Q2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N0042126R1006
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document addressing 25 clarifications submitted by offerors in response to RFO N0042126R1006 for Naval Air Warfare Center - Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS) Reusable Architecture (SRA) services. The Q&A document resolves critical discrepancies in the solicitation documents, including corrections to deliverable timelines, RFO numbering, attachment references, labor hour requirements, and pricing instructions. Key corrections clarify that final deliverables are due within five business days of Government feedback; all proposals must be submitted under RFO N0042126R1006 through PIEE; Volume 1 Technical responses should use Attachments P1 and T2 (not T1); offerors must propose exact labor hours as outlined in Attachment L2 without discretion to reallocate across categories; and offerors shall NOT include FAR 52.217-8 labor or ODC pricing for extension periods. Additional corrections address missing CLINs in the Deliveries and Performance tables, clarification of Key Personnel versus Sample Task submission formats, updates to FAR references from 16.505 to 16.507-2, and confirmation that the Cybersecurity Workforce Qualification Matrix would be added to Section J as Attachment 20.
The document indicates that a revised DD254 with the correct RFO number would be provided either prior to solicitation closing as an amendment or as part of the awarded task order with no other changes. The Q&A confirms the Government's interpretation of education substitution requirements per the SLC Guide Version 2.0 and addresses technical corrections to cost workbook formulas and attachment cross-references. These clarifications were incorporated into Amendment 0001 and 0002 to the solicitation, with the proposal due date remaining unchanged at 01 April 2026. The responses indicate extensive revision to Attachments L1, M1, C1, C2, T1, and T2 to align with the answers provided.
View the file
Other files
Show all 37
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| SRA RFO N0042126R1006 - Questions & Answers | ||
| Questions | Responses | |
| 1 | Exhibit_A_CDRLs, Data Item A009, BLKS 7 and 8, and 11-13: BLKS 7 and 8 indicate that the final deliverable is due within five business days of receipt of Government feedback. However, BLKS 11, 12, and 13 indicate that Final is due within 10 business days of receipt of Government feedback. Is the final deliverable due 5 or 10 days after Goverment Feedback? | Exhibit A CDRL A009, BLK 7 has been updated to reflect adjudication will be in 5 days. |
| 2 | Att_L1_Section_L: Paragraph 4.1 says all volumes of the offer shall be submitted electronically through PIEE under RFO N0042125R3000. Shouldn' they be submitted under the RFP number N0042126R1006 instead of the stated RFO number? | Att L1, Paragraph 4.1, has been revised to incorporate RFO Number N0042126R1006 . |
| 3 | Att_L1_Section_L, Para 1.0 Volume 1: Technical- This paragraph states the contractor shall provide its response to Volume 2 - Technical within the following two documents. Key Personnel (Attachment P1) and Sample Task (Attachment T1). Should these be submitted as Volume 1 vice the Volume 2 listed? | Att L1, Part B, Paragraph 1.0, has been updated to state "Volume 1" instead of "Volume 2." |
| 4 | N0042126R1006 Final: The estimated composition of the total man-hours of direct labor table does not include labor hours for a 6 month extension in reference to FAR 52.217-8. Should there be labor hours included for the potential extension period since the offeror is being asked to bid the cost of ODCs (travel and materials) for the extension period in accordance with Attachment L1 Paragraph 2.5.2? | The estimated total man-hours in Att L2 Government Labor Hours does not include estimated hours for the FAR 52.217-8 extension. The column for estimated Not to Exceed ODC Costs (Travel and Material) for FAR 52.217-8 extension has been eliminated in Att L1, Part B Paragraph 2.5.2, table. |
| 5 | N0042126R1006 Final: Should additional line items be included in the Supplies and Services Table for an extension period in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, especially since ODC's are requested to be bid for an exentsion period in accordance with Attachment L1 Paragraph 2.5.2? | See response to question 4 above. Offerors' proposals shall not include FAR 52.217-8 Labor or ODC pricing. |
| 6 | N0042126R1006 Final: In the Deliveries and Performance tables there appears to be missing line items and some of the Period of Performance dates don't reference the associated option year timeframes. Would this just be administrative errors or is it accurate information? | N0042126R1006 Final, Deliveries or Performance have been updated to include missing Option Year CLINs Period of Performance dates. |
| 7 | Att_L1_Section_L: Vol 1, Sec 1.1 Key Personnel instructs to use Attachment T1 format only, but T1 refers to Sample Tasks. Should it say Attachment P1? | Att_L1_Section_L: Part B Vol 1 has been updated to show that Key Personnel should utilize Attachment T1 and Sample Tasks should utilize Attachment T2. |
| 8 | Att_L1_Section_L: Vol 1, Sec 1.2 Sample Task instructs to use Attachment T2 format only, but T2 doesn't exist. Should it say Attachment T1? | See response to question 7 above. |
| 9 | Att_L1_Section_L: References Key Personnel labor categories listed in SOW Paragraph 3.4.2. Key Personnel are listed in SOW Paragraph 3.4.1.1. Paragraph 3.4.2 lists non-SCA/non-CSWF experience level definitions. | This should state Paragraph 3.4.1.1. Att L1, Part B paragraph 1.1.1 has been updated. |
| 10 | Att_L1_Section_L: References Attachment T1 for demonstrating Key Personnel meet qualifications stated in SOW Paragraph 3.4. Should it say Attachment P1? | See response to question 7 above. |
| 11 | Att_L1_Section_L: Vol 1, Sec 1.2 Sample Task instructs to use Attachment T2 format only, but T2 doesn't exist. Should it say Attachment T1? | |
| See response to question 7 above. | ||
| 12 | Att_L1_Section_L: References Section L, Part C, Paragraph 3.1.3 which doesn't exist. | Paragraph 2.3.3 in Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.3.3 has been updated to state "...(see Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1.3)." |
| 13 | Att_L1_Section_L: States FBLRs may be subject to tripwire in Section M, Part C, Paragraph 3.5. Section M (presumably Attachment M1 Section M doesn't include a Part C or a Paragraph 3.5. | Att L1, Part B, Paragraph 2.3.3 has been updated to state "...labor tripwire identified in Attachment M1 Section M, Part B, Paragraph 2.3." |
| 14 | Att_L1_Section_L: Advises that if a FBLR exceeds the tripwire, provide a justification in Attachment C2 Part XI. Attachment C2 Part XI is Maximum Pass-Through Rate. Should this refer to Part X. Fully Burdened Labor Rate? | Att L1, Part B, Paragraph 2.3.3 has been updated to state "...Contractors and Subcontractors shall provide a justification in Attachment C2, Part IX." Additionally, Att C2 Cost Reimbursable Narrative has been revised to change all references to Section L, Part C, to Section L, Part B. |
| 15 | Att_L1_Section_L: Section 2.5.1 directs offerors to propose LCATs and hours "as outlined in Section J Attachment L2 – Labor Hours." Must offers propose exactly the hours in Attachment L2, or do we have discretion to reallocate across categories? The phrase "shall propose the labor categories and hours by location as outlined in" indicates we need to adhere to Att L2, but this conflicts with the Sample Task instruction (Section 1.2.1.g) which directs offerors to independently "identify the appropriate labor categories" and "provide estimated hours required per labor category." | Attachment L1, Part B Paragraph 2.5.1 states, "For evaluation purposes, the Contractor shall propose the labor categories and hours by location as outlined in Section J Attachment L2 - Labor Hours." Offerors must propose the exact hours in Attachment L2. The Sample Task instruction (1.2.1.g) requests offerors to identify appropriate labor categories and estimated hours required per labor category only with respect to the Sample Task outlined in Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 1.2. |
| 16 | Att_L1_Section_L: Offeror is directed to submit a written response to the Sample Task in Paragraphs 1.2.1.1. Should this refer to Paragraph 1.2.1? Paragraph 1.2.1.1 does not exist. | Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 1.2 has been revised so that it references Paragraph 1.2.1 instead of 1.2.1.1. |
| 17 | Att_T1_Sample_Tasks: Refers to Attachment L1, Part C, Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3. Attachment L1 does not include a Part C. | Attachment T2 has been updated to reference Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 1.2, as Attachment L1 does not include a Part C. |
| 18 | Att_T1_Sample_Tasks: Offeror is drected to "Provide your response to Sample Tasks One (1) and Two (2) in Attachment L1, Part C, Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3." Attachment L1 only references a single Sample Task under Section 1.2 Sample Task, with the specific sample task under Section 1.2.1. Was the "Alternate SRA Development" paragraph at the beginning of Att_L1_Section_L, Part B, Page 7 intended to be a separate sample task? | Attachment T2 has been updated to reference a single Sample Task located at paragraph 1.2 in Attachment L1. The paragraph referencing an Alternate SRA Development is intended to be a part of one Sample Task under paragraph 1.2.1. |
| 19 | Att_01_Statement_of_Work: The substitution chart says "High School Diploma/GED diploma and/or a relevant technical certification plus six years' additional work experience may be substituted for a bachelor's degree." How is the Government interpreting the "and/or"? As written, it can be interpreted 3 different ways. | Per the SLC Guide Ver 2.0, this is the standard language that is required within each specific requirement, with only the years allowable to insert per Government's discretion. The intent is to substitutee the bachelor's degree for more field experience. The Government is interpreting this as High School Diploma/(GED) OR Technical Certification. |
| 20 | Attachment M1, Section M: It is our understanding that FAR 16.505 has been revised to 16.507-2 per FAR Overhaul. Should this be corrected in Section M , paragraph 2.0? | This has been corrected in Att M1, Paragraph 2.0, to FAR 16.507-2. |
| 21 | Attachment L1, Section L, paragraph 4.1: Referenced RFP Number should be N0042126R1006. | See response to question 2 above. |
| 22 | Attachment C1, Cost Reimburrsable Workbook: The worksheet entitled Hours Check - FOR GOVT USE has a formula in hidden column Q. Would you please confirm that we should not be proposing on estimated hours for FAR 52.217-08 extension and, if not, should the formula be deleted in that column so TRUE and FALSE statements "calculate" appropriately? | The Government confirms that offerors should not propose on estimated hours for FAR 52.217-8 extension. Additionally, formula in Column G of "Hours Check - FOR GOVT USE" has been deleted. |
| 23 | Attachent 06, DD254, has a different solicitation number. Will this be corrected? | The solicitation number for this procurement effort was changed recently due to a move to a new contract writing system. The Government is anticipating gettng an updated draft DD254 prior to this solicitation closing so that we can release as an amendment. |
| 24 | When will the Government provide the updated DD254 with the correct RFO Number? | If the DD254 cannot be updated prior to solicitation closing, a revised DD54 with the correct RFO Number will be part of the awarded task order. Please note no other changes will be made to the DD254 posted with the RFO except the RFO Number. |
| 25 | The Government mentions the Cybser Security Workforce Designations in ATT 01 SOW, paragraph 3.4.3. Please provide the required Matrix. | The CSWF Qualification Matrix has been added to the RFO (N0042126R10060002), Section J, Att 20. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .