MSE Q and As AMD 0003.pdf

Questions and Answers RFP N00421-23-R-0004 - Mission Systems Engineering (MSE)

Attachment Q1

Question Number Document

Section / Paragraph Page Question Response

Q1:

Attachment

T2

Are we permitted to delete the second degree table from the Education section of Attachment T2 if it is not needed?

The Government will not permit Offerors to alter the Attachment T2. As stated in Attachment T2, “Note to Offeror: Tables should remain intact and be completed per the instructions. Unbolded Instructions may be deleted as desired.” Any section that does not apply, insert N/A.

Q2: RFP

L.A.2.2;

L.A.3.3;

L.B.1.0

94 of 126 and 98 of 126

Please confirm that we may delete the headers and footers from the government attachments to provide space for our proposal response information (e.g., RFP-required section and page numbers (per RFP Section L.A.2.2), as well as company name, submission date, solicitation number, and non-disclosure statement).

The Government will not permit Offerors to alter the headers and footers in the Government provided attachments. As stated in the RFP, Paragraph 3.4:

“Each volume shall contain the following information, which shall be considered “front matter” and not counted towards the page limits in the table above.” As detailed in the RFP, Paragraph 3.4, Table 1, each attachment is submitted as part of a Volume, which includes “front matter."

Q3: RFP

Given that the advertised planned release date of this RFP per the NAVAIR industry day held April 18th was advertised as June 15, 2023, and given the fact that the Memorial Day Holiday falls within the proposed response time, would the Government consider a two-week extension of the due date to ensure a thoughtful and complete response from potential bidders?

The RFP will be extended by three (3) days. The new due date for proposals is June 15, 2023. This information will be updated with an Amendment to the RFP early next week.

Q4: RFP L.A.2.2; 94

Will the government approve Arial Narrow 10 point font for tables and graphics, for readability and clarity?

The Government will only permit Times Roman 10 point font for tables and graphics.

AMD 0001

AMD 0003

Attachment Q1

Q5: RFP

L, Part B, Vol 3 pg 110 Table Non-Performance

Based TERM Government Off-

Site Hours

There are three "General Clerk I, 43-9061 (SCA) positions listed, items 24 thru 26 in table. Should these lines read General Clerk I, General Clerk II, and General Clerk III?

Section L, Part B, Vol 3, para 3.5.1, Non-Performance Based (CLINs 0001- 0006) TERM Government Off-Site Hours table has been updated to reflect General Clerk II and General Clerk III in addition to General Clerk I.

Q6: RFP

L, Part B, Vol 3

pg. 112 Table Performance

Based

COMPLETION

Government On-

Site Hours

For Shipping/Receiving Clerk (SCA), should the Work Yr III value be 383 instead of 385, similar to other positions in that year?

The 385 hours are the correct value for Shipping/Receiving Clerk (SCA).

Q7: RFP

L, Part B, Vol 3

pg. 114 Table Performance

Based

COMPLETION

Contractor Off-

Site Hours

The total hours for Work Yr V is given as 11,631. The total of all hours in that column adds up to 13,099. Please confirm total hours.

The total hours for Work Yr V are 11,631. The hours in that column for Computer Systems Analyst, Journeyman, 15-1211 should be 409, not 1,877.

Section L, Part B, Vol 3, para 3.5.1 Performance Based (CLINs 007-0013) COMPLETION Contractor Off-Site Hours table has been updated.

Q8: RFP

L, Part B, Vol 3

pg. 113 Table Performance

Based

COMPLETION

Contractor Off-

Site Hours

Total hours for Computer Systems Analyst, Journeyman, given as 1,877. Total hours for Computer Systems Analyst, Journeyman are incorrect, should be 3,345 (355+352+372+389+1,877)

See Response to Q7. Work Yr V for Computer Systems Analyst, Journeyman, should be 409 and not 1,877. The total hours should remain 1,877.

Attachment Q1

Q9: RFP

L, Part B, Vol 3

pg. 104, para

3.3.1.2.1

Escalation Guidance: SCA WDs are governed by the Department of Labor and contractors do not have a reliable way of forecasting changes to SCA WDs. To ensure our labor escalation estimates are fair and reasonable, can the Government clarify whether escalation should also be applied to SCA labor categories?

In accordance with Section L, Part B, Vol 3, para 3.3.1.1.2.1, "Offerors and their Subcontractors should consider the anticipated PoP start date of this proposal and, if necessary, apply escalation to the proposed base year direct labor rates. For escalation related to labor for Years 2 - 5, para 3.3.1.2 states "Offerors, including Subcontractors, shall address escalation for all labor categgories, and shall provide rationale for the specific escalation rate used within Part III of Attachment C2." Escalation should be applied in accordance with your company policy and historical escalation. Evaluation for cost realism will be based on historical escalation.

Q10:

Att C1 - Cost

Workbook and Att 08

Wage Determinati on

N/A Section J -

Attachments

The minimum direct labor rates for SCA covered positions contained in the Minimum Direct Labor Rates sheet of the Att C1 - Cost Workbook do not match the hourly wage rates in Att 08 - Wage Determination provided with the Solicitation. Should offerors adjust the direct labor rates in the Att C1 - Cost Workbook to match the Wage Determination?

Please advise.

The minimum direct labor rates for SCA covered positions should reflect the hourly wage rates in Att 08 - Wage Determinations. Any wage determination rate that does not meet the minimum wage of $16.20 per hour for Federal Contractors in service contracts covered by SCA in accordance with Executive Order 14026 reflect the $16.20 minimum. An updated C1 Cost Workbook has been provided.

Attachment Q1