Questions and Answers.xlsx

Sheet1

Q2: Section 3.2.3.3 DD-254, As per DD 254, Level of safeguarding for classified information Material required at contractor facility is Secret. Can the government please clarify if it is required at the time of proposal submission or by the time of award. Also, if we have a required facility from our principal subcontractor, would the government accept it or it should be the Prime contractors facility. A2: The DD254 is between the Government and the prime; therefore, the prime would be responsible for having, per the DD254, the appropriate level of safeguarding for classified information/material. Given that some security clearances are required at the time of proposal submission, facility clearance would also be required at the time of proposal submission.

Q3: (Section 3.3.1.11 pg 32) Have the current systems and applications been tested and certified under CANES 3.0 hardware version 1.2? A3: Current systems have been tested under multiple versions of CANES and are in continuous testing evolution. The requirement includes addressing the evolving landscape of CANES HW and versions.

Q4: (Section 3.3.1.12 pg 32) Are the existing applications RMF approved or will they require migration? A4: Products have, or will have, current RMF certification at time of award. The Contractor will be responsible for keeping the ATOs current.

Q5: (Draft Solicitation and P3 file) There are labor category discrepancies between the Draft RFP and P3 files. Please confirm if the Software Developer - Senior, Training and Development Specialist - Senior, and Web and Digital Interface Designer - Journeyman are to be at each location. A5: Two of the labor categories referenced were cut off in the conversion of the P3 attachment to .pdf. The final solicitation will include the original Excel file of the P3 attachment so that the Offeror may input labor rates directly into the file. For Attachment P3, the Offeror shall provide an hourly burdened composite labor rate for each of the labor categories included in the tables.

Q6: (Attachment P7 ) The P7 file shows a 0% cost escalation for year 2 and a 5% cost escalation for years 3 through 5. Please advise if these values are fixed or variable. A6: Please see 16. under Attachment P7 Instructions worksheet. The escalation rates are not fixed. Subcontractors shall enter their proposed escalation rate(s), if any, into cell G3 on each worksheet for Year 2 through Year 5. This enables automatic calculation of proposed direct labor rates with the application of escalation. If the subcontractor does not want to propose escalation, they shall enter "0.00" into cell G3 on each worksheet for Year 2 through Year 5. If the subcontractor chooses not to escalate certain labor categories, they can remove the green coloring from the cell and enter the rate manually.

Q7: (Attachment P3) Are the Hourly Burdened Composite Labor Rates on Attachment P3 with or without fee? A7: The Hourly Burdened Composite Labor Rates include direct labor rates plus all applicable burdens, applicable escalation, subcontractor fee on subcontractor labor and subcontractor pass-through costs. They do not include prime fee on prime labor, prime fee on subcontractor labor, ODCs such as Travel and Material, or Cost of Money (if proposed). The Hourly Burdened Composite Labor Rate is the sum of both the prime and all subcontractor labor costs for that labor category divided by total number of labor hours for the labor category.

Q8: The draft RFP reflects a workforce of over 116 FTE per annum, with only 9 Key personnel, yet the total workforce evaluation criteria in Section M, Part B, Paragraph 1.2 is listed as the resumes of those 9 key individuals. Throughout SOW Paragraph 3.4 – Personnel Qualifications, the Government has very specific requirements for certifications, degrees, and experience elements for the non-key labor categories. In addition, SOW Paragraph 3.2.2.3 defines specific security clearance requirements and timeframes for both key and non-key labor categories. In order to better evaluate the proposed workforce, would the Government consider adding a Paragraph 1.2.2 to Section L, Part B to allow the respondent to discuss their proposed total workforce and describing how that workforce would be compliant with the technical requirements of Sections 3.2.2.3 and 3.4? Since the Workforce was identified in Section M as the second most important factor for Technical Evaluation, this section would also allow respondents to describe how their proposed personnel will provide a low risk, high value workforce capable of supporting the TDL driven IDIQ. Given the range of security clearances, degrees, certifications, and experience element requirements for both key and non-key labor categories, at least 15 pages are requested for this section. A8: In accordance with the workforce evaluation criteria in Section M, Part B, the Government will evaluate all proposed Key Personnel and the supporting information to determine if they meet the minimum qualification requirements. Section L, Part B, Para 1.3, Management Approach, allows the Offeror (Para 1.3.1.1) to describe the adequacy of their corporate management and resources to support the technical requirements of the Solicitation and (Para 1.3.1.7) the qualification/recruitment/retention plan and procedures that demonstrate how the Offeror will meet the minimum requirements of the SOW.

Q9: In the Draft RFP Section C - 3.1.12 (page 25) it is noted that GFP/GFI will be issued at the TO or CLIN level. Given the TDL nature of the expected COMET contract, would the Government consider moving this to the TDL level or including TDLs as one of the authorized levels for GFP/GFI being issued? A9: Section 3.1.12, Government Furnished Property (GFP) and Government Furnished Information (GFI), has been changed to reflect the TDL nature of the contract.

Q10: There are multiple labor categories that have a requirement for a NAVSEA RCM certification. However, the certifications listed for 3.4.1.5.2.5, 3.4.1.5.2.6, and 3.4.1.5.2.13 (pgs. 41 & 43) list a "NAVSEA RCS" certification. Please confirm that this should be "NAVSEA RCM." A10: The certifications listed for 3.4.1.5.2.5, 3.4.1.5.2.6 and 3.4.1.5.2.13 should be NAVSEA RCM and have been corrected in the Statement of Work (SOW).

Q11: In the table referenced in Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3.3, the Past Performance section of Volume 2 is limited to 15 pages. Part B, Paragraph 2.1.2 states that Attachment P1 will be used for each Past Performance reference. However, the PDF file for Attachment P1 is limited to two pages in length, and uses form-fill fields that allow content beyond each page display by adding scroll bars. Should each P1 Past Performance reference form be submitted as an individual electronic PDF file that always counts as two (2) pages even when the content extends beyond the visible text, or should the respondent reproduce the required fields in flattened, individual pages to be included directly in Volume 2? A11: Section L, Para 2.1.2.1, has been modified to provide clarity on Attachment P1, Past Performance Information Form.

Q12: Would ASI consider removing the IAT Level 1 certification requirement from Junior Software Developers (3.4.1.5.2.28) as these individuals work under the direction and guidance of Journeyman and Senior Developers who will have this certification? This would enable entry level developers to enter the workforce under the mentorship of more senior developers. A12: The IAT Level I certification is required for the Software Developer, Junior labor category. The Government is confident that ninety (90) days is enough time for personnel to get the certification.

Q13: Several Labor Categories include broad classes of certification such as “XML Master” certification or “Adobe FrameMaker” in Technical Writer, or “Agile Software Development/Management” certification under Program and Project Manager. For these broad categories, do peer professional organization, training program, academic, and vendor-specific (such as Microsoft, Learning Tree, etc.) certifications all meet the requirement? A13: Yes, all of these examples meet the requirement.

Q14: The hour distribution listed in Section L, Part B, under paragraph 3.5.2 establishes several Key Labor Categories (e.g., Computer and Information Research Scientist (Logistics Information Technology), Senior; Software Developer (Navy Maintenance Systems), Senior; Software Developer (Performance Tools), Senior; Training and Development Specialist, Senior) as split between multiple locations and adding up to less than 1 FTE. Would the Government confirm that these Key personnel should be 1 FTE as indicated in the table under Section C 3.4.1.1 and establish the hours to reflect full time for all Key positions? A14: The proposed hours distribution in Section L tables have been revised to reflect one (1) full-time equivalent (FTE) for Key personnel as identified in Section 3.4.1.1 of the SOW.

Q15: Section 3.1.1 of the draft SOW states “The Contractor shall be capable of Internet and Local Area Network (LAN) communications with the ASI Division.” Given government restrictions on network to network access, how is the Contractor expected to maintain LAN connectivity to meet this requirement? Is the requirement for Contractor personnel on Government site(s) to have IT capable of LAN connectivity or is something more required? A15: The Contractor's internal corporate Local Area Network (LAN) connections used to support COMET and communicate with the ASI Division must meet OPSEC requirements.

Q16: CDRLs A020 (SDP), A023 (SRS), A024 (SDD), and A025 (DBDD) are indicated to be due 10 days after request from COR. This is a very tight timeline to prepare this level of design and requirements documentation, unless they were specifically required at the beginning of a project. Would the government consider clarifying blocks 10, 12 and 13 to indicate that "draft submission of required project documentation will be due within twenty (20) business days of request by COR?" A16: The referenced CDRLs have been modified.

Q17: Would the Government add to the Software element of Section H-1, pg. 65, specialized software development licenses and libraries required to support the requirements under sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the SOW which dictate specialized software tools for work on behalf of the Government? These licenses/libraries could be restricted to not incur reoccurring costs to the Government, if required. A17: The H-1 Restriction on the Direct Charging of Material NAVAIR 5252.242-9515 (Variation)(AUG 2020) clause has been modified to incorporate "Specialized Software Development and Libraries" into Software Licenses language.

Q18: Paragraph 3.4.1.6 on page 50 “Non-Professional/Non-Service Contract Act (SCA) labor qualifications” is followed by a table in section 3.4.1.6.1 which includes a column for SCA Code. If these LCATs are non-SCA, as noted by the section title, is this reference information for information only? If not, can the Government please clarify the relationship between these LCATs and SCA? A18: The SCA Code has been removed as it is not relevant to this effort.

Q19: NAWCAD/NAVAIR contract efforts often require segregation of costs (CDRL A008) and monthly financial status (A009) to be delivered independently of invoices (especially near the end of Government FY). Requiring CDRLs A008 and A009 to be submitted with invoices would preclude the ability to support these types of requests from the Government. Would the Government consider separating the frequency requirement for A008 and A009 from invoices so they can be reported consistently on the 15th or 20th business day of each month? This change would also allow for more robust analysis and cost forecasting to be included in those reports for dynamic projects. A19: The referenced CDRLs have been modified to address the frequency requirement.

Q20: The paragraph numbering on pages 39-52 are off as Paragraph 3.4.1.5.2 on page 39 should be Paragraph 3.4.1.6.2 and the subsequent paragraphs follow the incorrect number. Will the government update the applicable paragraph numbers? A20: The paragraph numbering has been corrected.

Q21: CDRL A018 requires a trip/meeting report to be provided within 5 days of the conclusion of the event. This timeline does not support the need to gather materials and feedback from other participants following an event, or to execute quality control processes and internal draft review/correction cycles unless dedicated, specialized staff are added to process these reports. A slightly longer timeline would enable processing by the participants and task leadership personnel in their normal course of business, increasing quality and reducing cost to the Government. Would the Government consider adjusting the due date for CDRL A018 to 15 business days after the conclusion of the triggering event or "as required"? This would accommodate flexibility in working with ASI technical leads to enable the collection of external inputs to improve the quality of the meeting/trip reports and to reduce the need for further revision after delivery. A21: The referenced CDRL has been modified.

Q22: The opening sentence of the last paragraph of 3.2.5 (pg 30) lists NAVAIR twice as an area where work is being performed. Is the second reference intended to be "NAVSEA"? A22: This language is correct. It is from the DD254 manual and cannot be changed.

Q23: Element 2.3 of Section L, Part A (page 105) requires all proposal documents to be compatible with Microsoft Office 2016. Given that NMCI has converted to Office365, would the Government consider changing to this format to reduce risk of format degradation for down saving to older Microsoft Office versions? Note that CDRLs indicate delivery in the “current authorized NMCI version of Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat PDF.” A23: Not all users have been upgraded to Office365. Therefore, we will require all proposal documents to be compatible with Microsoft Office 2016.

Q24: Element 2.3 of Section L, Part A (page 105) requires all proposal documents to be compatible with Microsoft Office 2016. Given that NMCI has converted to Office365, would the Government consider changing to this format to reduce risk of format degradation for down saving to older Microsoft Office versions? Note that CDRLs indicate delivery in the “current authorized NMCI version of Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat PDF.” A24: Not all users have been upgraded to Office365. Therefore, we will require all proposal documents to be compatible with Microsoft Office 2016.

Q25: The key labor category General and Operations Manager (Project Manager) is listed at the Journeyman level in section 3.4.1.1 (pg 37) and 3.5.2.1 (pg 115) but Senior level in the labor category description in section 3.4.1.5.2.17 (pg 44). Is “Senior” the correct level for the Project Manager key labor category? A25: Journeyman is correct for the Operation Manager (Project Manager) labor category. This has been corrected under sections 3.4.1.5.2.17 and 3.4.1.5.2.18 (renumbered to 3.4.1.6.2.17 and 3.4.1.6.2.18).

Q26: Section 3.4.1.1 of the draft RFP clearly states that there are 9 key personnel required. However, in Sections 3.5.2.1, 3.5.2.2, 3.5.2.3, and 3.5.2.4 (pages 114-123) the hours for Computer and Information Research Scientist (Logistics Information Technology), Program Manager, Project Manager, and Training and Development Specialist are split between two or more locations. For bidding purposes, should the hours for each individual key personnel for those labor categories be split between the locations as listed to preserve the 9 key personnel requirement? A25: The Government's expectation is that for the stipulated labor categories there will be a Key person at only one of the specified locations. Proposed hours have been changed to reflect this.

Q27: Section 3.5.2 (starting on page 114) indicates hours for the key and non-key Program Manager and the key and non-key Project Manager labor categories in multiple locations (Patuxent River and Norfolk, on-site and off-site). This could be interpreted as requiring 4 non-key Program Managers. 4 non-key Project Managers, 2 KEY Program Managers, and 2 KEY Project Managers, all at part time levels. Is the intention of the government for the small business to bid 6 unique Program Managers and 6 unique Project Managers for this solicitation, each at less than an FTE? With the high qualifications for those labor categories, and the very low number of hours per year for the non-key versions of those labor categories, it will be extremely hard to execute to these requirements if the non-key hours are not combined or an individual can be bid in multiple locations & rate pools. A27: While the Government requires hourly burdened composite labor rates for all four locations, in Section L Offeror shall assume the hours designated (no on-site hours have been broken out for Norfolk).

Q28: On page 66 under section (d) it is noted that COR and KO approval is required “for all software licenses or items not listed above”. Please clarify whether “above” includes all sections of H-1. A28: The Government concurs that "above" includes all sections of H-1 Materials clause (variation).

Q29: In the Labor Term Tables under Section L, Part B, 3.5.2.x, the Government has proposed a massive shift in workforce location from that outlined in the discussion at the Industry Day, reducing Patuxent River on-site labor to less than 7 FTEs and adding over 17.5 Norfolk on-site FTEs. This provides a substantially changed labor mix that requires many labor categories to be split into partial FTEs spread over 4 different onsite and offsite locations. Given that this is an IDIQ and the worksite requirements may vary significantly during performance, would WOLF consider simplifying this to a single Government On-Site and a single Contractor Off-Site labor pool? This would provide comparative information and enable bidders to envision a flexible work force for realistic execution as well as reducing the ambiguity in proposal pricing. A29: The percentage of work performed in Patuxent River/St. Inigoes has increased from approximately twenty-five (25) percent of the total work to approximately forty (40) percent of the total work, which is reflected in the modified distribution of hours in Section L tables. As direct labor and overhead rates may vary between Norfolk and Patuxent River locations, we are unable to allow single 'Government on-site' and 'Contractor off-site' labor pools. However, proposed hours for Norfolk have been merged to reflect off-site hours only.

Q30: Section 2.2 of Part L of the RFP notes that all tables and graphs should include a grid. Can the Government confirm that charts are not considered either tables or graphs but are instead drawings, thus do not require a grid unless providing one will enhance readability for the Government? A30: The Government confirms that charts are not considered either tables or graphs and do not require a grid unless providing one will enhance readiability for the Government.

Q31: Section L 2.2 notes that proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12-point Normal font. Please clarify that this does not preclude using larger font sizes (e.g., for section headers) and allows font attributes such as bold or underlining? A31: The Offeror is permitted to use font attributes such as bold and underlining for clarity and readability. Fonts shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 12 pt Normal (modified in Section L, Part A, para 2.2).

Q32: Given the TDL nature of this contract, a small effort early in the 1st period of performance could result in an 8-year prohibition on work (OCI) as the current 5252.209-9510 clause is written (end of contract plus 3 years). Would you consider adjusting the prohibition periods to be based on the end of the TDL task associated with the conflicting activity and not the overall completion date of the contract? A32: The prohibition period will remain the same and is based on the overall completion date of the contract.

Q33: Section 3.4.1.5.2.16 creates a non-key senior General and Operations Manager (Program Manager) but includes a labor function description that this category acts as the ”overall lead, manager, and administrator for the contracted effort.” This is exactly the description for the Key Program Manager. Would the Government consider moving the hours in the non-key Program Manager position to the non-key General and Operations Manager (Project Manager), Senior to clarify lines of authority and responsibility? A33: Distribution of hours in Section L, Part B, para 3.5.2, have been modified for all labor categories.

Q34: In labor categories such as Computer Systems Analyst, Journeyman (BLS SOC Code 15-1211) where there are requirements for 4 people with specialized skills within the LCAT, can a single individual fulfill multiple requirements? For example, can one person meet the requirement for optimizing media content distribution and also be the person that meets the requirement for identifying patterns of anomaly? A34: If there is no functional conflict between the two positions and a person is qualified for both, that same person may be proposed for both positions so long as the positions together do not exceed 1,920 hours.

Q35: CDRL A018 has been modified from previous NAWCAD WOLF Trip Reporting CDRLs to include cost data. Given the need to include sensitive cost data elements such as G&A rates in calculating final cost to the Government for Travel ODCs, it is requested that cost data be limited to financial CDRLs and removed from this CDRL. In the event that the Government deems it necessary to include cost data in this CDRL it is requested that the due date be extended to 30 days following the event as reconciling all final credit card information and resolving any potential disputes, reimbursements, or cancellations with travel vendors requires this additional time. A35: The referenced CDRL has been modified.

Q36: The regionalized workforce requirements required under the tables in Section L 3.5.2.1 create 173 unique individuals (Labor Category/location combination) required to fill 95 FTE of projected work. Would the Government consider consolidating the workforce into a single set of Contractor Site and Government Site Tables to reduce the significant risk to cost realism that would be caused by bidding the same person for work at multiple sites and regions and/or the burden placed on small businesses to maintain the flexibility to place partial FTEs with similar qualifications in different locations? A36: Distribution of hours by labor category has been modified. It is up to the Offeror to determine how to most efficiently bid their workforce to meet the requirements of this Solicitation.

Q37: The Labor Term tables listed in Section L Part B under section 3.5.2 show Key labor categories for Computer and Information Research Scientist (Logistics Information Technology), Senior, 15-1221 (KEY), General and Operations Manager (Project Manager), Journeyman, 11-1021 (KEY), Software Developer (Performance Tools), Senior, 15-1252 (KEY), Training and Development Specialist, Senior, 13-1151 (KEY), and General and Operations Manager (Program Manager), Senior, 11-1021 (KEY) split across more than one working location. Would the Government consider consolidating each Key labor category to one FTE in a single location, and moving hours for other labor pools to non-key equivalent or lower qualification positions? If the Government will not consolidate to a single position/location will the Government confirm that a single Key Individual should be bid for all locations associated with the Key Position? A37: The hours have been modified to ensure that each Key labor category is equal to one (1) FTE at a single location.

Q38: The key labor categories for Software Developer (Navy Maintenance Systems), Senior and Software Developer (Performance Tools), Senior are not called out as "(KEY)" consistently in the labor tables for Section 3.5.2.1 (pg. 116), 3.5.2.2 (pg. 118), 3.5.2.3 (pg. 120), and 3.5.2.4 (pg. 123). Can it be assumed that those hours refer to the two key positions? A38: The hours distribution tables in Section L have been modified to ensure that specialized software developers have been noted as Key.

Q39: CDRL A018 lists 2 different sets of content requirements for trip reports and meeting reports. Typical trip reports are substantially the same as meeting reports with the additional requirement to identifying travelers. Would ASI consider removing the specific requirements for trip reports and leave the requirements as listed for meeting reports to cover the content requirements for both? A39: The referenced CDRL has been modified.

&"-,Bold"Questions and Answers Draft RFP N00421-20-R-0003 6 August 2020