Final RFP Q_As 22 Jul 2021.pdf

Questions Answers

The RFP, on page 89/106, at paragraph 8.1.1 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECTS, states that "...NO SUBCONTRACTOR experience will be accepted in place of the prime; nor can a prime take credit for work performed by a Subcontractor thorough (sic) a teaming arrangement."

There is no question here to be addressed.

FAR 15.305(2) Past Performance at subparagraph (iii) states that evaluations should consider "...past performance information regarding...subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition."

There is no question here to be addressed.

Similarly, SBA regulations (described in 13 CFR 125.2) states "When an offer of a small business prime contractor includes a proposed team of small business subcontractors and specifically identifies the first-tier subcontractor(s) in the proposal, the head of the agency must consider the capabilities, past performance, and experience of each first tier subcontractor that is part of the team as the capabilities, past performance, and experience of the small business prime contractor."

There is no question here to be addressed.

Can the Government clarify if the intent of this RFP is to mandate exclusion of all subcontractor past performance in forming a proposal responsive to this RFP?

This solicitation does not include the technical evaluation of past performance. The Self Scoring Worksheet is designed to capture Corporate Experience. As a prime is required to perform at least 50% of the work, it is imperative that the Government have enough information on the Prime's experiences to be able to manage and execute a contract effectively and efficiently.

Does the Government feel that this doesn’t overly restrict competition for this solicitation, as any significant sub-contractor will contribute to the fulfillment of the requirements?

The Government does not feel that the RFP is overly restrictive.

Page 86, Section 4.0 indicates that proposals can be submitted via DoD SAFE. Who should we contact to request a SAFE Drop-Off Code, and is there a deadline for doing so?

All Vendors should contact Melanie Heartenstein or Christin Simpson the three days prior to needing the link to ensure Vendors have adaquate time to upload documents.

The labor category list on page 35 table provides an SCA code of 30082 for the Engineering Tech III Key labor category. However, the tables on page 93 and 100 provide an SCA code of 30083. Please confirm the correct SCA code for this key labor category.

30082 was mistyped and will be corrected in Amendment 0001

Page 93 indicates one key Engineering Technician III position, but the table on page 100 indicates a full time key Engineering Technician III for CLIN X001 and another full time key Engineering Technician III for CLIN X002. Please clarify the number of key Engineering Technician III positions required.

In accordance with Section L 8.1.5.1, only one resume is required for the Engineering Tech III TOP SECRET Key Personnel at time of propsal. This individual is aligned at CLIN X001 (RDT&E Labor). The Engineering Tech III TOP SECRET position under CLIN X002 (NWCF Labor) is classified as Key Personnel. However, this position is for planned growth and not required at time of award.

Therefore, the Offeror is NOT required to provide a resume for the second position as part of their proposal.

The table on page 83 references Section L paragraph 7.4 as Proposed Subcontractors/Subcontractor(s) Teaming Arrangements. Section 7.4 on page 88 is titled Joint Ventures and does not address subcontractor teaming arrangements. Please clarify response requirements for proposed subcontractors/teaming arrangements.

Paragraph 7.4 is specific to the Joint Ventures as discussed in the previous Paragraph 7.2. If a Joint Venture is proposing, they should follow the instructions under 7.0. To address all teaming arrangements (to include Sub-Contractors), please see Paragraph 9.7.1 as this information is requested for the cost volume.

Section 7.3 states that the offeror shall include an OCI disclosure and OCI mitigation plan based on the offeror’s completion of 5252.209-9511. Section K does not include clause 5252.209-9511. Could the Government provide this clause or update Section 7.3 requirements?

Clause 5252.209-9511 will be added in Amendment 0001

Section K, page 78 (b)(1) is missing the NAICS code. Are offerors permitted to fill in the NAICS code, or will the Government provide an updated Section K?

The NAICS Code will be updated fro Section K in Admendment 0001

Section 7.3, page 88, indicates that the offeror shall complete the WAWF clause.

Traditionally, this information is completed by the Government and not the offeror. Please clarify this response requirement.

Yes, the Government does complete this clause, however, due to all of the reorganizations that have occurred, the Government is requesting the most up-to-date information from the Vendors. This request is to reduce the number of CDRs post award.

Section 9.1, page 94, indicates that the offeror shall provide a percentage breakdown of indirect costs and burdens added to ODCs using the Attachment L-4. The table on page 99 does not indicate the travel and material ODC allocations. Could the Government provide this information?

The Government does not anticipate travel and therefore did not separate the Material and Travel into separate distinct CLINS. The travel langauge was included in the Statement of Work to provide the potential for travel if absolutely required.

14 In regards to the Attachment L-4, the instructions tab:

o Item 2 indicates that a PoP of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 is assumed. Could the Government clarify the current assumed PoP?

o Item 7 indicate that the Government Labor Categories have been inserted, but they are not included on the cost type tab. Are offerors permitted to add in the labor categories?

o Item 7 states “for the purpose of the MAC evaluation”. Could the Government clarify or update this statement?

In regards to the Attachment L-4 spreadsheet, should the offeror add tabs to provide cost information for option years, and to provide a total/summary for all costs? Traditionally, separate tabs are provided/required for this information. Or, will an updated spreadsheet be provided to address these items?

Yes, the Offeror will add the tabs for the options years and provide a summary sheet.

In regards to the Attachment L-4 spreadsheet, should the offeror’s name be included only in the footer, or is the offeror permitted to update the spreadsheet to add this information?

The Offeror is permitted to update this section

In regards to the Attachment L-1 spreadsheet, is the offeror permitted to update the spreadsheet to correct the following errors, or will an updated spreadsheet be provided?

o For all of the max score column F cells, project 4 is excluded from the total/max score due to a formula error in the spreadsheet. For example, cell F7 does not include the points from cell F11. This error repeats until evaluation element 8.1.3.14. This prevents offerors from obtaining the max scoring value for each evaluation element.

o Cell F119 should total the points from cells F122 – F125, but there is an incorrect formula in the cell.

o Cell F135 does not include the total from section 9.0 scoring elements.

o Cell F53 and F111 are excluded from the total in cell F32.

Could the Government confirm that the correct wage determination has been provided for this solicitation? The wage determination number is a different series than used under the incumbent contract.

The Government has reviewed the Wage Determination and have updated this to the following:

2015-4279 Rev 13, dated 6/14/2021.

Page 91 of the RFP skips over 8.1.3.4 however, 8.1.3.4 is in the scoring worksheet.

Recommend that the Government update the RFP to include section L 8.1.3.4

8.1.3.4 has been updated with Amendment 0001

Attachment L-1 has been updated with Amendment 0001

L-4 is being corrected and will updated withAmendment 0001