confirm we can follow the format provided in the Attachment P-3 template and use Calibri 11 point font within the P-3 form.

A32: Please follow the Proposal Format instructions in Section L, Part A, paragraph 2.0.

Amendment 4 Questions & Answers and Changes to the Request for Proposal (RFP) include:

(The revised information has been highlighted to easily note what has been changed.)

· Section A and Section K, FAR Clause 52.204-8(a)(2) has been revised to reflect the updated standard size code.

· Section B, CLIN 0002 has been revised to remove the following language “Technical Data” and replaced with “ODCs”.

Q33: FAR Clause 52.204-8 (a)(2) states, “The small business size standard is $27,500,000.” However, according to the current SBA Table of Size Standards, the size standard for NAICS code 541512 is $30M. Can the Government please clarify the Size Standard for the assigned NAICS?

A33: FAR Clause 52.204-8(a)(2) has been revised.

Amendment 5 Questions & Answers and Changes to the Request for Proposal (RFP) include:

Q34: Please confirm that in section B of the solicitation we have to enter the total labor cost for total contract period of 5 years as shown in the attachment P4 (Cost Summary Sheet) excluding Other Direct Costs.

A34: This requirement is a 5 year ordering period. Therefore, we have 1 Labor CLIN, 1 ODC CLIN, 1 Technical Data CLIN and 1 Contract Acquired Property CLIN and each has a period of performance of 5 years. The cost of each year is broken out in attachment P4. What goes is Section B is the sum of all 5 years broken out by CLIN.

Q35: Should the prime complete this attachment for the team or you expect separate P5 for Prime and each subcontractor? Please confirm the labor categories listed in Attachment P5 is just an example and we have price all the labor categories listed in Section L of the solicitation.

A35: In reference to Section L, Part B, Volume 4, paragraph 4.3, the offeror should include all fully burdened labor rates for all prime contractors and their subcontractor personnel. The labor categories listed in Attachment P5 are for example purposes only.

Q36: This is a significant task and while we can satisfy most of the requirements, we are exploring potential teaming opportunities. Was there an Industry Day event for this solicitation and if so, are you able to furnish the attendee list? 2. If there was not an Industry Day, do you plan to host one?

A36: Reference Sources Sought- An Industry Day was not held for this solicitation and there are no planned industry engagement sessions for this requirement.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf