VI_Q&A_1.docx

Amendment 0001 Questions and Answers N32205-19-R-2001 10/15/2018

Question 1: Does the Government requirement that all VI specialists’ complete military-sponsored VI courses essentially require all contract VI specialists to be former military?

Answer 1: The two-day mandatory training course detailed in Section 12 of the PWS does not need to be completed prior to award and contractor employees are not required to be former military. Training shall be coordinated between the Government and Contractor after award and prior to commencement of performance under the contract. MSC anticipates award on or about 01 January 2019. The period of performance will commence on or about 01 February 2019. This will allow 30 days for the contractor to be properly manned with qualified and trained employees and to complete all other actions necessary to start performance under the contract on the first day of the period of performance.

Question 2: Couldn’t deploying 80 photographers at once by February 1, 2019 be problematic just by sheer numbers?

Answer 2: CLIN 0001 (10 VI specialists) and CLIN 0006 (travel) are the only CLINs that are not options in the base year of performance. CLINS 0002-0005 are options for additional VI specialists that may be exercised, if required, in accordance with FAR 52.217-9.

Question 3: Will the Government consider photography training or degrees from non-military institutions for the VI specialists?

Answer 3: The VI Specialists shall meet the requirements detailed in Section 13 of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). These qualifications have been updated to incorporate more training/degrees available to non-military personnel.

Question 4: Would the Government consider permitting direct military VI management experience to take the place of the MBA/PMP requirement?

Answer 4: Yes. Section 13 of the PWS has been revised accordingly.

Question 5: The requirements for the VI specialists include intelligence gathering, significant VI capture and processing technical expertise and newsgathering, among others. Given the complexity of the personnel requirement, would the Government consider a Best Value approach instead of LPTA.

Answer 5: Lowest Price Technically Acceptable is still considered a Best Value approach. MSC will not be using Best Value Trade-off for this requirement.

Question 6: Will the government please clarify the NAICS/SB size standard for this solicitation? Based on the nature and extent of shipboard requirements, and potential overall value of this solicitation would NAICS 541330 be acceptable?

Answer 6: No. NAICS 541330, Engineering Services, does not reflect the services encompassed in this procurement.

Question 7: On unnumbered page 26 of 64, paragraph 2.4) iii. states, “Each resume must demonstrate that the Key Personnel meets the minimum position requirements listed in the Table in Section 13 of the PWS.” However, Section 13 does not contain a table, but states, “The Contractor shall provide the resume of individual responsible for the overall management of VI Specialist program (Project Manager).” Then it goes on to list minimum qualifications. Has this paragraph taken the place of the intended table and if so, is the Project Manager the only key position that requires a resume for the Proposal submission?

Answer 7: Yes. The paragraph has taken the place of the intended table. The referenced wording in FAR 52.212-1 has been changed to reflect this. Yes. The Project Manager is the only key position that requires a resume for the proposal submission.

Question 8: The Price Proposal Spreadsheet only addresses visual information specialists. Will the government be updating the spreadsheet to include the Project Manager?

Answer 8: The CLINS are firm-fixed price to provide the Government the number of VI specialists specified in the CLIN Description. The proposed price should include all costs associated with providing the number of specialists. This would include the Project Manager costs along with any other associated costs (except travel).