RFP_N0042123R0007_Amend0002.pdf

CODE

(Hour)

PAGE(S)

until 02:00 PM local time 02 Oct 2023

X

A X B X C X D

EX

X

G F 104 - 113

114 - 140 X H 141 tiffany.l.corbett.civ@us.navy.mil

RATING PAGE OF PAGES

7. ISSUED BY

(Date)

IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice.

Previous Edition is Unusable 33-134 STANDARD FORM 33 (REV. 9-97)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.214(c)

DO-C9 1 149

(If other than Item 7)

15A. NAME 16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO

AND

ADDRESS

SIGN OFFER (Type or print)

OF

OFFEROR

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

15B. TELEPHONE NO (Include area code) 17. SIGNATURE15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS

IS DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE - ENTER

SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE.

18. OFFER DATE

1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

2. CONTRACT NO.

N00421 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

See Item 7

9. Sealed offers in original and 0 copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if handcarried, in the depository located in

CAUTION - LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All offers are subject to all terms and

Item 8 N/A, see L.3.1 conditions contained in this solicitation.

10. FOR INFORMATION

CALL:

A. NAME (NO COLLECT CALLS)

TIFFANY L. CORBETT 240-496-3015

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOLICITATION/ CONTRACT FORM

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/ COSTS

1 - 15 16 - 23

X I CONTRACT CLAUSES

DESCRIPTION/ SPECS./ WORK STATEMENT X

PACKAGING AND MARKING

24 - 70 71 - 72

J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

73 - 74 75 - 77

X K

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND

OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 78 - 84 X

SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) 85 - 90 X M

L INSTRS., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

(See Section I, Clause No. 52.232-8)

14. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

to the SOLICITATION for offerors and related documents numbered and dated):

FACILITY

12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD

X

(X) SEC. DESCRIPTION (X) SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S)

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print) 27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 28. AWARD DATE

EMAIL:TEL: (Signature of Contracting Officer)

CODE CODE

B. TELEPHONE (Include area code) C. E-MAIL ADDRESS

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

19. ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS NUMBERED 20. AMOUNT 21. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION:

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)( ) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)( ) (4 copies unless otherwise specified)

23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7) CODE 25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

91 - 102

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

NAWCAD PROCUREMENT GROUP

21983 BUNDY ROAD, BLDG 441

PATUXENT RIVER MD 20670

FAX:

TEL:

FAX:

TEL:

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

SOLICITATION

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NO.5. DATE ISSUED

01 Aug 2023

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

[ X ]

3. SOLICITATION NO.

N0042123R0007

Section SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

AMENDMENT 0001

The required response date/time has changed from 18-Sep-2023 02:00 PM to 02-Oct-2023 02:00 PM.

- Section C, Statement of Work, Paragraph 3.2.2;

- Section J, Attachments J3, L1, L3, L4, L5, L7

- Section K, FAR 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations;

- Section L-1, Proposal Instructions;

- Section L, 5252.209-9513, Organizational Conflict of Interest Instructions (Services);

- Section M-1, Evaluation Factors for Award.

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS (Q) & GOVERNMENT ANSWERS (A)

Q1: Can the Government please verify the business system of record for the Final RFP documents? Different documents were posted on the PIEE and SAM.gov sites relating to this solicitation.

A1: PIEE is the official site related to the solicitation. The SAM posting included the responses to questions associated with the Draft RFP.

Q2: Will the Government please confirm that "Suggested Page Count" of 30 pages for the Technical Volume -exclusive of resumes for Key Personnel means that if submittals exceed 30 pages, they will be rendered as non-compliant and will not be evaluated?

A2: Please see the updates to Section L, Table 1. The page count is a maximum. Any Technical Volume exceeding the 30-page count will not be deemed non-compliant; however, any pages submitted beyond 30 will be excluded from the evaluation.

Q3: In order for an Offeror to respond to the Solicitation appropriately, will the Government please provide the associated due dates and timelines for the CDRL deliveries?

A3: Please see the CDRLs posted with Amendment 0001.

Q4: The DRFP Q&A Response Document Items 32 and 37 provided by the Government are truncated and cannot be viewed. Will the Government please provide the complete responses for these two items?

A4: The responses have been reposted in SAM.gov.

Q5: Under the "Complexity" category, the definition for "Somewhat Relevant" does not have a qualifying statement regarding the sub bullets. With reference to the sub bullets, the most recent DRFP included a qualifier stating "at least one of the following". Will the Government please clarify that qualifier from the DRFP remains in effect and that the RFP will be amended accordingly?

A5: Please see updates in Amendment 0001.

Q6: Section L, Paragraph 4 of Part A states the following: "The submission date for all Volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP. Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals, and any modifications or revisions, to reach the Government office designated in this solicitation by the date and time specified. Offerors are encouraged to submit documents early. Any submission, modification, or revision received at the Government office after the exact date and time specified is “late” and will not be evaluated or considered for award; see paragraph 3.2 for the only exception. The Government encourages Offerors to submit, via email, Past Performance information 14 calendar days prior to the submission date specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP. Early information may be submitted via email to the Contract Specialists referenced in Section A, Point of Contact. The early Past Performance information requested includes submission of: Attachment L1, Tables CA-1 (Workshare Summary); Attachment L1, Table CA-3 (Relevant Contract Summary); and Attachment L3 (Past Performance/Corporate Experience Data)."

Respectfully request the Government eliminate the requirement to provide the information 14 days in advance of the formal proposal submission date. It would seem that this requirement is no longer of benefit to the Government, as the verification of data will now be accomplished by the appropriate Government TPOCs signature. This language has been maintained verbatim from the Draft RFP, but does not address the new requirement in the Final RFP that requires offerors to have the data resident in Attachment L3 “reviewed and signed by at least one Government Technical POC who can verify the information. This new requirement infers a disadvantage in evolution to Offerors who may not be able to meet the "encourages" early deliver timeframe.

A6: The submission of the early past performance data is not a requirement, rather a recommendation. Please see updates in Amendment 0001. Offerors shall submit the signed write-up in Annex C.

Q7: Section A, General Information and Section K, 52.219-1 lists the NAICS code for this procurement as 541715.

However Section K, 52.204-8 lists the NAICS code as 541330. Will the Government confirm the correct NAICS for this procurement is 541715 with size standard 1500?

A7: The Government confirms the correct NAICS for this procurement is 541715 with size standard 1500.

Q8: To aid the relief of needing a Government POC to sign off on the planned CE 3.1-3.6 write-ups, (Section L, L1, Part B, 3. Volume 3) the Attachment L3 instructions for Line 19 POCs includes the opportunity to have EITHER the PM OR a Government POC to "validate" the corporate experience” – would ask for the Contractor PM be recognized as a suitable signee for the CE supporting documentation write-ups in our 3.1-3.6 responses (to avoid time/approval issues) and because there is similar access to the Government on validation via CPARs and program references: (From Att L3: Further, provide at least one POC that can validate corporate experience, this may be the PM or other Technical Government POC.)

A8: The person validating the corporate experience must be a Government POC.

Q9: Subsection 1.4 defines a "Principal Entities" as entities "that are proposed to perform at least 20% of the proposed total cost". However, in the Q&A provided for Draft_RFP_Q&As, item #13 the reference is to 15% without a note indicating the RFP was updated to reflect an updated %. Would the Government please confirm that a principle entity is one that provides 20% of the proposed total cost? Would the Government consider updating this % to include the proposed total LABOR cost?

A9: Please see updates in Amendment 0001. The correct percentage is 15%.

Q10: Section L.1, Part B, Volume 5 of the Solicitation states “subcontractors shall provide the same information required for the prime contractor...”. However, subcontractors being proposed on a Time and Material (T&M) basis do not provide the same type of information. Will the Government please confirm that a T&M subcontractor is only required to submit an Att L5 and not a cost narrative?

A10: Please see updates to Section L, Volume 5 within Amendment 0001.

Q11: Currently the solicitation shows 541330 is the aforementioned section, with the head count of 1500 for 541715. Will the Government please revise the NAICS to 541715 to match Section A?

A11: Please see updates in Amendment 0001.

Q12: Will the Government please provide the Level of Effort chart in an Excel format?

A12: Please see Attachment L7.

Q13: Column E of this tab has specific areas that look to be the BLS areas for the locations in Column D; however, the rates used in column G (that are used to calculate column H) and that correspond to the percentiles in column F are pulled from May 2022 National BLS and not the specified location in column E. Therefore, how can a company Prime or Sub provide justification for contingent or TBD positions if the minimum rates are too low for the corresponding locations in Column E? For example, Tactical Operations and Air/Weapons Specialist Senior for California_Lexington Park, MD at the 75th percentile is $90.74, but the minimum in Att L5 reflect $74.80, a $15.94 difference between them. This would be problematic from a realism perspective when trying to hire these positions at Pax and being held to the composite rates in Section B-1 "Negotiated Rates." Will the Government consider amending the minimum rates to match the expected "Area" for each category? This impacts three (3) or four (4) LCat groups at Pax.

A13: Please see updates to Attachment L5.

Q14: SOMEWHAT RELEVANT - The current wording of the complexity criteria in the Somewhat Relevant section makes it seem that a contract reference would have to have all of the complexity criteria to be deemed Somewhat Relevant; however, a contract reference needs only 2 of the 3 complexity criteria to be VR and Relevant.

Would the Government consider adding the language “at least one of the following” to the complexity criteria in the Somewhat Relevant section?

A14: Please see updates in Amendment 0001.

Q15: Would the Government please clarify the documentation requirements for Project Management? The RFP states “In order to demonstrate Corporate Experience with Project Management, the Offeror shall submit a copy of the contract reference’s Management Plan, and documentation related to as many of the following items as the Offeror can provide: a. Oversight reviews by the customer, such as program reviews. b. Customer portals, displaying electronic dashboards or data analytics.” Is the Government looking for a copy of the proposed management plan at time of proposal submission for the corporate experience reference?

A15: Please see updates to Section L, Paragraph 3.6 in Amendment 0001.

Q16: There are very few (if any) relevant NAVAIR and NAWC service contracts that meet the $30M annualized threshold, which would greatly limit most offerors from achieving Very Relevant for contract references. To mitigate this limit in credible competition, would the Government consider changing the magnitude threshold of Very Relevant to $15M?

A16: The Government has considered this request, but has not revised the magnitude threshold of Very Relevant;

however, the magnitude threshold of Relevant has been revised.

Q17: The enforcement of tripwire has been reimplemented into the final RFP. The concern is that the implementation of the tripwire will limit the ability to recruit world class talent down to PAX River and other sites of performance. Will the Government consider removing this requirement as to not stifle recruiting?

A17: The tripwire was not previously removed and will not be removed.

Q18: Will the Government kindly consider adding a page limit to the key resumes? The previous iteration of these contracts was 3 pages.

A18: Please see updates to Section L, Table 1, Note ** and Paragraph 4.4.

Q19: There is reference to both the 541330 and 541519 NAICS codes. Could the Government please correct the NAICS code in Section K to 541715?

A19: Please see updates in Amendment 0001.

Q20: Will the Government consider email submissions for subcontractors that do not have access to PIEE?

A20: No, subcontractors that do not have access to PIEE should submit their proposal information via the prime Offeror. In such cases, documents may be password protected. Please see updates to Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3.1.

Q21: Is it the Government’s intent for the subcontractors to submit their cost using the Subcontractor Tab in L5. If so, should they modify to include fee? If the subcontractor should fill out the relevant portions of the Prime Contractor L5 for their fully disclosed submission to the Government what is the purpose of the Subcontractor Tab?

A21: Please see updates to Attachment L5

Q22: Would the Government consider limiting the requirement for tripwire justification to only the base year? Or as an alternative question, for the purpose of calculating Trip Wire justifications given the fact that an escalation of 4.3% is specified, can we also apply that escalation to the $300,000 trip wire? Justification, a rate well below the tripwire in the base year could increase by nearly $50,000 using only mandated escalation requiring extensive justification by the end of the ordering period.

A22: The tripwire will not be removed or adjusted.

Q23: For discrepancies between the Q&A and final solicitation, will the Government please confirm that the Offeror can rely on the Government Response on the Q&A for their response to this solicitation?

A23: The Final RFP is the controlling language.

Q24: Attachment L5 rows 14-16 amounts are auto calculated based on the provided formulas for each year (Indirect Rate x Total Direct Labor Cost). This ensures that all cost proposals are evaluated using the same methodology. If the provided formulas do not precisely reflect the contractor’s DCAA approved formulas should the contractor use the provided formulas in the cost proposal to allow a fair comparison of cost and provide an explanation of any differences in the cost narrative?

A24: Please see updates to Attachment L5

Q25: How many Corporate Experiences does the prime need to submit? Considering the scope and complexity of this contract, would the Government include a requirement for the prime contractor to submit at least three of the six corporate experiences? This would help to showcase the prime's capability to manage this contract.

A25: The Government has considered the request and will not specify the quantity of contracts that the Prime must provide.

Q26: Will the Government consider evaluation relevance to be two out of the three for scope, magnitude and complexity to ensure current AIR-4.1 contracts are very relevant as opposed to somewhat relevant?

A26: No edits will be made in this regard. Scope, magnitude, and complexity are all components of the Relevance definitions and will all be considered as defined.

Q27: Given the proprietary nature of individual management plans and likely other supporting documentation, can subcontractors provide their management plans and other proprietary substantiating documentation in an Annex C with their respective sealed packages?

A27: Please see updates to Section L, Volume 3, Paragraph 4.6 in Amendment 0001.

Q28: The RFP states that the PP/CE table is a summary of relevant contract data, but then states, "Additionally, in Volume 2, Section 2.3 (Narrative), of the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror shall provide a comparative analysis comparing each past performance reference to this solicitation’s requirements." Is the Government requiring Offerors to provide comparative analysis to ALL of the solicitation's requirements in a separate file and use the PP/CE table as a high-level summary of only portions of the requirements? If so, please specify what is meant by "the solicitation requirements."

A28: Please see updates to Section L, Volume 2 in Amendment 0001.

Q29: The instructions for Corporate Experience includes the requirement to include substantiating documents that demonstrates the Offeror’s contribution to the items in paragraphs 3.1-3.6: 1 and "2. supporting documentation in the form of a write-up describing the actual work performed within each contract reference as it relates to the SOW/PWS and to the items in paragraphs 3.1-3.6." The evaluation criteria does not include an assessment of SOW relevancy outside of paragraphs 3.1-3.6. Was it the Government's intent for an Offeror to provide a narrative for the entire 4.1 SOW/PWS?

A29: Please see updates to Section L, Volume 3 in Amendment 0001.

Q30: Generally speaking, it is unclear what information is meant to be provided within Attachment L3 and what information is meant to be provided as a separate file. For example, Volume 2 requires the following, but there isn't a space provided in the L-3 form to address them:

- Compliance with CPARS and/or PPQ submittal

- Comparative analysis comparing each past performance reference to this solicitation’s requirements

- Explanation for what aspects of the referenced contracts it believes to be relevant, as defined by Section M, to this solicitation’s requirements

- Quality of Products/Service, Management, Schedule, and Cost

- Systemic Improvement

Would the Government be more clear in the exact requirements that need to be addressed outside of the provided L3 form, or revise the L3 form to address all requirements of Volume 2?

A30: Please see updates to Volume 2 in Amendment 0001.

Q31: Annex C states to include substantiating documentation such as, "a contractual document showing the subcontractors, such as a contract attachment or invoice list." However, there is no requirement in Section L to substantiate anything other than SOW 3.3.7 and the 3.1-3.6 items in the L3 form. Is the Offeror to provide evidence of Section M criteria, such as number of subcontractors, Top Secret/SCI or SAP clearance, etc.? If so, where are we supposed to claim this information?

A31: Please see updates to Attachment L3 (Lines 18-20).

Q32: The Government states, "all pages shall be numbered and identified by the complete company name, date, and solicitation number in the header or footer." However, files such as Annex C will contain copies of highlighted documents, such as Statements of Work, that may contain hundreds of pages. In order to maintain a file that has all of the required header and footer information, these documents would need to be pasted in as JPG files, which would lose their search capabilities as well as any Adobe pop-up notes tagging relevant information. Would the Government accept a file that contains an introductory page that is in compliance with the header/footer requirements for each file in the annex and allowing Offerors to provide their original Statements of Work without the company name, date, and solicitation number in the header or footer?

A32: Please see update to Section L Part B, Volume 1, d. in Amendment 0001.

Q33: For line 18 in the PP_CE tab, the instructions state to, "describe the work performed under the contract reference that aligns with the specified element." However, the example provided in the PP_CE tab simply states to enter, "Yes/No/NA." Does the term "describe" in the instructions refer only to responding with a, "Yes/No/NA"?

A33: Please see updates to Volume 3 and Attachment L3.

Q34: For corporate experience, the Government is requiring a Government Technical POC to sign the write-up describing actual work performed. Will the Government be issuing an official form for the collection of this data?

A34: No official form will be provided. Please see updates to Volume 3 in Amendment 0001

Q35: The RFP makes an exclusion for searchable PDFs for "dashboard screenshots in support of the Corporate Experience evaluation, which will be acceptable in a non-searchable format." Does this also include the following documents, which would require an Offeror to paste in JPG files?:

• DCAA/DCMA reports, audits, and determinations in Annex B

• Signed “Release of Adverse Past Performance Authorization Letter(s)” in Annex D.

• Contract Reference Documents in Annex C

A35: The requirement related to dashboard screenshots has been removed. All documents submitted shall be fully searchable, unless otherwise noted.

Q36: The RFP states that Offerors are to explain what aspects of the referenced contracts it believes to be relevant, as defined by Section M, to this solicitation’s requirements within Attachment L3. Attachment L3 does not include an area to write to Section M criteria. Can the Government please clarify where to respond to this requirement?

A36: Attachment L3, Line 17 is where the comparative analysis shall be provided.

Q37: The RFP requires the Offeror to describe past problems on the contract and refers to, "identification of any show-cause notices, cure notices, or terminations for cause or default." Are these the only examples of past problems that should be noted in this section? For example, if a project has Excellent CPARs but had some minor, undocumented challenges on the contract, are they to be noted here?

A37: See updates to Section L Volume 2, 2.3b in Amendment 0001.

Q38: The RFP requires the Offeror to describe past problems on the contract and refers to them as, "identification of any show-cause notices, cure notices, or terminations for cause or default)." If an Offeror has NOT had show-cause notices, cure notices, or terminations for cause or default, can they respond with, "Not applicable" for both L.B.2.3.b and L.B.2.3.c?

A38: See updates to Section L Volume 2, 2.3b in Amendment 0001.

Q39: Is the Government expecting a Volume 3 file that simply includes a statement that the requirements of the Volume 3 submission are provided in different files (e.g., L-3 and Annex C)?

A39: See updates to Section L Volume 3 in Amendment 0001.

Q40: The contract management approach scenario states that, "…all task orders will be awarded within 60 days after award of the basic contract." Once these task orders are awarded, is there a transition period to work with the outgoing contractor? If so, how long is that transition period?

A40: Please see updates to Section L Volume 4, 4.1 in Amendment 0001.

Q41: The contract management approach scenario states that, "…all task orders will be awarded within 60 days after award of the basic contract" and Offeror shall describe "the expected on-boarding timeline from contract award to hire." Should part "b" of the scenario be "expected on-boarding timeline from each task order award to hire"?

A41: Please see updates to Section L, Volume 4, 4.1 in Amendment 0001.

Q42: The contract management approach scenario states that, "…all task orders will be awarded within 60 days after award of the basic contract." In order to provide detailed information on the expected on-boarding timeline from contract award to hire, can the Government provide additional details, such as:

1. Number of FTEs by task order

2. Expected award date of each task order

3. Each task order's anticipated period of performance

4. Each task order's place of performance

5. Composition and number of FTEs that are required to support current/incumbent work vs. new work

A42: Please see updates to Section L Volume 4, 4.1 in Amendment 0001.

Q43: The management scenario states an example of an anticipated risk would be bidding to the lowest possible rate. There is no indication the management scenario is relevant to Volume 5 - Cost. Please clarify why cost related information is included in this volume.

A43: Section L Volume 4, 4.1 f. is asking the Offeror to discuss the risks and mitigation strategies. No cost information is requested in this section. Bidding to the lowest possible rate (the BLS) is an example of a risk that could be anticipated.

Q44: Page 17 includes a statement that, "The deadline to obtain the security clearances specified in the table below will be determined at the TO level," and is followed by a table with a list of labor categories and FTEs. Please clarify if these labor categories/FTEs require the specified clearances at the time of proposal submission.

A44: See update to Section C, Paragraph 3.2.2.

Q45: Page 17 includes a statement that, "The deadline to obtain the security clearances specified in the table below will be determined at the TO level," and is followed by a table with a list of labor categories and FTEs. Some of these labor categories fall under a key labor category, but it isn't clear if the keys require these clearances (for example, it states there are 12 Senior Engineers that require TS Top Secret (SCI/SAP), but the contract has 37 Engineers, 7 of which are considered key). Please clarify the clearance requirements of all identified key personnel at the time of proposal submission to ensure compliance with the labor category requirements.

A45: See update to Section C, Paragraph 3.2.2.

Q46: The RFP states that, "a minimum of a SECRET security clearance is required for all positions on this contract." Is this at time of proposal submission?

A46: See update to Section C, Paragraph 3.2.2.

Q47: Given the number of questions needing clarity to proceed with developing some proposal sections and the new requirement of having a Government POC sign off on corporate experience, will the Government provide at least a two-week extension, especially given the recommendation that some documents be submitted within 14 calendar days of the submission date?

A47: The proposal due date has been extended from 9/18/23 to 10/02/23.

Q48: The RFP, "encourages Offerors to submit, via email, Past Performance information 14 calendar days prior to the submission date specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP." Please clarify if this is a requirement. If not, are there repercussions for not meeting this recommendation?

A48: The submission of the early past performance data is not a requirement, rather a recommendation. Please see updates in Amendment 0001. Offerors shall submit the signed write-up in Annex C.

Q49: The RFP recommends an early past performance submission to include Attachment L1, Tables CA-1 (Workshare Summary); Attachment L1, Table CA-3 (Relevant Contract Summary); and Attachment L3 (Past Performance/ Corporate Experience Data). This list does not include Annex C, which would substantiate all of the information in the early submission documents. Was it the Government's intent to have Annex C submitted at a later time?

A49: Annex C is not requested as part of the Early Past Performance Submission.

Q50: Given the complexity of mapping contract data to the SOW and providing supporting documentation and narrative that the Government TPOC must sign, respectfully request the language encouraging early submission of past performance data be removed.

A50: The submission of the early past performance data is not a requirement, rather a recommendation. Please see updates in Amendment 0001. Offerors shall submit the signed write-up in Annex C.

Q51: If offerors submit the "encouraged" past performance information early via email, are we still required to submit the final information in PIEE?

A51: The official proposal shall be submitted via PIEE. If the Offeror submits early Past Performance information and no changes are incorporated to the early information, it is not necessary to resubmit these documents with the official PIEE submission. If changes are incorporated, the revised/final information should be submitted in PIEE.

Q52: Section A, General Information, on page 1 of the RFP states this "The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) for this procurement is 541715". Section K, a.1 and a.2, on Page 90, of the RFP states the NAICS is 541330 with a size standard of 1500. Section K, a.3 on Page 91 states the NAICS is 541519. Page 97 also references NAICS 541519. Please confirm Section K will be updated to correctly indicate the 541715 NAICS throughout.

A52: FAR Clause 52.204-8 has been corrected in Amendment 0001.

Q53: The instructions state that the Offeror "shall" enter the Proposed Labor Category as recorded in the Prime's or Subcontractor's accounting systems. Will the Government confirm that the Offeror "may" use the Government Provided Labor Category in both Column B and Column C of Attachment L6?

A53: Yes.

Q54: Would the Government please confirm that payroll screenshots in pictorial (e.g., .jpg) form to be provided as direct labor backup are acceptable?

A54: Yes, payroll screenshots are acceptable. Please see updates in Amendment 0001.

Q55: The instructions state that the Offeror "shall" enter the Proposed Labor Category as recorded in the Prime's or Subcontractor's accounting systems. Will the Government confirm that the Offeror "may" use the Government Provided Labor Category in both columns B and C of Attachment L5?

A55: Yes.

Q56: Section L states that the minimum/maximum labor rate ranges are to be used for contingent and prospective hires, however the instructions in Attachment L5 states that we are to ensure that each employee proposed (current, prospective, and contingent employees) must be equal or greater than the minimum rates provided. Can the Government please confirm that the minimum rates are to be used for contingent and prospective hires only?

A56: Please see updates to Attachment L5.

Q57: Will the Government please confirm that the CLIN in referenced worksheet should be "1008" instead of "1010"? If so, will the Government allow the Offeror to edit the field to reflect the correct CLIN?

A57: Please see updates to Attachment L5.

Q58: In order to validate experience in 3.6 Project Management (SOW 3.3.3.1 and 3.3.3.2), the RFP states to provide, “a copy of the contract reference’s Management Plan, and documentation related to as many of the following items as the Offeror can provide.” Can the Government clarify what they consider to be a “Management

Plan?” For example, are you requesting an official CDRL (if it were required)?; the management plan from the proposal that won the work if a CDRL was NOT required on the contract?; something else?

A58: The requirement related to submission of management plans has been removed. Please see updates to Section L, Volume 3, Paragraph 3.6.

Q59: This annex potentially could contain multiple documents from multiple contracts, and some of the embedded documents could be very large (e.g. SOWs/PWSs). A single file with hundreds of pages will be unwieldy and difficult for evaluators to navigate. Is it acceptable to divide this annex into separate files, one per contract?

A59: Please see update to Section L Part B, Volume 1, d. in Amendment 0001.

Q60: Please confirm that all file references in this section should refer either to a SOW/PWS, or to a write-up signed by a Government POC, as described at the bottom of page 110 of the RFP. Please clarify contractors are not required to include other proof points from contract performance?

A60: Please see updates to Section L Volume 3 and Attachment L3.

Q61: The sub-elements of 3.6 Project Management in Attachment L-3, CE-1 table do not align with the sub-elements in the instructions for 3.6 Project Management shown on page 111 of the RFP (Hiring Checklists is present in the former but not the latter). Please confirm the hiring checklist is no longer required for submittal and will not be part of the evaluation.

A61: Please see updates to Attachment L3.

Q62: Would a copy of the official CPAR (signed by the Government Assessing Official) be an acceptable method to document actual work performed on a contract, in lieu of a signed write-up from a Government Technical POC? In some cases, the technical POC has retired or is otherwise unavailable to sign a new write-up.

A62: Please see updates to Section L Volume 3 in Amendment 0001.

Q63: The instructions for providing evidence of specification development seem to be requesting submission of actual specifications developed on the contract ("Offeror may provide a Section 3 (requirements section) and Section 4 (verification section)"). Please confirm or clarify. If this is correct, is only one example specification required per contract?

A63: Please see updates to Section L Volume 3, Paragraph 3.3 in Amendment 0001.

Q64: Each paragraph states "the Offeror shall submit contract references and supporting documentation…". Please confirm that the "supporting documentation" requested are the SOWs/PWSs/Specifications and the signed write-ups described in #1 and #2 at the bottom of RFP page 110.

A64: The Government confirms.

Q65: Please confirm: Management Plans for each contract reference should be included in Annex C.

A65: The requirement related to submission of management plans has been removed. Please see updates to Section L, Volume 3, Paragraph 3.6 in Amendment 0001.

Q66: Would the Government please confirm that contracts need only meet 1 of the 3 Complexity criteria in order to be evaluated as Somewhat Relevant? "Complexity (at least one of the following)" A66: Please see updates in Amendment 0001.

Q67: Is the wording of Sample Task 1, Exercise 2 complete? It appears that the word "applying" or "using"… model based systems engineering tools and methods was omitted. Were any words inadvertently omitted because we believe the omitted words are substantive and impacts our response?

A67: Please see updates in Amendment 0001.

Q68: Typically “off-site” locations refers to locations where the contractor must provide the facility and include the cost of that facility in the indirect costs applied to the labor. However, in addition to “Contractor Site”, the Off-Site Location Hours table lists several additional locations that seem to be Government facilities or specific OEM facilities. This question is in relation to RFP Section 3.1.2.1, starting at bottom of p. 111-p. 112. Will the Government please clarify whether these locations will be providing work space for contractor employees in performance of the contract? Will the Government please also confirm if there are any associated costs to the successful Offeror for use of these facilities?

A68: The Offeror should follow their accounting practices for indirect costs.

Q69: Which Volume should include form Att_J1_Org_Conflict_of_Interest and possible mitigation plan?

A69: Attachment_J1_Org_Conflict_of_Interest should not be included in a volume as it is an attachment that identifies known conflicts of interest. Mitigations Plans should be submitted in accordance with 5252.209-9513 Organizational Conflict of Interest (Services).

Q70: Table CA-2 within the RFP document does not include "Purchasing System", however the excel file, "Att_L1_CA_Tables" does include "Purchasing System" in Table CA-2. Please clarify.

A70: Please see updates to Attachment L1.

Q71: The final RFP had changed exercise #2 and crossed out "digital environment that could be used to accomplish exercise (1)". However, in Section M, part C Technical, paragraph 4 starting "In paragraph 4.2", the previous struck text remains in the evaluation criteria. Please clarify.

A71: Please see updates to Section M.

Q72: Can the Government please clarify the "System for Award Management (SAM) Reference" to be provided? Is confirming that the Offeror SAM record is up to date, or providing a print out or something else?

A72: Confirming the Offeror's SAM record is up to date is sufficient.

Q73: In the provided Att J3 DD Form 254, the items checked in Box 11 do not match up with the items described in Box 13 in regards to Box 11. For example, Box 11.a is checked but that item is not discussed in Box 13. Also, 11.d is discussed in Box 13 but not checked in Box 11. Are the items checked in Box 11 accurate? Please confirm this contract does not have holding requirements at the Contractor’s facility per box 11.a being checked.

A73: Please see Amendment 0001. Box 11d will not be required (and is correctly not checked). The Box 13 language, corresponding to Block 11d, will be removed in the final DD254.

Q74: Using the Attachment L-5 minimums for unnamed or contingent individuals will cause a large amount of positions to hit the $300k tripwire within the five year period, requiring an inordinate amount of justifications, according to Section M. In addition, the Computer & Information Systems Analyst - Senior labor category will most likely, for any Offeror, with unnamed personnel, exceed $300k in the Base Year. Will the Government please provide relief on the tripwire requirements or provide a blanket waiver for the subject Labor Category?

A74: The tripwire will not be removed or adjusted.

Q75: Can the Government confirm, based on the RFP definition of “Offeror” that Subcontractors "Entities" will not need to submit Total Compensation Plans in their proprietary packages?

A75: Please see updates in Amendment 0001.

Q76: Section L, page 112 requires the Offeror to "describe its process and execution plan in assisting the Government to accomplish the following two exercises:

(1) Create a functional baseline through decomposing and deriving functional requirements from a Defense or Program Unique specification while coordinating with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for the system being acquired. The Offeror shall describe the top-level approach for all functional requirements; however, for the purpose of this exercise, the Offeror may identify a subset of the functions in order to focus its response to paragraphs 4.2.1 through 4.2.3. (2) Create the functional baseline in exercise (1) model-based system engineering tools and methods. Section M, page 129 implies offerors will be assessed based on "proposed processes and approach to accomplish the tasks of (1) developing a functional baseline and (2) creating a model based system engineering digital environment to accomplish the functional baseline. The DRFP from May 2023 was requiring offerors to create a model-based system engineering digital environment, but that requirement was replaced with creating a functional baseline. This discrepancy creates a difficulty in properly addressing the Sample Task’s requirement. Will the Government please clarify the requirements to align Sections L & M with the preferred course of action?

A76: Please see updates in Amendment 0001.

Q77: Attachment L1, Tables CA-1 is encouraged to be submitted 14 days before the final submission of the proposal. As this section will be subject to final pricing submitted on the specified date on the SF-33, would the Government allow for any needed pricing changes to this table and would the Government like any amendments specified in red?

A77: The official proposal shall be submitted via PIEE. If the Offeror submits early Past Performance information and no changes are incorporated to the early information, it is not necessary to resubmit these documents with the official PIEE submission. If changes are incorporated, the revised/final information should be submitted in PIEE.

Indication of the changes may be done at the Offeror's discretion.

Q78: Even though BLS SOC codes are provided for all billets, the lack of the term professional for the other LCATS seems to indicate that those LCATS are SCA billets. To avoid any pricing confusion, will the Government please confirm that SCA does not apply to any of the labor categories?

A78: FAR Clause 52.222-41 will not be incorporated into this contract; therefore, SCA does not apply to any labor category.

Q79: Will the Government please confirm the Year 2 hours for Mathematical Scientist (Systems Specialist), Senior is 17,280 hours as opposed to 17,472 like it is in the other years?

A79: Hours are accurate as provided.

Q80: Per Volume 5 – Cost, Section 5.4 Labor hours on page 118 of 135 of the final RFP “For evaluation purposes, the Offeror shall propose the labor categories/hours as outlined in the charts below, which represents the anticipated level of effort hours per contract year. The actual hours per category required for this effort may vary during performance.” Is the Offeror to assume the stated labor categories and hours are for evaluation purposes only and the Offeror will be allowed to add additional labor categories for program management office (PMO) functional support to be in accordance with the Offeror’s disclosure statement at award?

A80: The Offeror should propose PMO or other functional support in accordance with their disclosure statement.

Q81: The SAM posting notice for N0042123R0007 shows DRAFT: Systems Engineering…although the documents are not identified as DRAFT. Should Offerors assume the reference to DRAFT on the notice is no longer applicable?

A81: Yes.

AMENDMENT 0002

This amendment includes changes made to the following:

- Section C, Paragraph 3.2.2 and 4.6.18;

- Section J, Attachment L5;

- Section L, Part B, Volume 3 and Volume 4, paragraph 4.1;

- Section M, Part III, B. Other Evaluation Definitions, Not Relevant, iv.

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS (Q) & GOVERNMENT ANSWERS (A)

Q1: The Cost Summary tab within Att_L5_Cost_Summary_Amend0001.xlsx contains columns for a 6-month Option to Extend (Columns V through X). In Section F - Deliveries or Performance of document RFP_N0042123R0007_Amend01, CLINS only go through 15 January 2029. Please confirm offerors are only to provide pricing for the five (5) years through 15 January 2029 as listed in the RFP and that offerors can delete Columns V through X in the Cost Summary tab of Att_L5_Cost_Summary_Amend0001.xlsx.

A1: The Government has removed Columns V through X referencing a 6-mo Option to Extend. Please see updated Attachment L5 in Amendment 0002.

Q2: Amendment 0001 clarifies that Volume 3 consists only of the L-3 attachment and Annex C. Please clarify where this requirement is to be addressed: "For each item under elements 3.1 through 3.6 listed below, the Offeror shall clearly indicate the contract reference(s) being used to demonstrate corporate experience or state “none” if experience with an item is not identified. Next, for each item that is applicable under elements 3.1 through 3.6, describe the actual work performed that relates to the respective item and cite the specific Annex C reference(s) that substantiates these claims."

A2: Please see Amendment 0002. Information should be provided within Volume 3.

Q3: In Amendment 0001, the Contract Management Approach included the addition of assuming, “all task orders will be performed at Patuxent River, MD” and, “8 senior systems engineers per task order.”

• The scenario also states, “30% of the workforce will be required to be on-site at Patuxent River, MD, 40% will be at the Contractor facility (see SOW 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.2.2) and are eligible for telework, and 30% will be at alternative sites and are eligible for telework (see SOW 3.1.2.1),” which is inconsistent with the added amendment 1 language that “all task orders will be performed at Patuxent River, MD.” Can the government please clarify where the work will be performed?

• The scenario also states, “Your company has been awarded a contract for 425 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) annually, which will support 50 different requiring offices through individual task orders.” Is the correct interpretation that there are 50 task orders with 8 senior systems engineers on each, meaning 400 of the 425 personnel being transitioned are senior systems engineers? If so, would the Government consider revising the contract management approach so that it is consistent with the level of effort for the IDIQ? If not, will the government clarify how many of the 50 task orders require 8 senior systems engineers so a clear total number of systems engineers out of the 425 are required to be addressed in the contract management scenario approach?"

A3: The Contract Management Approach specified is hypothetical. Minor updates can be found in Amendment 0002.

Q4: In Section B, descriptions for Labor CLINS 1001 - 1007 contain the sentence "NSP from CLIN 1000", but also include blanks for Unit Price, Amount, Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee and Total Est Cost + Fee in the same format as Item 1000. Similarly, ODC CLINS 1009 – 1015 contain the sentence “NSP from CLIN 1008.” As the provided Attachment L5 does not accommodate a breakout of costs by these CLINs, please confirm that no values are to be entered for CLINs 1001 – 1007 and CLINS 1009 – 1015.

A4: No Unit Price or Amount should be entered where CLINs are designated as NSP.

Q5: Per Section M, Part III.A.Definitions.A.Ratings, the customer has removed specifics regarding definitions of Breadth and Depth for interpreting CE for Performance Confidence Assessment rating evaluation – please redefine how Breadth and Depth apply to the end CE Performance Confidence Assessment rating ratings.

A5: Please see Section M, II, B for information on breadth and depth within the Corporate Experience evaluation.

Q6: At the end of Section C, paragraph 3.2.2 the following note appears: "* Key Personnel shall have appropriate security clearance at the time of proposal". For the Top Secret clearance level, please confirm that individuals with Top Secret - Eligible, Interim, Pending status are deemed to be compliant with this requirement.

A6: Please see updates in Amendment 0002.

Q7: Section C, Statement of Work para 3.2.2, Investigative Requirements, of RFP Amendment 0001 added a new asterisked note below the clearance requirements table stating that “key personnel shall have appropriate security clearance at time of proposal.” We believe this is response to Q&A 45. However, we do not believe this change adds clarity, but does add unintended inferences and burden. The inference, for example, is the 7 Senior Systems Engineer Key Personnel (Section L, Section 4.1, Key Personnel) are 7 of the 12 Senior Systems Engineers requiring Top Secret (SCI/SAP) clearances in SOW Section 3.2.2. While favoring the incumbents, this new requirement creates a significant undue burden on non-incumbent, small business offerors that have already completed the task of executing Contingent Offer Letters and Letters of Intent for our Key Personnel based on the Draft RFPs and the original Final RFP that did not have a TS (SCI/SAP) requirement for key personnel at time of proposal. RFP Amendment 01 now requires a TS (and SCI/SAP for most) clearance requirement for all but the Operations Manager and Operations Research Analyst key positions which seems like a very unreasonable change to RFP requirement effecting the 12 key personnel this late in the RFP and Proposal process. This new, inferred requirement for key personnel to have TS (SCI/SAP) at time of proposal will have ripple effects not only in our key personnel p[roposal compliance activities, that have already been completed, but also in the pricing strategy for all team members depending on where the replacement, TS cleared key personnel will come from. Personnel with current T5 or recent SSBI investigations can be briefed SAP/SCI upon TO program assignment. There is not adequate time between now and proposal due date to prepare to internally transfer or hire such highly qualified key personnel with current T5 investigations, active TS clearance on a contingent basis. Hiring contingent key personnel with very high levels of education, experience and technical capabilities within such a short period will be a significant hardship for small business offerors that are not the incumbent. We believe this requirement for TS (SCI/SAP) can be initiated during the transition phase and with no potential impact on the execution of the contract as SCI/SAP accesses will have to redone for the new contract, and a TS can be concurrently initiated for those that need it, and possibly support the program with interim TS. To allow adequate competition, we humbly request the clearance requirement for key personnel be set at SECRET.

A7: Please see updates in Amendment 0002.

Q8: On the Minimum Direct Labor Rates tab in Attachment L5, the Tactical Operations and Air/Weapons Specialist (Journeyman) lists a minimum rate of $52.11 ($108,385 annual salary) for Year 1 using BLS Code 53-2012 @ 50%, which is the estimate for “National” data and isn’t consistent with…