Question_and_Answer_Matrix_-_Afloat_Ops.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Attached to
- C4S Afloat Operations Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N32205-18-R-1015
About this file
Questions and Aswers
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N32205-18-R-1015_Amendment_4.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amendment_3_-_N32205-18-R-1015.docx | DOCX document | |
| Questions_and_Answers_Matrix_Amndmt_3_07182018_v2.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Question_and_Answer_Matrix_v3.2_-_Afloat_Ops_-_07052018.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Inventory.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N3220518R1015_Amendment_0002.docx | DOCX document | |
| Combined_CDRLs_v3.pdf | ||
| Attachment_1_DD254_v2.pdf | ||
| Amendment_1_released.docx | DOCX document | |
| referencees_combined.pdf | ||
| Attachment_1_DD254.pdf | ||
| Combined_CDRLs.pdf | ||
| Attachment_5_-_Non-Disclosure_Agreement.docx | DOCX document | |
| N32205-18-R-1015_C4S_Afloat_Ops_RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_2_Price_Proposal_Spreadsheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 15
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Paragraph/section | Contractor Question/Comment | Government Response |
| PWS 22 Work Week | Does the statement “the contract does not allow for the payment of overtime” simply mean that only the hourly fixed rate applies vice any overtime premium rate? Given the invoice submission requirements for this FFP award, which may include timesheet data, we want to ensure we understand the government’s position on this given there is a high probability overtime will be required in execution. | Correct, the Government does not intend on pricing overtime rates. Rates proposed are for estimating purposes at the task order level and fair and reasonableness determination. Invoices will be submitted based on the firm fixed price proposed at the task order level. This is not a labor hours contract. |
| PWS 5.9 Travel | Will a Cost Reimbursable CLIN be made available to accommodate the large volume of travel that will be required on this contract? Based on Paragraph 5.9, there is a significant travel requirement; however, the trips are not itemized. | No. Travel will be paid based on actuals as per paragraph 1 of section 5.9 and information required per section 5.9. |
| PWS 5.9 Travel | How will the government require travel to be priced? Will a plug amount be made available for all travel with the understanding that a Cost Reimbursable CLIN will be necessary given the volatile nature of travel costs depending on the advanced notice received and market conditions at the time of booking? | All CLINs will be firm fixed price. Travel will have a separate CLIN with a not to exceed amount. A plug number has been added to the pricing spreadsheet for travel and material. These will be negotiated at the task order level. |
| Sub factor 1 - Organizational Experience Page 48 of 102 | Question: The PWS areas identified under Sub factor 1 for narratives are: |
(a) Maintenance and Sustainment (PWS paragraph 7)
(b) Modernization (PWS paragraph 8)
(c) Equipment/Asset Management for Maintenance, Sustainment and Modernization (PWS paragraph 9)
(d) Network Operations Centers (NOCs) (PWS Paragraph 9)
| These cited paragraph numbers starting with Paragraph 8 do not align with the paragraph in the SOW. For instance cited paragraph 8 "Modernization" under Sub factor 1 is actually "In-Service Engineering Activity (ISEA) Support" under Paragraph 8 in the SOW. | Paragraphs have been updated. | ||
| Pricing Spreadsheet | Will the government consider providing directed labor categories and the associated LOE for each within the pricing model, for each contract year? Given this historical data exists through the incumbent contract deliverables/invoices, and the general nature of the services desired, this would seemingly keep offerors on a more level playing field from a price analysis standpoint and it would maximize competition by ensuring an offeror with a superior technical solution isn’t pushed out of the competitive range by a simple misinterpretation of how certain scope elements translate from a basis of estimate standpoint. | Information provided on the attached pricing sheet. | |
| Volume II - Past Performance | Will the government please consider allowing up to five (5) contract references (vice the current 3) for this volume to give offerors the chance to provide the strongest response possible? Given the size, scope, and complexity of this effort, doing so will allow offerors to leverage a more robust portfolio of past performance that most closely aligns to the requirements of this effort. This will also give the government more insight into the proposed team’s ability to execute this program. | The government has updated Volume II to include up to five (5) past performance references | |
| NAICS | The RFP notice that just came out still shows the 541513 NAICS code with a size standard of $27.5M which can impact MSC's ability to delivery on it's mission. By using 541513 and awarding a contract to a business that is below $27.5M in annual revenue, the MSC Afloat contract will almost double the annual revenue of the winning bidder – this is a very heavy lift for any small business and could potentially introduce problems/delays into the program risking readiness and mission. Further, MSC is limiting themselves to a much smaller group of contractors and that group will have even less experience and qualifications to meet the requirements of SUBFACTOR 1 where the prime must provide direct experience in three (3) of the four (4) key PWS areas. By using a smaller size standard, the experience of the small business prime is questionable. If the MSC is set on using the smaller size standard, we respectfully request MSC modify the language in SUBFACTOR 1 to require the prime have experience in two (2) of the four (4) key PWS areas. | The Government will keep the NAICS 541513. This NAICS is the best fit to the requirement as this is an IT verses an engineering effort. Given the complexity and scope of this requirement evaluation of three out of four key PWS areas mitigate risk for the Government. Therefore we will not be making any changes in this area. |
GE Comment Resolution List
File details come from the government source that posted it.