Draft RFP QAs.pdf

Reference Document

(e.g., RFP - Section X) Reference

Paragraph/Att Comment/Question Government Response

1 Section C - SOW Sub Section 4.6 Labor Qualifications 4.6.20

Tactical Operations and Air/Weapons Specialist Senior : Would the Government consider a graduate of weapons school Navy or Marine Corps PILOT with weapons systems and weapons deployment responsibilities to be qualified for this position? For example, if the candidate is a single seat F/A-18 pilot, is it necessary that they also have instructor experience? All of the other categories in the quoted text exclude Navy or Marine Corps Pilot weapons school graduates unless they have filled a generic “Instructor” role; all of the cited positions (NFO, EWO, TACCO, WSO) are non-pilot positions. “Naval Flight Officer(NFO) with 1000 hours, Instructor, Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO), Tactics Officer (TACCO) or Weapon Systems Officer (WSO) is required.”

The last sentence for the Senior position is incomplete and unclear as to the requirement. In addition to the above, must the candidate also be a Department Head or Officer in charge of one of the listed weapons schools, or is this an alternative set of qualifications?

Suggested wording:

Senior: At least twelve (12) years of professional experience with aircraft tactical systems employment is required. Candidate for this position shall be an O-4 or higher, graduate of the Navy Weapons School, Test Pilot School (TPS) or Marine Aviation Weapons Training Squadron-1 (MAWTS-1). Candidate shall be a Weapons Tactics Instructor (WTI) and be at least one of the following: Navy Pilot or Naval Flight Officer (NFO) with 1000 hours (Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO), Tactics Officer (TACCO) or Weapon Systems Officer (WSO) is required), FRS or Weapons School Instructor. Post Department Head or Officer in Charge (OIC) with Level IV WTI, from Navy Weapons School (e.g., TOPGUN), Carrier Airborne Early Warning Weapons School (CAEWWS), Electronic Attack Weapons School (EAWS) or Intelligence Schools is also acceptable.

Please see updates to Section C, Paragraphs 4.6.19 and 4.6.20.

2 RFP Section L 4.4 Key Personnel

Would the Government consider reducing the number of key personnel positions to increase competition? The Government requirement for specialized experience will be met either by hiring of incumbent personnel or by a demonstrated hiring strategy. We recommend that the requirements provided in Draft RFP #1 (3 vs 7 Senior Systems Engineers) be retained in the final RFP.

The Government intentionally increased the number of key positions from three to seven due to the large total quantity of Senior Systems Engineers required for this effort.

3 RFP Section L Table 1 Do the 30 suggested pages for the Technical Volume include Key Personnel resumes?

No, the resumes are not included in the page count. Please see the update to Section L, Part A, Paragraph 2.2, Table 1.

4 RFP Section L Table 1 Do the 30 suggested pages for the Technical Volume include Attachment L4?

No. Please see Section L, Part A, Paragraph 2.2, Table 1.

5 RFP Section L 5.4 Labor Hours Labor Hours chart shows Operations Research Analyst (Model-Based) Junior; however, this labor category is not listed in the Att_L5 Cost Summary Minimum Direct Labor Rates tab. Can the Government please provide the Minimum Direct Labor rate for this position?

This labor category was added to the Att L5 Cost Summary Minimum Direct Labor Rates tab.

6 RFP Section M II.C Are all subfactors within the Technical Volume of equal weight for evaluation? If not, please describe the relative weighting between Sections 4.1. - 4.4.

There is no weighting of the elements within the Technical Factor. The four elements will be evaluated as specified in Section M, II. C and will be considered in the Technical Factor's Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating.

7 RFP Section M II.C Does the employment status of a Key Personnel candidate (i.e. Current employee vs Contingent Hire) have any bearing on the assessment of technical risk? Or, is risk entirely based upon the candidate's experience regardless of whether currently employed by the offeror or not?

There will be no separate risk assigned based on a current employee vice a contingent hire.

However, as stated in Section M "If the contingent offer letters for all key personnel are not provided within the Cost Volume, the Government will assign a deficiency in the Key Personnel element."

8 Section J List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments Exhibit A - Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) was not provided as part of the DRFP package. Will a CDRL be provided with the final RFP?

N/A

9 RFP, SOW 4.5.6 Labor Qualifications

Because a) many avionics and weapons systems are common across the Navy, Air Force and Army, and b) Systems Engineering processes are generally uniform and transferrable across DoD System of Systems acquisition and development, we request that the requirement for 3 recent years of experience directly related to Naval systems be removed from the labor category qualification requirements for Systems Enginer, Senior and Operations Research Analyst, Senior (i.e. retain the qualifications provided in Draft RFP #1).

Please see updates to Section C, Paragraphs 4.6.3, 4.6.6, 4.6.11, and 4.6.14.

10 RFP, SOW

Section L Part B 2. VOLUME

2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Instructions state that PPQs are required if the most recent CPAR is older than 12 months. Does this pertain to a closed contract that has a completed CPAR for the last period of the contract? For example, would PPQs be required on a contact that has been competed 3/28/2021 and has a CPAR for the period (3/29/2020-3/28/2021)?

No, please see the update to Section L, Volume 2.

11 Section M, III, Definitions

M-1, III. DEFINITIONS,

PERFORMANCE

CONFIDENCE

ASSESSMENT

DEFINITIONS

There appears to be a significant limitation to the number of qualified Prime Small Businesses that would have “Very Relevant” contract references, based on the current language in the RFP. The below suggestions better align with the legacy Full & Open/Unrestricted RFP requirement of $50M total contract value ($10M annualized).

VERY RELEVANT

Complexity To facilitate both adequate and fair competition among Prime small business offerors, will the Government consider revising the complexity requirements to read as follows:

•Required Top Secret, Top Secret/SCI or SAP clearance •Managed five (5) or more subcontractors simultaneously •Provided support to multiple customers (e.g., squadrons, programs, PMAs, offices)

Magnitude To facilitate both adequate and fair competition among Prime small business offerors, will the Government consider reducing the annualized dollar value from $30M to $10M? A $10M annualized dollar value will still provide the Government with very relevant contract references from both Prime Small Business offerors and their proposed principal entities.

The Government has considered the suggestion and deliberated this matter. The Government has concluded that the thresholds for magnitude are a necessary component of the evaluation given the scope of the contract.

12 Section M, III, Definitions

M-1, III. DEFINITIONS,

PERFORMANCE

CONFIDENCE

ASSESSMENT

DEFINITIONS

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

Complexity To facilitate both adequate and fair competition among Prime small business offerors, will the Government consider revising the complexity requirements to read as follows:

•Required Top Secret, Top Secret/SCI or SAP clearance •Managed five (5) or more subcontractors simultaneously •Provided support to multiple customers (e.g., squadrons, programs, PMAs, offices)

Magnitude To facilitate both adequate and fair competition among Prime small business offerors, will the Government consider reducing the annualized dollar value from $12M to $5M? A $5M annualized

The Government has considered the suggestion and deliberated this matter. The Government has concluded that the thresholds for magnitude are a necessary component of the evaluation given the scope of the contract.

13 Section L, Part B, Volumes 1-3 L.B.3 - Volumes 1-3

The Government defines “Principal Entities” as (a) the prime contractor; (b) JV Team Members; and

(c) other entities that are proposed to perform at least 15% of the proposed total cost for the contract (excluding the Offeror’s fee). Only principal entities will be used in the evaluation of corporate experience and past performance.

Regarding the Government’s evaluation of corporate experience and past performance, it is unclear as to how proposed contract references will be “weighted” among the prime contractor (Prime Small Business offeror), JV Team Members, and other entities (subcontractors). Can the Government please clarify its intent related to how it will evaluate proposed contract references, based on the type

There is no weighting of the different principal entities.

14 Section L, Part B, Volume 5 L.B.5.4 Labor Hours The Government estimate for hours for the entire effort are reflected as "4,336,512 hours for the entire work effort, exclusive of options." Will the Government please confirm that "exclusive of options" includes the 6 month extension option?

The hours specified do not include the six-month option to extend services.

Section L, Part B, Volume 5

Attachment L5

L.B.5.4 Labor Hours Minimum Direct Labor Rates

Tab

Will the Government please confirm that the Computer & Information Systems Analyst SOC code has been changed from 15-1210 reflected in the previous draft to the 11-3021 reflected in the current draft?

Yes, the Computer & Information Systems Analyst SOC code is 11- 3021.

16 RFP Section 4.2, Para 11 4.2

Will the government confirm that the Tactical Operations and Air/Weapons Specialist, Senior's 12 years of recent professional experience threshold be applied solely to the aircraft tactical systems employment and separate from the following:

"Candidate for this position shall be an O-4 or higher, a graduate of the Navy Weapons School (e.g., TOPGUN), a graduate of TPS, or MAWTS-1. Additionally, the candidate shall have at least one of the following: NFO with 1000 flight hours; EWO; TACCO; WSO; WTI; a graduate of Carrier Airborne Early Warning Weapons School (CAEWWS); a graduate of Electronic Attack Weapons School (EAWS) or Intelligence Schools; or a Department Head or Officer in Charge (OIC)."

Please confirm the candidate's applicable training, flight hours, and/or occupational specialist designations need not be obtained in the most recent 12 years of employment experience.

The training credentials/specialist designations need not be obtained within the last 12 years. However, the resume should demonstrate 12 years of recent professional experience with aircraft tactical systems in accordance with the defintions in Section C, paragraph 4.2.

RFP Section M, Performance Confidence Assessment Definitions, B Other

Evaluation Definitions, Pages 140 and

Very Relevant-Magnitude (Page 140) and Somewhat Relevant-Magnitude (Page

141)

Please confirm that the Dollar Value of Contract Reference (Annualized) was greater than $30M (Very Relevant-Magnitude Page 140) and $12M (Somewhat Relevant-Magnitude Page 141) are based on actual work performed?

The magnitude is based on the awarded contract reference value

RFP Section 3.3.11.2 Manufacturing and

Quality, Page 37 Sample Tasks

There do not appear to be LCATS aligned for this work. The word "manufacture” only appears in 2 LCATS 4.5.11 Mathematical Scientist and 4.5.1 Computer and Information Systems Analyst. The Engineering LCAT includes Quality Assurance Testing only. Given there is a sample task aligned to this paragraph/work will the Government please explain the significance of this work with the understanding that the details provided for LCATS doesn’t support full performance of this paragraph?

The details behind the sample tasks will not be disclosed prior to release of the Final RFP.

19 Att_L.5_Cost_Summary.xlsx Sample Offeror Cost

Summary Tab and Offeror Cost Summary Tab

These two worksheets reference Pass Through Analysis for the SeaPort-e IDIQ Contract. Since this is not a SeaPort-e vehicle, will the Government please remove this analysis from the two worksheets and any other SeaPort-e references?

The references on these tabs have been deleted.

RFP Section L, 5.4 Labor Hours, Pages

124-128

5.4 Labor Hour Tables, Pages

124-128 There do not appear to be any LCATs for Management and Support. Will the Government please add these categories in case an Offeror's disclosed practice is to direct charge these categories?

Please see the updates to Section L, Paragraph 5.4 Labor Hours.

21 RFP, General Information # 5. What is the length a Task Order may extend beyond the last date of the contract?

Please see Section I, Clause 52.216-18.

22 Section B Description

The description in Section B states CDRL's will be separately priced at the Task Order (TO) level except for CDRL/Item No 1020 Technical Data. CDRL's are not usually priced separately from the associated Labor CLIN. Will all TO awards include CDRL/Item 1020 Technical Data? Will the Awardee be required to price each TO CDRL separately as suggested or will the CDRL value be included in the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE)?

This language has been removed, please see update to the Section B description.

23 Section B Item No(s) Does the Government anticipate the Offeror will be completing Section B or will the value by CLIN be allocated by the Government at time of award?

Please review Section L Part B Volume 1 Paragraph g(3).

24 Section B, B-1 Negotiated Rates B.1 Streamlined Ordering for

CPFF Term LOE Orders Will the Negotiated and estimated composite rates be used for CLIN ceiling calculations?

The contractor will propose CLIN ceiling values. Please review Section L Part B Volume 1 Paragraph g(3).

25 Section B, B-1 Negotiated Rates B.1 Streamlined Ordering for

CPFF Term LOE Orders

Will the B-1 Negotiated Rate Table be completed by the Government using Attachment L.6 Annual Fully Burdened Rates or Attachment L.5 Cost Summary to create the Hourly Burdened Composite Labor Rates?

The B1 Negotiated Rate table will be filled in by the Government based on the composite of successful offeror's proposed Attachment L6.

26 RFP, Vol 4 - Technical

4.2 Systems Engineering

Sample Task 1 (re: functional baselines and MBSE efforts)

In addition to the narrative for developing this sample task (interpreted as a detailed technical approach), was there consideration in requiring a sample solution in the form of a model (.mdzip) to further demonstrate the knowledge and ability of the offeror in how to properly model systems engineering artifacts to increase the efficiency and effectivity of the system's lifecycle management within NAVAIR and its digital environment?

The details behind the sample tasks will not be disclosed prior to release of the Final RFP.

27 RFP, Vol 4 - Technical

4.2 Systems Engineering

Sample Task 1 (re: functional baselines and MBSE efforts)

Part 2 of this sample task is to “Create a model-based system engineering digital environment”. In reviewing LCATS, was there consideration including a position(s) for software development for the environment itself? The tasks to be performed by this role are seen to go beyond the LCAT “4.5.1 Computer and Information Systems Analyst, BLS SOC No. 11-3021” abilities of managing the environment.

The details behind the sample tasks will not be disclosed prior to release of the Final RFP.

28 Section C, 3.0 Requirements 3.1.3.8 Transition-Out Plan When will the Transition-Out Plan be required? At time of proposal submission?

The Transition-Out Plan shall be submitted in accordance with

CDRL A008.

29 Section C, 3.2 Security

3.2.2 Investigative

Requirements

Contractor personnel shown in the table require Secret, Top Secret and Top Secret (SCI/SAP). Are proposed personnel required to have the specific clearance at time of award + 180 days after award, i.e., interim Secret up to Final Secret or Secret up to Top Secret? Should the Offeror assume proposed personnel with a clearance as stated will be processed to the required clearance level within the 180 days after award?

Please see the updates to Section C, Paragraph 3.2.2.

30 Section C, 3.3 3.3.3.1 Management The Operations Manager is also known as the Program Manager. The Operations/Program Manager is not identified as requiring a clearance in the Table shown in Security. Does the Operations Manager/Program Manager require a clearance higher than Secret? If so, at what level?

Please see the updates to Section C, Paragraph 3.2.2.

31 Section M Para B Corporate Experience

The table under B OTHER EVALUATION DEFINITIONS defines the magnitude to meet Very Relevant and Some what Relevant as greater than $30M per year and greater than $12M per year.

Will the Government consider eliminating magnitude as an evaluation criteria as this is a small business set aside and those values are not reflective of a small business set aside. Most small businesses do not hold contracts with annual values of those magnitudes. In fact NAVAIR has very few services contracts that meet those values per annum and reflect the scope of this effort.

The Government has considered the suggestion and deliberated this matter. The Government has concluded that the thresholds for magnitude are a necessary component of the evaluation given

32 Section M. II Specific Information A. Past Performance

While there is no requirement for a contract reference to have been performed for NAVAIR or NAWC, past performance on NAVAIR or NAWC (any division) contract references will have a greater impact on the best-value trade-off as compared to past performance on contract references with other customers.” Is it the Government's intent to limit past performance and corporate experience to NAVAIR/NAWC or Navy related contracts?

No, as stated in Section M, there is no requirement for a contract reference to have been performed for NAVAIR or NAWC. Past Performance and Corporate Experience will be evaluated in

33 Section M. II Specific Information A. Past Performance

As described in Section A, The Government will perform and assessment of scope, magnitude and complexity to determine similarity to this solicitation. For past performance they say they will determine each reference as Very Relevant (VR), Somewhat Relevant (SR), or Not Relevant (NR) and then assign a confidence assessment rating. Can a past performance receive more than a single assessment (VR and SR) each to get the highest confidence assessment or would a VR naturally get a higher confidence assessment than a SR?

A contract reference is not assigned a confidence assessment rating, rather, the contract reference will be determined to be VR, R, SR, or NR. The performance on the VR, R, and SR contracts will be considered in the evaluation of the Past Performance Volume, which will receive a single Confidence Assessment Rating.

34 Section M. II Specific Information A. Past Performance Recency refers to Performance and Corporate Experience references that have not been performed within Three (3) years from 6/15/2023 are not considered recent and therefore are considered not relevant. Should the date refer to prior to the proposal submission date, or similar, i.e. 6/15/2020?

Please see the updates to Section

M, III.

35 Section M. II Specific Information A. Past Performance

Relevancy describes extent of similarity between the contract references' scope, complexity, magnitude to this solicitation's requirements. Very Relevant, Magnitude is identified as Annualized was greater than $30M. Value may be unfair to small businesses, will the Government reconsider this value since this is a small business set aside, and based on the companies able to bid as prime.

The Government has considered the suggestion and deliberated this matter. The Government has concluded that the thresholds for magnitude are a necessary component of the evaluation given the scope of the contract.

36 Section M. III. Definitions A. Evaluation Ratings and

Risk Assessment Definitions Will the Government consider a broader assessment criteria beyond Green/Acceptable and Red/Unacceptable for technical solutions in order to enable a best value tradeoff?

For the Technical Factor, the Government will assign each proposal a separate Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating vice using a combined Technical/Risk Rating. The Technical Rating will either be Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Technical Risk Rating will be assessed as Low, Moderate, High, or Unacceptable. Both the Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be considered during the best value tradeoff.

37 Section M, M-1 Evaluation Factors for Award C. Technical

On page 136, paragraph C Technical, the On page 136, paragraph C Technical, the Government states “the Technical Rating assigned to the proposal will either be Acceptable or Unacceptable as there is no benefit to the Government associated with providing a strength or significant strength for the Technical Government states “the Technical Rating assigned to the proposal will either be Acceptable or Unacceptable as there is no benefit to the Government associated with providing a strength or significant strength for the Technical Volume. "The Government is in conflict between the two sections as benefits will not be scored. How does the Government determine the benefit it they don't evaluate the Are you saying you are not going to score the benefits identified in the technical approach. The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract without discussions to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government. Please clarify how the strength or significant strength for the Technical Volume as no benefit in the Technical Rating and Technical Risk assessment for the evaluation?

For the Technical Factor, the Government will assign each proposal a separate Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating vice using a combined Technical/Risk Rating. The Technical Rating will either be Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Technical Risk Rating will be assessed as Low, Moderate, High, or Unacceptable based on the assignment of risk reducers, weaknesses, and/or significant weaknesses. Both the Technical

Section M, M-1 Evaluation Factors for

Award, Performance Confidence Assessment Definitions

B. Other Evaluation Definitions, Very Relevant

For Past Performance Factor, Performance Confidence Assessment, Very Relevant, complexity shows (all of the following) - Required Top Secret/SCI or SAP Clearance. All past performance that are relevant require TS/SCI or SAP Clearance is extremely restrictive. This requirement artificially limits competition for small businesses. Will the Government consider removing the clearance requirement under Very Relevant, Complexity?

Please see the update to the VR complexity definition.

39 Section M, III. DEFINITIONS

B. OTHER EVALUATION

DEFINITIONS

The criteria for Very Relevant and Somewhat Relevant for Past Performance includes Top Secret/SCI or SAP clearance. Given this is a small business set aside requirement, this will significantly limit the number of small businesses who would receive such ratings. Recommend the government remove the Top Secret/SCI or SAP clearance criteria.

Please see the update to the VR complexity definition.

40 Section M, III. DEFINITIONS

B. OTHER EVALUATION

DEFINITIONS

The new draft RFP (released May 9) added criteria for Very Relevant and Somewhat Relevant Past Performance contracts to include Top Secret/SCI or SAP clearance. Given this requirement was not included in the draft released March 2 and the final RFP is anticipated to be released in June, this addition appears to favor the incumbent and significantly impacts the ability for small business teams to pursue the procurement. Recommend the government remove the Top Secret/SCI or SAP clearance criteria.

Please see the update to the VR complexity definition.

41 Section M, III. DEFINITIONS

B. OTHER EVALUATION

DEFINITIONS

The new draft RFP (released May 9) added criteria for Very Relevant and Somewhat Relevant Past Performance contracts to include Top Secret/SCI or SAP clearance. Given this requirement was not included in the previous solicitations for this work and the final RFP is anticipated to be released in June, this addition appears to favor the incumbent and significantly impacts the ability for small business teams to pursue the procurement. Recommend the government remove the Top Secret/SCI or SAP clearance criteria.

Please see the update to the VR complexity definition.

42 Section M, III. DEFINITIONS

B. OTHER EVALUATION

DEFINITIONS

The new draft RFP (released May 9) added criteria for Past Performance contracts to include Top Secret/SCI or SAP clearance under the Complexity criteria. Recommend the government allow offerors to meet "at least two of the following" criteria for Very Relevant to be consistent with the criteria for Relevant that states "at least one of the following."

Please see the update to the VR complexity definition.

43 Section M, III. DEFINITIONS

B. OTHER EVALUATION

DEFINITIONS

The criteria for Very Relevant and Somewhat Relevant for Past Performance includes annualized dollar value requirements. Recommend the government clarify the calculation for annualized value of past performance references to provide consistency in evaluation criteria.

- Project value for completed projects is determined by the total funded dollars (i.e., total obligated value for Federal Government or Commercial Contracts, as applicable). NOTE: This includes completed projects with a period of performance of less than one (1) year, which will not be annualized.

- Project value for ongoing projects is determined based on the total estimated value (value inclusive of all option periods, regardless of completed/funded status; i.e., total contract value for Federal Government or Commercial Contracts as applicable). NOTE: This includes ongoing projects with a period of performance of less than one (1) year, which will not be annualized.

- Projects with a period of performance greater than 12 months will be prorated to the annual value.

Total annual value will be calculated by dividing the total project value by the total number of days of period of performance, and multiplying by 366. For example, a project valued at $3M with a period of performance of 450 days will be considered to have an annual value of ~$2.44M (($3M/450)x366).

Please see the updates to Section M, VR, R, and SR definitions.

RFP Section M-1, Paragraph II, A., Page

II. Specific Information, A.

Past Performance, Page 134

Will the Government confirm that the Offeror is only to provide Relevancy narrative descriptions for the subfactors in SOW 3.3.7 per the Relevancy definition?

Yes. Per Section L, Paragraph 2.3 "[i]n the Attachment L3 (Past Performance/Corporate Experience Data) PP/CE Tables, Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the referenced contracts it believes to be relevant, as defined by Section M, to this solicitation’s requirements."

RFP Section L.1, Paragraph 2.1, Page

2.1 Authorization Letters

Are Offerors required to provide Authorization Letters for each contract reference identified as a mandatory requirement, or is this conditional based on presence of a problem, etc.?

In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 2.1, "[t]he Offeror shall submit to the Government a signed “Release of Adverse Past Performance Authorization Letter(s)” with written consent from each principal entity (including JV team members) [emphasis added], authorizing the release of adverse past performance information to the Prime."

RFP Section L.1, Volume 5 - Cost, Attachment L6, Page 120 5.1.3.2, Page 122

Is it the Government's intention to allow for rates of current employees to be utilized if they are below the minimum rates provided?

Yes. The requirement to propose direct labor rates equal to or greater than the Minimum Rates applies to contingent and prospective hires. See Section L, para. 5.1.3.2.

DRFP Section L.1, Part B. 3. VOLUME 3

– CORPORATE EXPERIENCE, pg. 117

3.6 Project Management

(SOW 3.3.3.1 and 3.3.3.2), “In order to demonstrate Corporate Experience with Project Management, the Offeror shall submit a copy of a Management Plan in accordance with DI-MGMT-80004A, and documentation related to as many of the following…”

Question: 1. Will the Government please confirm that the Management Plan requested is from the contracts submitted for Corporate Experience evaluation, and not a new Management Plan for SES (which will be provided after award as CDRL A011)? Assuming this is the case, would the Government please remove the reference to DI-MGMT-80004A, as contractors cannot retroactively enforce DID requirements on previously-submitted documentation for other contracts?

Please see updates to Section L, Paragraoh 3.6.

DRFP Section L.1 Part A, 3. Proposal Submission, Section L.1 Part B, 3, 1. and

2. Annex C Contract Reference Documents

PIEE submission is required for the proposal. The Contract Reference Documents (SOW, PWS, Specifications, CDRLs, products, etc.) could potentially include CUI. Can you please confirm whether CUI may be submitted through PIEEE?

If not, please advise, will another submission method be specified for offerors to submit CUI with the proposal?

Yes, CUI can be submitted through the Solicitation module in

PIEE.

RFP Section L, Part B Specific Instructions, 1. Volume 1 - Contract

Administration, c. Table CA-3 Relevant Contract Summary, Paragraph 1

The Offeror shall complete Attachment L1, Table CA-3

(Relevant Contract Summary) to identify all relevant contract references, or those portions of relevant contract references, in accordance with the Section M, Paragraph III.

B., definitions of Contract Reference, Recency, Relevancy, Very Relevant (VR), Somewhat Relevant

(SR), and Not Relevant (NR).

The information provided in Table CA-3 will support the evaluation of Volume 2, Past Performance and Volume 3, Corporate Experience.

May the offeror include more than 6 past performance contract references?

The number of Past Performance references not limited; however, references must meet the Section M defintitions of Recency and Very Relevant, Relevant, or Somewhat Relevant.

RFP Section L, Part B Specific

Instructions, 3. Volume 3 Corporate Experience, Paragraph 4

"The Offeror shall complete Attachment L3 (Past

Performance/Corporate Experience Data) according to the instructions within the attachment. The Offeror shall provide up to six (6) contract references to demonstrate its corporate experience. Only contract references designated in Attachment L1, Table CA-3

(Relevant Contract Summary) shall be used in completing Volume 3 (Corporate Experience) and all contract references shall be numbered the same throughout all of the Offeror’s proposal volumes (i.e., the contracts identified as P1, T1, S1, etc.).

If the offeror submits more than 6 past performance contract references, may the offeror select 6 of these past performance references for their corporate experience examples?

Yes, of the references provided for Past Performance, six of those contracts may be used to demonstrate Corporate Experience.

RFP Section M, III. Definitions, B. Other

Evaluation Definitions, Contract Reference

" a. A contract of any type except Indefinite-Delivery contracts (see FAR Subpart 16.5) (“D” type contracts); or

b. If submitting an Indefinite-

Delivery, D-type contract, then submit:

1. a single DO/TO from a multiple award contract; or

2. a single DO/TO or a set of aggregated DOs/TOs (i.e., two or more) from the same single award IDIQ contract. If an aggregated set of DOs/TOs from the same single award IDIQ contract is submitted, these will be considered as one contract reference. "

May the offeror submit a set of aggregated TOs/DOs from a single award or multiple award IDIQ?

The aggregation of TOs/DOs is only permitted for the same single award IDIQ contract.

RFP Section M, III. Definitions, B. Other

Evaluation Definitions, Contract Reference

" a. A contract of any type except Indefinite-Delivery contracts (see FAR Subpart 16.5) (“D” type contracts); or

b. If submitting an Indefinite-

Delivery, D-type contract, then submit:

1. a single DO/TO from a multiple award contract; or

2. a single DO/TO or a set of aggregated DOs/TOs (i.e., two or more) from the same single award IDIQ contract. If an aggregated set of DOs/TOs from the same single award IDIQ contract is submitted, these will be considered as one contract reference. "

If the offeror submits an aggregated set of TOs to be considered as one contract reference, how should we indicate the set of TOs that should be evaluated as a single contract reference? May the offeror use subset numbering to indicate a master agreement contract reference and multiple TOs associated with it, e.g. P1, P1a, P1b?

The information for the aggregated TOs should be specified in Attachment L3, per the instructions for Line 7.