TEPL Draft RFP Questions and Responses.pdf

Question # Document Section # (If available)

Page Number Industry Question/Comment Government Response

1 RFP This contract is highly dependent on skilled and experienced personnel, and the RFP focus on workforce suggests a concern over the contractor's ability to find, hire, and retain them. Recommend the Government add key personnel requirements including resumes to ensure the ability of offerors to find and hire appropriately skilled and experienced personnel.

The Government does not desire to have key personnel on this contract.

2 RFP Acronyms pg. 3-6 The acronyms "IT," "OT," and "GFI" each have two conflicting definitions in the Acronyms table. Recommend using one definition for each acronym throughout the document to avoid confusion.

Both definitions are applicable for IT and OT. The SOW will be updated for clarity.

Recommend delete sentences 4-6 to eliminate confusion.

"The proposal provided by the Offeror shall follow the outline below:

Section 3.3.1 – LOE Services

3.3.1.1 – Format for Level of Effort CA-1 Prime Cost Breakout Spreadsheet CA-2 Subcontractor Cost Breakout Spreadsheet Section 3.3.2 – Cost Narrative

3.3.2.1 – Direct rates

3.3.2.2 – Escalation

3.3.2.3 – Indirect rates

3.3.2.4 – Profit or Fee"

It is unclear where the redundancy is that's called out in the question. Updates will be made to the structure of the outline format in an effort to add clarity. This structure is designed to assist with the development of the cost volume.

Offerors shall not complete Section B of the RFP. The RFP will be updated to remove sentence 4 of the referenced paragraph.

Sentence 5 will be revised and sentences 5 and 6 will read, "Should Offerors submit cost information in their Volume 3 Cost Proposal resulting in a discrepancy with the submitted

Attachment CA-1 cost spreadsheet, the Attachment CA-1 will prevail. Furthermore, such discrepancies may impact the cost realism and reasonableness assessment of the

Offeror or its eligibility for award."

For clarity and to remove redundancy, recommend deleting the following opening words to section 3.3:

For clarity, also remove words "Format for" from the title of Section 3.3.1.1

3 RFP Section L, 3.0 Volume 3, 3.1 General Information

pg. 98

pg. 99

Sentences 2 & 3 direct offerors not to complete Section B: "Offerors shall not complete Section B of the solicitation as allocation of proposed costs (and fee if applicable) across specific Program and appropriation-based CLINs will be determined at contract award by the Government. The Government will populate Section B of the awarded contract based on the proposed costs in Attachment CA-1 and the projected Government funding profile at that time."

Sentences 4-6 assume offerors completed Section B, thereby failing to comply with sentences 2 & 3: "The accumulated totals in Section B for all Labor and ODC CLINs will be consistent with the overall proposed amounts in the Offeror’s Attachment CA- 1 (Prime Cost Breakout Spreadsheet). Should Offerors populate Section B or have cost information in their Volume 3 Cost Proposal resulting in a discrepancy with AttachmentCA-1 the Attachment CA-1 will prevail. Furthermore, such discrepancies may impact the realism and reasonableness assessment of the Offeror or its eligibility for award."

4 RFP Section L, 3.0 Volume 3, 3.3 Cost Proposal Instructions

5 RFP pg. 101 Page 101 of the RFP states “Offerors shall certify in writing that any proposed Fringe or other indirect rate is in compliance with the applicable Area Wage Determination.”

However the RFP does not reference the Services Contract Act. Please confirm this is an error.

As the requirement does not fall under the Service Contract Act, there should be no reference to an Area Wage Determination.

The sentence will be deleted from the RFP.

6 RFP Section M pg. 111

In Section M 3.0 the Technical Factor includes sub paragraphs a and b. Sub paragraph b is "Management Plan". Later in Section M it is identified as "Workforce/Management Plan". However, in Section L, Part B paragraph 1.0, “Management Approach" is a sub paragraph to Workforce. Should Section M Technical factor paragraph b read "Workforce" instead of "Management Plan" or "Workforce/Management Plan?"

Additionally, in Section L, should Implementation Approach be paragraph 1 under Workforce? "Provide an Implementation Plan" are the first words under Workforce, but the section is not numbered in the way "Management Approach" and "Transition Plan” are.

Sections L and M will be updated to maintain consistency.

7 RFP Section M pg. 111 In Section M 3.0 the Technical Factor includes sub paragraphs a and b. Are each of those considered sub factors or elements? If they are sub factors, are they of equal importance and will they be rated? Please clarify and revise as needed.

The RFP will be revised to reflect elements in lieu of sub factors for any bullets shown under the Technical Factor. Only the overarching Technical Factor will receive an evaluation rating.

8 RFP pg. 112 Pg. 112 of the RFP defines a principal subcontractor as any subcontractor who is providing at least 20% of the total labor cost proposed. Pg. 93 defines principal subcontractor as a subcontractor who provides 20% of the proposed total price or provides one or more key personnel. Please resolve the discrepancy.

The inconsistency will be corrected in the Final RFP. Page 93 will be amended to state, "Throughout these instructions, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 20% of the total labor cost proposed. "

Section M, Section 3.0 Past Performance

pg. 112

2.0 Volume 2:

Past Performance,

2.1 General

pg. 97

Section M will be updated to maintain consistency

RFP Section M states a maximum of three contracts will be evaluated while the specific instructions for Volume 2, Past Performance state the Offeror shall submit no more than five Past Performance Information Forms. Please clarify.

10 RFP Section M pg. 114

For Past Performance, Section M paragraph 4.0, 2.1 states "In the context of acceptable/unacceptable, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.” Does that mean that an offeror without a record of performance, and hence with no relevant experience, will be evaluated as equal to an offeror with exceptional performance on very relevant experience? Will the Government consider modifying the evaluation criteria in its Performance Assessment Rationale such that better performance is considered in the selection decision? If not, given the Section M statement "More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance," how does the Government plan to account for relevance in the Performance Confidence Assessment? Given a Pass/Fail past performance assessment reduces the Government's ability to take into account exceptional recent and relevant past performance as part of a "best value" source selection with the ability to trade-off among technical, past performance, and cost/price factors, recommend the Government consider a Past Performance rating scale that allows past performance evaluators to rate between Substantial Confidence down to No Confidence of successful Offeror performance, with a Neutral rating for Offerors with no recent or relevant past performance for this type of requirement.

The Government will review this issue and address it in the Final RFP.

11 RFP pg. 114 Is the second table on page 114 related to the Combined Technical /Risk Rating? Please explain the purpose/intended use of the second table.

The second table provides additional insight related to the risk portion of the Combined

Technical/Risk rating.

Attachment P1-

PPIF

"Contract Effort Description" Field

pg. 1

This is a fillable field with scrolling text. Only eight lines are visible at a time. This is a very difficult format to use either for offerors to write their responses or for reviewers reading those responses. Recommend offerors be permitted to append a Word or separate .pdf document containing the Contract Effort Description narrative.

This will be addressed in the Final RFP.

3.3.4 Flight Test

Engineering & Technology Development

pg. 15

14 SOW 3.3.1-3.3.5 pg. 13 Please provide a numbering scheme to replace bullets under first level headings, for ease of offerors when creating their proposals and reviewers when evaluating them.

The SOW has been updated to reflect a numbering scheme verses bullets to allow for ease when referencing.

SOW 3.3.3 T&E

Analytic Support

pg. 14

RFP 3.4.2 pg. 103

The Government will add a labor category for Program Manager in the Final RFP. The position will likely require 500 hours/year.

The RFP will be revised accordingly.

pg. 11 Recommend DD-254 reflects clearance level identified in the SOW. Section 3.2.2 states contractor personnel shall require access up to and including Secret and that some portions of the contract may require clearance levels up to Yankee White, SAP or Top- Secret SCI (SI/TK). Section 3.3.4 states the contractor shall support cyber security assessments on test facility requirements and equipment/system requirements and will require TS/SCI data access.

SOW13

A requirement for a "Program Manager, Business Operations and Systems" ("PMBOS") is contained in Section 3.3.3, T&E Analytics. There is no corresponding PMBOS labor category in draft SOW Section 3.6 or in the labor category table in draft RFP Section

3.4.2. In order to support the Government T&E Program Leadership Division and contract Technical Point of Contact in meeting the needs of the Division's Customer Agencies as outlined in SOW Section 3.3, recommend placing a requirement for Program Management for the overall contract under SOW section 3.3, and establishing a Program Manager, Business Operations and Systems labor category including hours to be proposed.

3.2.2 Investigative

Requirements

References to higher security levels have been removed. If higher security levels are required in the future the Government will revisit the classification level.

Section L states “Proposal information must be structured such that its Volume/paragraph number matches the Proposal Instructions Volume/paragraph number provided in section “Part B Specific Instructions ” to which it is responding, although the Offeror may add lower tier subparagraphs .” However, many of the ‘high’ level paragraphs do not have a paragraph number or have only one paragraph number for the entire volume (i.e. Past Performance).

Question/Recommendation : Recommend numbering/renumbering the Section L requirements.

RFP does not address items excluded from page limitation.

Question/Recommendation : Recommend the Government please consider excluding items such as cover pages, title pages, table of contents, and list of figures/exhibits.

The first two bullets under Understanding of the Work appear to imply that they are instructions for how to respond to the three numbered paragraphs that follow (SOW sections 3.3.2, 3.3.3, and 3.3.4); however, it is unclear.

Question/Recommendation : Clarify whether the first two bullets are instructions for responding to the three numbered paragraphs.

Paragraph 1.e. states “Provide a description of business and technical process changes that might reduce cost and increase speed to the .” Sentence is incomplete.

Question/Recommendation : Please complete paragraph 1.e.

There are inconsistencies on the naming and numbering of the 2nd factor in the Technical Volume. Section L calls this factor Workforce and includes (1) Management Approach and (2) Transition Plan. Section M calls this factor both the Management Plan and the Workforce/Management Plan with the following sub factors: Implementation Approach, Management Plan and Transition Plan.

1. Question/Recommendation : For consistency and ease of evaluation, recommend that the 2nd factor be named and numbered consistently in Sections L and M as follows:

Workforce / Management Plan

(1) Workforce Implementation Plan

(2) Management Approach

(3) Transition Plan

20 RFP Section L Part B: Specific Instructions, Section 1.0, Volume 1:

Technical and Section M Part A: General Information, Paragraph 3.0 and Part B, Specific Information, Paragraph 1.0

Sections L and M have been updated to maintain consistency.

19 RFP Section L Part B, Section 1.0, Technical Understanding of the work

The sentence will be completed in the Final

RFP.

18 RFP Section L Part B, Section 1.0, Technical Understanding of the work

The first two bullets of the section should be taken into consideration when responding to the SOW para questions.

17 RFP Section L Part A, Section 3.0

The second paragraph under Part A Section

3.0 does calls out items excluded from page count --"title and table of contents pages do not count towards the suggested page counts". Figures and Exhibits would count against the recommended page count. In response to another question, the Government has increased the recommended page count on the Technical Volume.

Part A, Section 3.0Section L RFP16

The Government will review the numbering scheme of the Section L paragraphs.

Section L states “The Offeror shall submit no more than five Past Performance Information Forms as the Prime Contractor, no more than two forms for each principal subcontractor, and/or no more than two forms for each JV team member ”; however, Section M states “Each offeror and (if applicable) its principal subcontractors will be evaluated on its team’s past performance based on up to a maximum of three (3) prime contracts or prime and subcontracts currently ongoing or completed within the last five

(5) years for similar efforts ”.

Question/Recommendation : Recommend Section M be modified to reflect the Section L requirements: no more than five Past Performance Information Forms as the Prime Contractor, no more than two forms for each principal subcontractor, and/or no more than two forms for each JV team member.

The Section M requirements in demonstrating relevancy and overall quality of each contract is quite detailed to fit on the Attachment P-1 PDF form. The logical place to include this information is on Attachment P-1 under “Contract Effort Description”;

however the attachment does not allow for text to scroll from Page 1 to Page 2.

Question/Recommendation : Recommend the Government provide Attachment P-1 in Word format with scrolling capabilities.

The level of detail required to adequately address Part B Section 1.0 Volume 1: Technical is extremely difficult, if not impossible to do within the 20 page limitation.

Question/Recommendation : Recommend the Government please consider increasing the page limitation for Volume 1 Technical to 30 pages.

The Price/Cost Volume refers to Attachments CA-1 (Prime Cost Breakout Spreadsheet) and CA-2 (Subcontractor Cost Breakout Spreadsheet) that were not included in the draft documents. It is our experience that there are often issues with cost spreadsheets that require amendments and sometimes extensions after final RFP release.

Question/Recommendation: Provide Attachments CA-1 and CA-2 for industry review and comment prior to final RFP release.

The draft SOW states “Contractor shall support the Government by providing a Program Manager, Business Operations and Systems, also referred to as the Program Manager, who serves as the primary interface and point of contact with Government program authorities and representatives on technical program/project and contract administration issues ”; however, Program Manager is not included in the labor hour table in paragraph 3.4.2 of the draft RFP.

Question/Recommendation : Clarify how the Program Manager’s hours will be captured in the Price/Cost Proposal.

Section L states “Offerors shall not complete Section B of the solicitation as allocation of proposed costs (and fee if applicable) across specific Program and appropriation-based CLINs will be determined at contract award by the Government ”; however, Section M states “Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B, Attachment CA-1 Cost Spreadsheet, and the Cost Volume Narrative, the CA-1 Cost Spreadsheet prevails .”

Question/Recommendation : Clarify whether offerors are required to complete Section B.

26 RFP Section L Part B Specific Instructions, Section 3.0 Volume 3:

Price/Cost Proposal and Section M, Part B: Specific Information, Paragraph 4.0 Overall Summary Level for all CLINs

Please see response to Question #3

25 RFP Section L Part B Specific Instructions, Section 3.0 Volume 3:

Price/Cost Proposal, Paragraph 3.4.2, Labor Hours, and Attachment 1, TEPL SOW, Paragraph 3.3.3 T&E Analytic Support

Please see the response to question 15. The RFP will be revised to add a labor category for Program Manager.

24 RFP Volume 3 Price/Cost Proposal

Attachments CA-1 and CA-2 have been recently released to industry in draft format.

23 RFP Section L Part A General Instructions, Section 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes and Part B Specific Instructions, Section

1.0 Volume 1: Technical.

Taking the comment into consideration, the Government has updated the page limitation in the RFP to 25 pages.

22 Section M RFP Part B Specific Information, Section 2.0 Past Performance and Attachment P-1 Past Performance Information Form

Please see the Response to Question 12.

This will be addressed in the Final RFP.

21 RFP Section L Part B Specific Instructions, Section 2 Volume 2: Past Performance, Paragraph 2.1, General, and Section M, Section 3.0 Evaluation Factors for Award, Past Performance

Sections L and M have been updated to maintain consistency. Section M will be updated to reflect the proposal instructions in Section L.

RFP states “Original signed SF33 (Solicitation, Offer, and Award) cover page of the solicitation and a signed SF30 cover page of each amendment… ”; however, the proposal is to be submitted electronically via SAFE.

Question/Recommendation : Recommend removing the requirement for original signatures.

RFP states “A complete copy of all FAR, DFARS, NMCARS, NAVAIR, and special clauses and provisions requiring contractor fill-ins and ”.

Question/Recommendation : Clarify that this is for Section K clauses only.

The paragraph states “The Government's estimate for ODCs for the prime and all subcontract efforts, unburdened is listed below ”; however, the ODC list was not provided.

Question/Recommendation : Provide the list of estimated ODCs for the prime and all subcontract efforts.

The RFP lists three sub factors under Workforce/Management Plan, but does not specify the weighting or importance of the individual sub factors.

Question/Recommendation : Specify whether the sub factors will be evaluated equally as a whole or if there will be specific weighting applied to the individual sub factors.

Not all of the applicable documents listed in the table are readily available to bidders.

Question/Recommendation : Request the Government provide a library with the RFP that contains applicable documents not readily available to bidders.

The paragraph states “The contractor shall submit a Transition-In Plan that outlines the contractor’s strategy and transition period schedule as CDRL X0XX ”; however, the draft RFP requires submittal of a Transition Plan in Volume 1: Technical.

Question/Recommendation : Clarify whether the Transition-In Plan CDRL is the same or different as that required in the technical volume.

The paragraph states “The contractor shall include the contractor’s strategy and schedule for inventorying equipment ”; however, a list of the equipment was not provided with the draft RFP. It would be difficult to provide an accurate strategy and schedule without insight into the magnitude of equipment requiring inventory.

Question/Recommendation : Recommend providing a list of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) with the RFP so that offerors can provide an accurate strategy for scheduling and conducting inventory during transition.

This section contains large bulleted lists of requirements. It would be easier to refer to the requirements in paragraphs 3.3.1 to 3.3.5, if the bullets were numbered as sub-paragraphs.

Question/Recommendation : Recommend numbering the bullets in paragraphs 3.3.1 to 3.3.5.

34 SOW Paragraph 3.3

Please see response to question #16.

31 SOW Section 2.0 Applicable Documents

Applicable documents are available upon request. Please send specific document requests to Brittany Anderson (brittany.anderson@navy.mil) and John Tomechko (john.tomechko@navy.mil) and requested documents will be provided.

SOW Paragraph 3.1.8

SOW Paragraph 3.1.8 Offerors shall submit their Transition Plan as required in Section L of the RFP. The requirement for a Transition Plan in a CDRL will be removed from the SOW.

The sentence has been deleted. There is no GFP anticipated on this contract

30 RFP Section M Evaluation Factors for Award, Part B, Specific Information, Section 1.0 Technical

The RFP will be revised to reflect elements in lieu of sub factors for any bullets shown under the Technical Factor. Only the overarching Technical Factor will receive an evaluation rating.

29 RFP Section L Part B, Specific Instructions, Part B Specific Instructions, Section 3.0 Volume 3: Price Cost Proposal, Paragraph 3.4.1, ODCs

The verbiage will be modified in the Final RFP. The Government's estimate for the unburdened ODCs per year for the required effort will be listed in the Attachment CA-1 Cost Spreadsheet.

28 RFP Section L Part B Specific Instructions, Section 3.0 Volume 4:

Contract Administration, Paragraph 4.2.a) 2)

While most of the provisions/clauses that require contractor fill-ins are in Section K of the RFP, there is one in Section I that also requires a fill in.....(52.219-28 Post Award Small Business Program Representation).

27 RFP Section L Part B Specific Instructions, Section 3.0 Volume 4:

Contract Administration, Paragraph 4.2.a) 1)

The sentence will be revised to remove the word "original". An electronic SF33 signed and scanned will meet the requirement.

Paragraph 3.3.3 states “Contractor shall support the Government by providing a Program Manager, Business Operations and Systems, also referred to as the Program Manager, who serves as the primary interface and point of contact with Government program authorities and representatives on technical program/project and contract administration issues ”; however definitions of the education and experience requirements for the Program Manager were not included in the paragraph 3.6 Labor Category Definition table.

Question/Recommendation : Clarify if the required Program Manager is in addition to the Labor Categories listed in the Labor Category Definition table and, if so, provide the requirements for the Program Manager position.

The following sentence is confusing and appears to be missing information: “In addition to providing monthly reports to the COR and the COR shall maintain a complete Contract Compliance file ”.

Question/Recommendation : Suggest re-writing the sentence for clarity.

The Enclosure 1 Surveillance Activity Checklist embedded in the document will not open.

Question/Recommendation : Ensure that offerors are able to open Enclosure 1.

38 RFP Section B pg 41 The Level of Effort identifies a list of labor categories that will include a “* denotes Key Personnel labor categories .” Request the Government provide clarification if this list will be expanded in the final RFP or an additional attachment and provide offerors insight into the scope of the key personnel list.

The verbiage related to key personnel is part of the Level of Effort Clause 5252.211-9503.

No key Personnel will be required under this contract. In this case the note within the clause will not be applicable.

The procurement does not include a NAICS code to correlate with this 500-employee size requirement. Please clarify.

This section states “The small business size standard for a Contractor providing a product which it does not manufacture itself, for a contract other than a construction or service contract, is 500 employees. ”

Attachment 2

SAC

37 Section 9, Enclosure

The Government is able to open the document and will ensure it is able to open for the final RFP release.

39 RFP Section I, paragraph E pg 79

The question relates to FAR clause 52.219- 28 Post Award Small Business Program Representation. As this requirement is considered a service, the small business size standard of 500 employees does not apply.

36 Attachment 2

SAC

Section 8, documentation The sentence will be updated in the Final

RFP.

35 SOW Paragraph 3.3.3

Please see the Government response for Question #15.

L 2.1, Page 97

M 3.0, Page 112 41 RFP L 3.0, Page 95; L

4.1, Page 104 Section 3.0 lists Annex C as JV Teaming Agreements & Teaming Arrangements, however Section 4.1 lists Annex C as DCAA/DCMA Reports, Audits, and Determinations. Please clarify.

Section 4.1 of the RFP will be revised to list Annex B (DCAA/DCMA Reports, Audits, and Determinations).

42 RFP L 3.1, Page 98; L 4.1, Page 104

Section 3.1 states to include Annex B - DCAA/DCMA Reports, Audits, and Determinations in Volume 3. Section 4.1 states to include Annex C - DCAA/DCMA Reports, Audits, and Determinations in Volume 4. Are offerors required to only submit the DCAA/DCMA Reports, Audits, and Determinations Annex as one separate file referenced in both Volume 3 and Volume 4?

An Annex is separate from a Volume. Only one Annex B - DCAA/DCMA Reports, Audits, and Determinations is required.

43 RFP Section L pg 93 Paragraph 2.0, Proposal Format includes “INSERT CONTRACT SPECIALIST NAVY.MIL EMAIL ADDRESS no later than INSERT TIME on INSERT DATE .” Recommend updating the contract specialist verbiage to reflect the information used elsewhere in the

RFP.

The RFP will be revised to ensure consistency.

Section M, Past Performance, Page 112 states ”A principal subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor who is providing at least 20% of the total labor cost proposed. ”

Will the Government please provide clarification on the definition of a Principal Subcontractor?

Section L pg. 9344 RFP

Section M pg. 112 Please see response to question #8

Section L, par 1, page 93 states “Throughout these instructions, a principal subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 20% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offerors profit/fee), for the contract or provides one or more Key Personnel.”

40 RFP

Section L 2.1 states the following: “The Offeror shall submit no more than five Past Performance Information Forms as the Prime Contractor, no more than two forms for each principal subcontractor, and/or no more than two forms for each JV team member .” Section M, 3.0 Evaluation Factors for Award, states the following: “Each offeror and (if applicable) its principal subcontractors will be evaluated on its team’s past performance on up to a maximum of three (3) prime contracts or prime and subcontracts ongoing or completed within the last five (5) years for similar efforts. ” Would the Government please clarify the number of contracts that may be used for Past Performance per Prime and Subcontractor?

Please see the response to Question #21.

L Part B, 1.0 Page 96-97

M 3.0 Page 111 46 RFP L B 3.4.2 The Draft RFP, para 3.4.2 Labor hours lists Project or Management Analyst as a labor category in the table. Attachment 1 TEPL SOW, Para 3.6 Labor Category Definitions lists Program Analyst in the labor category table. Would the Government please clarify which labor category is correct?

The RFP has been updated to reflect Program Analyst as referenced in the SOW.

47 RFP L B 3.4.2 &

Attachment 1

TEPL SOW

Given the size and scope of the NTWL effort, would the government consider adding a dedicated Program Manager Labor Category to the contract?

Please see the response for Question #15.

48 RFP Throughout Would the Government please verify that the stated Contract Specialist (Brittany Anderson) navy.mil address is correct? Throughout the RFP the email address reflects a different last name.

The RFP will be revised to ensure consistency.

The Government presents a clear basis and methodology for determining MPC adjustments for Direct Labor. However, the above clause seems to indicate that the Government may potentially determine MPC adjustments to Offeror’s proposed indirect rate structure using DCAA recommendations. Each Offeror’s business structure, composition, and management discretion can result in varying indirect rate structures, tailored to each Offeror’s individual circumstances. Will the Government please clarify the methodology by which Offeror’s indirect rates are subject to MPC adjustments? For instance, will the Government take a qualitative approach, comparing the substance of each indirect rate pool and base, or will the government take a quantitative approach, comparing the offeror’s proposed rates to some DCAA standard, to determine reasonableness of indirect rates and factors?

49 RFP L 3.0 pg. 113

Section L, Part B, para 3.3.2.3 (Indirect rates) requires offerors to "provide historical indirect rates for the last three years".

Applicable DCMA/DCAA approved Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs), and Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRRs) are also required. This paragraph also states if "any of the rates utilized by the Offeror or any subcontractors differ from submitted DCMA/DCAA information, justification shall be provided for the difference." The referenced Section M paragraph states "Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to DCAA-recommended rates". The Government will analyze all substantiation for the proposed indirect rates, not only DCAA recommended rates.

Section L3.0 states, in reference to Most Probable Cost (MPC) Adjustments: “Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to DCAA-recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the MPC for the performance of this contract.”.

45 RFP

In section L, the Workforce portion of the Technical Volume lists two sub factors, Management Approach and Transition Plan. The Implementation Plan is mentioned but not numbered in this section. In Section M, Implementation Approach, Management Approach and Transition Plan are the three factors stated that will be evaluated under Workforce/Management Plan. Recommend the Government revise the numbering in section L, Part B, 1.0 to include Implementation Plan as 1, with Management Plan as 2 and Transition Plan as 3.

The RFP has been updated to reflect a revised numbering scheme in Section L.

50 SOW SOW Section

3.1.3.1 Work

Location

Section 3.1.3.1 of the Statement of work indicates that approximately 15% of the work to be performed may be located at contractor-site facilities. For Offerors to accurately propose direct and indirect rates in accordance with the Government’s expectations, will the Government please identify which positions/labor categories and number of hours will be expected to be performed at contractor-site facilities?

For evaluation purposes, please assume 15% of the work will be performed at contractor facility and 85% off site for all labor categories.

It should be noted this is for evaluation purposes only and the actual percentage of on and off site work could vary during execution.

51 Attachment P-1 (Past Performance Information Form)

In lieu of using the .pdf version of Attachment P-1, are offerors permitted to use an MS Word format? Page 2 of the P-1 is data cell constrained and won’t allow additional content to be entered. Please see the response to Question #12.