N3943019R2126_0001-0006_(Conformed_Copy).pdf

CODE

(Hour)

PAGE(S)

until 05:00 PM local time 22 Jul 2019

X

A X B X C X D

EX

X

G F 115 - 123

124 - 128 X H 129 christopher.wolf2@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)

1 134

(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.

N39430 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

See Item 7

9. Sealed offers in original and 1 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 conditions contained in this solicitation.

10. FOR INFORMATION

CALL:

A. NAME (NO COLLECT CALLS)

CHRISTOPHER S. WOLF (805) 982-3953

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOLICITATION/ CONTRACT FORM

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/ COSTS

1 - 35 36 - 37

X I CONTRACT CLAUSES

DESCRIPTION/ SPECS./ WORK STATEMENT X

PACKAGING AND MARKING

38 - 64

J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

X K

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND

OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 68 - 72 X

SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) 73 - 76 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

77 - 113

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

NAVFAC EXWC

CODE ACQ / NAVAL BASE VENTURA COUNTY

1100 23RD AVE BLDG 1100

PORT HUENEME CA 93043-4301

FAX:

TEL:

FAX:

TEL:

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

SOLICITATION

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NO.5. DATE ISSUED

22 May 2019

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

[ X ]

3. SOLICITATION NO.

N3943019R2126

Section SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

AMENDMENT 1

a) Provide Government answers to the following contractor’s questions:

Q1: Form 33 does not specify if it a set-aside contract. If yes, please let us know the set-aside classification, if any.

A1: SF 33 Now reflects change that this contract is set aside for 8(a) firms only. Please see revised section L.1 Stating “This solicitation is for a Multiple Award, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract set aside for 8(a) participants.”

Q2: The due date box is blank. Please let us know the due date to submit proposal.

A2: Please note the NECO announcement indicates a solicitation close date of 8 July 2019 by 1500 PST. This has been included in section L.6 “Submission of Offers” to say “The proposals shall be submitted to the cited address below no later than 8 July 2019 by 1700 PST.”

Q3: Please clarify the applicable NAICS code. The FBO posting indicates 541512 while the solicitation document indicates 541519.

A3: The NAICS code has been updated to reflect the correct NAICS code selected “541512”. Changes to the solicitation are in clauses 52.204-8 and 52.219-1.

Q4: Please clarify if there is any difference between the five major subsections identified in the pre-solicitation and what has been advertised in the formal RFP.

A4: No changes have been made to the five major subsections from the pre-solicitation to formal RFP. These five major sub-sections are located in Section C 3.2 Performance Requirements.

b) Portions of this Solicitations were altered as follows:

1. Block 9 of the SF33 was completed.

2. In Section C, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, Air Travel, and Non-Reimbursable Travel were removed from 2.7 Travel / Temporary (TDY).

3. Changed and corrected NAICS Code in Section I, clauses 52.204-8 and 52.219-1 from 541219 to 541219.

4. Section L.1 now states, “This solicitation is for a Multiple Award, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract set aside for small business 8(a) participants.”

AMENDMENT 2

Amendment 2

Q1: I would like to see if I could offer our products and services to the current incumbent and to the bidders. Do you have contact information for these companies I can have?

A1: The current incumbents and their contact information are as follows:

VSolvit C.J. SETO SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC

4171 Market Street, Suite 2, 2300 Knoll Drive Unit G Ventura, CA 93003 Ventura, CA 93003 Inquiries: info@vsolvit.com Phone: 805.644.1214 Phone: 805.277.4705 Fax: 805.654.9421 Fax: 805.409.4757

Q2: Page 71 of 80, Section L.7 (1) Factor 1, Technical Approach, Para 2 of the Solicitation: Do the copies of our CMMI SVC Level III and CMMI DEV Level III appraisal and/or certificate count towards the 44-page count limit on our Technical response?

A2: No, certification copies do not count as part of the 44-page limit.

Q3: Page 71, Section L.5 – Content of Proposal, Paragraph “d” of the Solicitation: The RFP specifies a general 12-point font size for text. Will the Government allow the Offeror to use:

10-point font for tables?

8-point font size for graphics?

A3: The Government will allow the Offerors to use 10-point font for tables and 8-point font for graphics.

Q4: Page 60 of 80, Section J – List of Document, Exhibits and Other Attachments, Appendix: This section references three Appendices (Business Systems, acronyms, and Commercial and Industrial Certification Utilization. These appendices do not appear to be included in the RFP documents. Can the Government please provide or clarify?

A4: Appendices (A, B, and C) on Page 60, Section J of the Solicitation have been removed.

Q5: Page 40 of 80, Section H.8 No Sofa Sponsor, of the Solicitation: The referenced paragraph indicates that contractors will not be sponsored under the SOFA Treaty. However, Page 49 of 80, Section I – Contract Clauses in the Solicitation includes 252.225-7976, Contractor Personnel Performing in Japan, which implies that SOFA will be applicable to contractors working in Japan. Can the Government please confirm?

A5: Section H.8 No SOFA Sponsor on Page 40 of 80 was removed from the Solicitation. DFARS Contractor Personnel Performing in Japan (DEVIATION 2018-O0019) (AUG 2018) should be used for contractor personnel performing in Japan.

Q6: Page 5 of 80, Section C.1.3. Scope, Paragraph 2 of Amendment 0001: states in part that the contractor may be required to possess one or more of the following credentials at the individual task order level:

ISO 9001:2000

ISO 9001:2008

CMMI Level III (or higher) – Dev, etc.

Are these credentials mandatory for the Prime or will the government accept these credentials from the proposed team composition on the individual task order response(s)?

A6: Credentials from the Prime and team members will be considered; However, credentials by Prime members may be rated higher than the team members.

Q7: Page 39 of 40, Section L.7 (4), Factor 4, Past Performance of Amendment 0001, Past Performance states:

Offerors are required to submit past performance information for no more than three projects.

What is the specific number of past performance references required by the prime vs proposed subcontrator(s)?

A7: There is no specific number or mix of past performance references required by the prime vs proposed subcontractor(s).

Q8: Page 38 of 40, Secion L.7 (1) Factor 1, Technical Approach of Amendment 0001: "Offerors shall also describe relevant Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) or equivalent model-based process maturity certification. As a part of this description, offerors shall identify the granting organization, applicable model, level achieved and provide a copy of the appraisal and/or certificate"

To maximize participation and competition, would the Government accept Subcontractor certification in CMMI in lieu of Prime certification?

A8: Yes, however Prime certification may be rated higher than subcontractor certification.

Q9: Page 5 of 40, Section C.2.3.2.2 Monthly Contract Status Report of Amendment 0001: “Earned Value Management metrics when applicable.” Is EVMS a requirement for the IDIQ, or are EVMS requirements limited to the individual task order level?

A9: EVMS requirements are limited to, and will be specified at the task order level.

Q10: Page 27 of 40, Section C.4.2.2 Technology of Amendment 0001: “Due to the emerging nature of this acquisition request, the government cannot anticipate all technology requirements.” Will contractors be permitted to add subcontractors at the task order level to accommodate emerging requirements?

A10: Yes, contractors will be permitted to add subcontractors at the task order level to accommodate emerging requirements.

Q11: Page 37 of 40, Section L.7 (1) Factor 1, Technical Approach of Amendment 0001: We believe it will be difficult for most 8(a) businesses to meet the CMMI certification requirement, which may impact the competitiveness of this acquisition. Will the Government:

a) Consider removing or revising this requirement?

b) Allow offerors to meet the certification after award?

c) Confirm that certification requirements can be met through teaming arrangements (i.e., a subcontractor with the appropriate certification).

A11: For questions A, B, and, C: CMMI is not absolutely required; CMMI and any other certifications that support the functional areas will be used in evaluating an offeror’s ability to perform the requirements.

Certification through teaming arrangements will be considered as well as equivalent and/or other certifications will be considered. Prime certifications will be rated higher than team member certification.

Q12: Page 37, Section L.7 (1) Factor 1, Technical Approach of Amendment 0001: Will the Government consider ISO 9001:2015 certification in lieu of a CMMI certification?

A12: Yes, the solicitation includes options for equivalent or alternate certifications.

Q13: Page 71 of 80, Section L.5, Paragraph d. of the Solicitation: Do Graphs, Charts and Tables also have to meet the 12-point font requirement or can they have a smaller font limit?

A13: The Government will allow the Offeror to use 10-point font for tables and 8-point font for graphic.

Q14: The solicitation references multiple locations including OCONUS sites. Yet, the pricing sheet only allows for one bare rate per labor category. Is one location the primary place of performance and all the other sites TDY locations? If not, shouldn’t there be a separate rate for each location?

A14: The location referenced in Amendment 0001 of the Solicitation, Page 8 of 40, Section C.2.7 Travel / Temporary duty (TDY) are indeed travel locations and not primary place(s) of performance.

Q15: Page 5 of 80, Section C.1.3. Scope, Paragraph 2 of the Solicitation: Regarding the CMMI potential requirements at the individual task order level and description of said certification on Page 71 of 80, Section L.7

(1) Factor 1, Technical Approach Paragraph 2 of the Solicitation: Is CMMI a hard requirement? If so, must it be held by the prime contractor or can one of the subcontractors on the team hold the certification for the team?

A15: CMMI is not absolutely required; CMMI and any other certifications that support the functional areas will be used in evaluating an offeror’s ability to perform the requirements.

Q16: Page 70 of 80, Section L.3 Evaluation Methodology, Factor 4 Past Performance of the Solicitation: Is the subcontractor’s past performance acceptable for factor 4?

A16: Yes, subcontractor(s) past performance in acceptable for Factor 4 on Page 70 of 80, Section L.3 Evaluation Methodology of the Solicitation.

b) Portions of this Solicitation were altered as follows:

1. Page 60, Section J, all Appendices (A, B, and C) were removed from the Solicitation.

2. Page 40 of 80, Section H.8 No SOFA Sponsor was removed from the Solicitation.

3. Page 40 of 80, Section H.9 Travel was changed to Section H.8.

4. Page 42 of 80, Section H.10 Authority was change to Section H.9.

5. Page 42 of 80 Section H.11 Service Contracts General was changed to H.10

AMENDMENT 3

Portions of this Solicitation were altered as follows:

1. Updated the NECO phone number for Christopher Wolf from (805) 982-4217 to (805) 982-3953.

2. Page 71 of 80, Section L.6 Submission to Offers, now states: “Submit one (1) original and one (1) copy of your price proposal and (1) original and (4) copies of your technical proposal to the cited address below no later than 8 July 2019 at 5:00 PM PST.”

AMENDMENT 4

Amendment 4

Q1: Pages 72 and 73 of 80, Section L.7 (4) Factor 4, Past Performance of the Solicitation:

does not seem to give instructions for a Past Performance Narrative.

How do you want me to tell you the three contracts that we feel are indicative of our performance and would like to use the CPARs from these three contracts?

In our case we intend to use three past performance cites that have CPARS.

Should I provide a short narrative and then include the CPARS as attachments?

Or, would you like a short narrative and then the you obtain the CPARs through the system?

A1: Please refer back to solicitation: “IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS

AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A

COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment J-2) is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project/contract the offeror includes in its proposal. AN OFFEROR

SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.”

A narrative is not necessary.

Q2: Page 38 of 40, Section L.7 (3) Factor 3, Safety of Amendment 0001: Requires submittal of Safety Data Sheet/Safety Narrative for EMR, DART and TRC Rates. OSHA exempts NAICS 5415 from Safety reporting requirements and considers 5415 as a low-hazard industry.

As this is an IT related procurement, it is requested that this requirement be removed in its entirety due to its non-applicability under this assigned NAICS code.

A2: The Government will not remove the Safety requirement.

Q3: Page 35, Section L.1 Introduction, Amendment 0001: Each mentor-protégé joint venture (JV) is a unique entity with a unique managing member and unique CAGE code/DUNS number. Teaming with other companies is a common practice. While usually the teaming is exclusive, on occasions the teaming is non-exclusive.

Will the Government penalize JVs (by rejecting their bids) if the two JVs have overlapping subcontractors or teaming partners or member companies?

Will two separate offers from two distinct JVs be rejected if the two distinct JVs have one common company who is the non-managing/partner member in both JVs?

A3: The Government will amend the RFP to add FAR 52.203-2, Certificate of Independent Price Determination, to Section I as a clause to be incorporated by reference. This clause will apply not only to this source selection, but also to every Multiple Award task order source selection. Sharing any pricing information or discussing whether or not to submit a proposal between multiple award contractors (“prime offerors”) would be inconsistent with the requirements of this provision.

There is no legal restriction on engaging a joint venture competitor's minority JV member to act as a subcontractor, but it is likely to generate a conversation on the issue of responsibility for either party to the arrangement on how the arrangement would work and not violate the Certificate of Independent Price Determination.

It is difficult to answer such questions in general terms because there are too many possible variations; in all instances, however, all parties to such an inter-locking arrangement have to be able to make that certification in good faith.

Please contact Mr. Christopher Wolf regarding a specific arrangement being proposed, and the agency will work with the offeror to develop a position and a response before the time for receipt of proposals.

Q4: Page 72, Section L.7 (3) Factor 3, Para “c.”, Solicitation: The RFP states that Factor 3, Safety of Volume I is limited to two pages of narrative.

Is this inclusive of data and trend charts or are these two pages for the description of the safety assurance process?

A4: Two pages Max.

Q5: Two references imply the need of eligibility for and maintenance of Secret Clearances:

Page 21, Section C4.1.1: “All contractor and subcontractor employees providing service and support on this contract are required to be U.S. citizens and must be able to obtain and maintain Secret clearance eligibility"; and

Page 23, Section C.4.1.3: "Per SECNAV M-5510.30, CACs will not be issued to any contractor/sub-contractor supporting this contract, until they have the appropriate favorably adjudicated T3 or equivalent or higher background investigation as required by this PWS with a minimum of Secret eligibility."

Can the Government confirm that the 8(a) Offeror must have a minimum facility clearance level of Secret at the time of proposal submission – in order to receive a Prime award and to support task orders?

If a facility clearance at the Secret or above level is not required at proposal submission, can the Government explain how an awardee without a facility clearance can effectively support task orders under the Multiple-Award IDIQ, if the awardee cannot process its own personnel clearance?

A5: This is an unclassified contract so a facility clearance level is not required. Only the individual employees are required to have a clearance eligibility (background check).

Clearance requests will be submitted to the government security office for processing.

Q6: Pages 72 - 73, Section L.7 (4) Factor 4, Past Performance: To ensure that the Government receives offers from qualified 8(a) Offerors, would the Government consider incorporating the following requirements for Offerors with teaming agreements:

(1) A majority of past performance references must come from the Prime (since the Prime is required to perform the majority of the work); and

(2) When averaging/accounting for all three aspects of the past performance evaluation - more weight will be applied to the Prime past performance references than those coming from the Subcontractor.

(3) When averaging/accounting for all three aspects of the past performance evaluation - more weight will be applied to having multiple applicable prime past performance references (with a maximum of three) - e.g. three qualifying past performance will be rated more favorably than one or two qualifying past performances?

RESERVED. WILL BE ANSWERED IN AMENDMENT 5.

Q7: Pages 72 – 73, Section L.7 (4) Factor 4, Past Performance: Are Offerors required or encouraged to summarize relevant past performances anywhere in Vol. I – Technical Proposal OTHER THAN Block 4 of Att. J-2 PPQ?

A7: Must stick to the instructions and page maximums.

Q8: Page 70, Section L.1 states: "the Government intends to award up to five contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offerors whole proposals represent the best value ..."; and Page 75, Section M.1.4 states: "…all technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined are approximately equal to price."

When all non-price factors (technical and past performance) combined are of equal importance to price, it seems to indicate price is the most important evaluation factor, much like an LPTA type of evaluation. Given that some of the work is complex such as cloud and the associated modernization efforts, it seems that best value is particularly important. Can the Government confirm that the evaluation will be conducted on a best value trade off basis?

And if so, would the Government consider providing equal weighting to technical, past performance and pricing factors in the evaluation?

A8: The Government confirms that the evaluation will be conducted on a Best Value Trade Off basis. The Government will not provide equal weighting to Technical, Past Performance, and Pricing factors. The weighting of the evaluation factors will remain as stated on Page 75 of 80, Section M.1 Basis of Award of the Solicitation.

Q9: Page 75, Section M.1.1. provides the Government the authority to determine the number of proposals to consider within the competitive range, and to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range. Even with adequate price competition (under FAR 15.403-1), the four price analysis techniques listed in the referenced on Page 80, M.4 (5) Factor 5 Price appear to invite a broad range of bids making it difficult for the Government to discern legitimate offerors capable of providing qualified staff at the bid price.

If price remains the most important evaluation factor will the Government consider publishing the competitive range?

A9: The Government will not publish the competitive range, each offeror who is or is not in the competitive range will be notified. Competitive range is determined on the basis of the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors. The contracting officer might limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Q10: Page 75, Section M.1.1. provides the Government the authority to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range and also to determine the number of proposals to consider within that range; and (Page 80, M.4 (5) Factor 5 Price) discusses techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

Can the Government confirm that, if the Contractor Officer determines that the number of proposals received exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, then a competitive range will be established prior to non-price factors (technical and past performance) being evaluated?

A10: Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a).

Q11: Page 73, Section L.7 (5) Factor 5, Price, Paragraph “c”, (i) Schedule of prices requires offerors to “submit completed schedule of price (Attachment J-1 of RFP)...This attachment requires the offeror to propose hourly rates for the labor category indicated.” The labor categories listed in Attachment J-1 appear to be titles only with no supporting definition of labor category requirements.

Can the Government please provide the following:

(1) An LCAT breakdown between contractor and Government sites (as the SOW requires work at both the contractor and on-site/Government facilities, it will be helpful to have an idea of what percentage is preferred to be onsite);

(2) An LCAT breakdown between cleared and non-cleared positions; and

(3) An LCAT breakdown between Senior, Mid and Junior levels for each LCAT?

A11:

1) No, Offerors are requested to provide proposal-using LCATS they think are best.

2) All Key Personnel need to meet clearance level.

3) No breakdown between Senior/Mid/Junior is requested.

Q12: Pages 72 and 73, Section L.7 (4) Factor 4, Past Performance: We have a relevant past performance reference currently supporting NITC ECITS requirements.

Would the Government accept a PPQ (Attachment J-2) for this reference that has less than 12 months of performance against it?

A12: Yes, It is at the discretion of the Offeror to submit a reference that has less than 12 months of performance against it, but the Period of Performance could impact the relevancy score.

Q13: We are trying to reconcile the apparent conflict associated with the Government's requirement for contractors to work in Japan per Original Solicitation, Page 5, OCONUS locations and Page 49, FAR 252.225-7976 Contractor Personnel Performing in Japan (DEVIATION 2018-O0019) and the inclusion on Page 40 Section H.8 NO SOFA SPONSOR.

We have never seen this before on prior contracts requiring work in Japan and we are concerned about how it will impact contract performance. Per Section H.8 the requirement for the contractor to "inform itself regarding the requirements to legally work in the applicable country and take all steps required to comply with local law" seems to put an undue burden on small businesses.

Would the government confirm its reasoning and intent for requiring contractors to work in Japan, but not sponsor them?

A13: Page 3 of 9, Summary of Changes, Question 5 of Amendment 0002 states: “Section H.8 No SOFA Sponsor on Page 40 of 80 was removed from the Solicitation. DFARS Contractor Personnel Performing in Japan (DEVIATION 2018-O0019) (AUG 2018) should be used for contractor personnel performing in Japan.”

Q14: In the past on NAVFAC EXWC, NAVFAC Atlantic, and NAVFAC Pacific IDIQ Information Technology (IT) competitions, NAVFAC has established a precedent such that a firm who is a minority partner of an SBA 8(a) Mentor/Protégé Agreement (MPA) Joint Venture (JV) has been allowed to team as an IT subcontractor to another Prime Offeror. The Prime Offeror would have no common ownership or affiliation with said MPA JV minority partner serving who would serve as a team subcontractor under a submitted Teaming Agreement and Subcontracting Agreement.

Please confirm our understanding such a Teaming Arrangement is acceptable given the result would create a binding relationship between the Prime Offeror and the Subcontractor who have no common ownership or affiliation. Such a Teaming Arrangement would also result in increased competition, which is always in the best interest of the Government and taxpayer.

A14: The Government will amend the RFP to add FAR 52.203-2, Certificate of Independent Price Determination, to Section I as a clause to be incorporated by reference. This clause will apply not only to this source selection, but also to every Multiple Award task order source selection. Sharing any pricing information or discussing whether or not to submit a proposal between multiple award contractors (“prime offerors”) would be inconsistent with the requirements of this provision.

There is no legal restriction on engaging a joint venture competitor's minority JV member to act as a subcontractor, but it is likely to generate a conversation on the issue of responsibility for either party to the arrangement on how the arrangement would work and not violate the Certificate of Independent Price Determination.

It is difficult to answer such questions in general terms because there are too many possible variations; in all instances, however, all parties to such an inter-locking arrangement have to be able to make that certification in good faith.

Please contact Mr. Christopher Wolf regarding a specific arrangement being proposed, and the agency will work with the offeror to develop a position and a response before the time for receipt of proposals.

Q15: For this proposal, would it be possible to send in our proposal as a Prime, and also be a sub on another submission?

A15: Yes

Q16: Can you provide the labor category descriptions for solicitation N3943019R2126?

A16: See Attachment provided within Amendment 04.

Q17: Regional labor rates can significantly impact a price model, should contractors price labor categories for a specific location from the statement of work?

A17: It is at the Contractor’s discretion to price labor categories for a specific location from the statement of work.

Q18: As CPARS generally provides only a brief summary of the SOW, would the government consider/review/accept any supplementary information beyond CPARS (project description, compliance matrix)?

A18: Yes, the Government would consider/review/accept supplementary information beyond

CPARS.

Q19: In the past, NAVFAC has requested digital delivery in addition to physical originals + copies. Is any such digital delivery requested?

A19: Digital delivery is not requested. Page 4 of 6, Section L.6 Submission of Offers, Paragraph 2, of Amendment 0003 states: “Submit one (1) original and one (1) copy of your price proposal and (1) original and (4) copies of your technical proposal to the cited address below no later than 8 July 2019 at 5:00 PM PST.”

Q20: Page 37, Section L.7 (1) Factor 1, Technical Approach, Paragraph 2, Amendment 0001:

Can the Government confirm that if the offeror is describing its equivalent model-based process maturity but has not obtained an official certification, the offer will be accepted as compliant?

A20: They offeror may receive credit for such a process during the evaluation depending on the merits of the proposal.

Q21: Page 37, Section L.5, Paragraph “d.”, Amendment 0001: The technical page limit of 44 pages seems to be insufficient to communicate the depth of technical approach/expertise needed. This particular $150M dollar RFP, which bundles/consolidates the current EBS (40+ page technical page limit in previous RFP), EHS (25+ page technical page limit in previous RFP), and EOS (38 page technical page limit in previous RFP) contracts, demands a response to a very broad scope of work and simply cannot be adequately responded to in 44 pages, unless of course the goal is to award based on lowest price technically acceptable with the generic technical solution being required by overly simplifying the technical approach.

Recommend allowing bidders to expand Volume I to at least 100 pages (aggregation of EBS, EHS, and EOS).

A21: The Government will not allow bidders to expand Volume I to 100 pages. At this time 55 page increase is allowable.

Q22: Page 4, Section C.1.3 Scope, Paragraph 2, Amendment 0001: Is the Government's intent to evaluate the proposed offeror across all the credentials listed at the IDIQ level or only at the task order level? Extremely few independent 8(a) companies (if any) will possess all the certifications and partnerships identified in the RFP. We tremendously appreciate the Government's intent to have this opportunity set aside for 8(a); however, in order to avoid limiting competition, we request that the Government clarify that the contractor evaluation criteria will be demonstrating best value to the Government based on any of the certifications/partnerships outlined, and that it is not necessary for the contractor to have all certifications/partnerships identified.

A22: Not all credentials listed on Page 4 of 40, Section C.1.3 Scope, Paragraph 2, Amendment 0001 are required. Certifications and other examples of process maturity will be used during the evaluation to help rate proposals.

Q23: Pages 4 and 5, Section C.2.3.1 Contract Management, Amendment 0001: Is the Government's intent to evaluate the proposed offeror on locations/employees in each of the locations identified? If yes, then the Government has opted to effectively set aside this procurement for either (a) A very large Native Hawaiian Organization, Alaska Native Corporation, or Native Indian Tribe Owned Company or (b) a mentor-protégé joint venture between a very large company and an 8(a) company. We tremendously appreciate the Government's intent to have this opportunity set aside for 8(a); however, in order to avoid limiting competition, we request that the Government clarify that the contractor evaluation criteria will be demonstrating best value to the Government based on contractor's proven ability to hire in one or more of the geographic areas outlined, and that it is not necessary for the contractor to have demonstrated experience in recruiting across all geographic areas.

A23: Offerors are not required to demonstrate the ability to recruit at all locations listed on Pages 4 and 5, Section C.2.3.1 Contract Management, Amendment 0001.

Q24: Is there a specific length of time for which offerors should mark their proposal as valid?

A24: 60 - 90 days

Q25: Page 4, Section C.1.3 Scope, Paragraph 1, Amendment 0001: Bullets 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 in this list correspond to the five functional areas in the PWS. Is the offeror expected to respond to bullets 5 and 6 as part of their Technical Approach, given they are not distinctly broken out as sections in the PWS?

A25: Corrected. Each item is now broken out.

Q26: Page 37, Section L.7 (1) Factor 1, Technical Approach, Paragraph 2, Amendment 0001:

If the offeror is a JV, the JV inherits the capabilities and past performance of the two (or more) JV members.

Would the Government consider the JV to possess the CMMI certification if it is held by a single JV partner, or must each and every JV partner hold the certification?

If the former, must that JV partner who holds the certification be the managing member, or can it simply be a partner member with a significant workshare greater than 40%?

A26: Offerors should present whatever certifications they possess. There are no specific requirements for certification; The government will use certifications to evaluate offerors’ process maturity.

Q27: Page 4, Section C.1.3 Scope, Paragraph 2, Amendment 0001: If the contractor requirement for credentials such as CMMI is at the task order level only and moreover is a potential requirement but not a firm requirement, we respectfully recommend that the Government remove the evaluation of CMMI appraisal as part of the Section L and M criteria at the IDIQ level and evaluate this credential at the task order level only.

A27: CMMI is used for evaluation, it is not a firm requirement.

Q28: Can you please confirm the response due date for the ECITS opportunity?

A28: On Page 70, Section L.2 Inquires by Offerors, the Solicitation states “Inquiries should be submitted before 01 July 2019 at 5:00 pm Pacific.”

Q29: Will you please point me in the right direction to find the incumbents list and other past supporting contract information on this solicitation?

A29: Page 2 of 9, Amendment 0002, Section SF 30 – Block 14 Continuation Page, Question 1, Amendment 0002 states:

The current incumbents and their contact information are as follows:

VSolvit C.J. SETO SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC 4171 Market Street, Suite 2, 2300 Knoll Drive Unit G Ventura, CA 93003 Ventura, CA 93003 Inquiries: info@vsolvit.com Phone: 805.644.1214 Phone: 805.277.4705 Fax: 805.654.9421 Fax: 805.409.4757

Q30: Pages 5, 6, 23, 24, 28, Amendment 0001, Sections C.2.3.2.1, C.2.3.2.2, C.2.3.2.4, C.4.1.7, C.4.1.8.1, C.4.1.8.2, C.4.3.1: Are these attachments available for reference?

-CDRL 0001 Contractor Personnel Security Status Report (p. 5) -CDRL 0002 Monthly Contract Status Report (p. 6) -CDRL 0003 Contract Corrective Action Plan (p. 6) -CDRL 0004 Cyber Security Workforce Report (p. 23) -CDRL 0005 Systems Security Plan (p. 24) -CDRL 0006 Cyber Incidents Report (p. 24) -CDRL 0007 Government Furnished Property Inventory and Tracking List (p. 28)

A30: Attached to amendment.

Q31: Attachment J-1 - Schedule of IDIQ Price of the Solicitation: Do we need to have separate levels for each labor category ? (Master/Senior...etc) Do we have to show the rates for contractor site or government site separately?

A31: 15% in Port Hueneme 5 % in East Coast, contractor to determine where they would place them per labor rates.

Q32: Page 70 of 80, Section L.2: "Can you please confirm the ECITS response due date?

Questions: 7/1/19 5 PM PST Response: 7/8/19 5 PM PST

A32: On Page 70, Section L.2 Inquires by Offerors, the Solicitation states “Inquiries should be submitted before 01 July 2019 at 5:00 pm Pacific.”

Q33: Section L2 seems to be referring to the submission of questions/inquiries--7/1/19 due date. What you have replied with does not coincide with the 7/8/19 due date (Quote to be received by) listed in NECO. Can you please confirm the final response date to submit proposals?

A33: The correct date is 8 July 2019 and has been further addressed on page 4 of 6, Section L.6 of Amendment 0003.

Q34: Can you consider extending the deadline by at least 2 weeks? This will tremendously help to sharpen our solutions/Teaming effort?

A34: Yes, the new due date of the proposal will be July 22, 2019.

Q35: The print header in Attachment J-1, Schedule of IDIQ Price, (all tabs) states “Solicitation N39430-17-R-1953 Advanced Ocean Technology Program”. Can you please confirm this is the correct Attachment J-1 for the N3943019R2126 Solicitation and, if so, should the print header be changed to reflect the correct solicitation references for this RFP?

A35: Attachment J-1 was update to reflect the correct Solicitation Title and Number for this Solicitation. Please use updated Attachment J-1.

Q36: Attachment J-1: Will the Government provide labor category descriptions for the labor categories listed in this attachment?

A36: Yes/ see attached

Q37: Page 78 of 80, Section M.4 (4) Factor 4 Past Performance: Concerning the relevancy of projects used for Past Performance the government defines “magnitude” as projects/contracts “within a range of $3.5 to $4 million”. Will projects/contracts exceeding $4 million be deemed relevant?

A37: Yes, Projects exceeding $4 million will be relevant.

Q38: Page 71, Section L.5 – Content of Proposal, Paragraph “d” of the Solicitation: Will the government allow the use of a smaller font size and up to 11x17 inch paper for tables and charts?

A38: Page 2 of 9, Section SF 30 – Block 14 Continuation Page, A2, Amendment 0002 states:

“The Government will allow the Offerors to use 10-point font for tables and 8-point font for graphics.”

Q39: Please confirm that the Cover Sheet asked for in L.5.a is also not considered a page for purposes of the page limit.

A39: It is confirmed that the Cover Sheet is not considered a page for purposes of the page limit, as stated on Page 37 of 40, Section L.5, Para “d”, Amendment 0001: “The Cover Letter, blank pages, tables of contents, and indexes are not considered a "page" for purposes of the above page limit.”

1. FAR Clause 52.203-2 – Certificate of Independent Price Determination, was added to Section I of the Solicitation.

2. Attachment J-1 was update to reflect the correct Solicitation Title and Number.

AMENDMENT 5

a) Provide Government answers to the following Offeror’s questions:

Q1: Page 36 of 40, Section L.2 Inquires by Offerors, Amendment 0001, states that Offeror’s questions should be “submitted before 01 July 2019 at 5:00 pm Pacific”. Section L.6 (per A2 on Page 2 of 40) states that the deadline for proposals is “no later than 8 July 2019 by 1700 PST”. To ensure on-time delivery of proposals, Offerors will need to ship their proposals no later than July 3rd (less than 48 hours after the deadline for questions).

Due to the short turn-around between questions/answers and the due date, will the government consider extending the proposal due date two weeks (to July 22)?

A1: We have extended the solicitation closing date to 22 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific, Inquiries should be submitted before 15 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific.

Q2: Our company is trying to form a 8a JV with another 8a company. We do not see SBA approval as an impediment to responding to the solicitation. We do, however, see an issue with obtaining a CAGE code. The government is backed up on these requests and that CAGE code request is currently taking over a month in some cases. Do we need to have CAGE code at time of submission for the JV if both companies already have a CAGE code individually? We are confident that by time of award we will have a CAGE code for the JV

A2: Per the DFARS the government cannot deny potential offerors the opportunity to provide a proposal on a solicitation because they do not have a CAGE code. Refer to :PGI 204.1870-1 Commercial and Government Entity Code “Not deny a potential offeror a solicitation package because the offeror does not have a CAGE code, DUNS number, or TIN”

Q3: While we appreciate the critical importance of Safety, for an information technology (IT) contract on which the work is generally/overwhelmingly low-risk and sedentary, to equate or value Safety as important a factor as Technical Approach or a Management Plan effectively dilutes the critical importance of an offeror's Technical Approach or Management Plan. This effect will impede the Government's objective of establishing true and valuable "discriminators" amongst offerors in order to evaluate, most highly rate/score/rank, and award to the "offerors submitting the proposals determined to represent the best value—the proposals most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered."

In order for the Government to be able to appropriately/correctly evaluate the offeror's IT experience and capabilities, will the Government consider removing the Safety factor as a significant evaluation criteria given that this is not a construction / design build services contract with anything other than low-risk work?

A3: The Government will not consider removing the Safety Factor for evaluation.

Q4: Pages 72 and 73 of 80, Section L.7: Could use a PPQ for a past performance reference that has less than 12 months of performance against it?

A4: Yes, It is at the discretion of the Offeror to submit a reference that has less than 12 months of performance against it, but the Period of Performance could impact the relevancy score.

Q5: Page 73 of 80: Per the Solicitation in Section L.7(5)(c)(i) Content of Price Proposal Schedule of prices, it states “The rates will be the maximum annual fully priced direct labor hour rates that the offeror may propose on future task orders.” Because of the multiple locations that will be provided service, there is a significant variance in the direct labor rates. Can you identify the location that will most likely serve as the “home base” and, therefore, absorb most of the hours being proposed?

A5: The estimated ratio of performance location is as follows: 15% in Port Hueneme 5 % in East Coast, the contractor is to determine where they would place them per labor rates.

Q6: Page 2 of 6, Amendment 003, L.6: Submit one (1) original and one (1) copy of your price proposal and (1) original and (4) copies of your technical proposal to the cited address below no later than 8 July 2019 at 5:00 PM

PST.

Would the Government consider extending the due date by one day to allow for commercial delivery?

A6: We have extended the solicitation closing date to 22 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific, Inquiries should be submitted before 15 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific. This extension is further reflected in Section L.2 and Section L.6 of this Amendment.

Q7: Please give an extension of at least 2-3 weeks.

A7: We have extended the solicitation closing date to 22 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific, Inquiries should be submitted before 15 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific. This extension is further reflected in Section L.2 and Section

Q8: Can you please provide 2 days extension as the proposals are going to be in transit (as this is a hard copy shipment) for 4 days as July 4th being holiday and shortage of resources during the holiday weekend. Rather we would fine tune the proposals and submit during the middle of the week of 7/8.

A8: We have extended the solicitation closing date to 22 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific, Inquiries should be submitted before 15 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific. This extension is further reflected in Section L.2 and Section

Q9: How many awards will be made for this solicitation? RFP document says “multiple” award but it doesn’t say how many.

A9: Page 70 of 80, Section L.1 Introduction, the Solicitation states: This is a solicitation for a Multiple Award, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract. The Government intends to award up to five contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offerors whose proposals represent the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and their relative importance in the solicitation.

Q10: Due to the holiday weekend ahead of the 7/8 due date and shipping times, would the government consider an extension to the due date to provide time for pricing development once the RFP amendment is received?

A10: We have extended the solicitation closing date to 22 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific, Inquiries should be submitted before 15 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific. This extension is further reflected in Section L.2 and Section

Q11: I respectfully request that an extension be granted for this proposal so that my company and other 8(a)'s can provide you with a satisfactorily response to the alterations that will be required once the questions have been answered.

A11: We have extended the solicitation closing date to 22 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific, Inquiries should be submitted before 15 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific. This extension is further reflected in Section L.2 and Section

Q12: I respectfully request an extension of a couple of weeks be granted after the answers to the questions are posted.

A12: We have extended the solicitation closing date to 22 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific, Inquiries should be submitted before 15 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific. This extension is further reflected in Section L.2 and Section

Q13: I respectfully request a 2-week extension to the proposal deadline after the answers to questions are received.

A13: We have extended the solicitation closing date to 22 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific, Inquiries should be submitted before 15 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific. This extension is further reflected in Section L.2 and Section

Q14: Pages 72 - 73, Section L.7 (4) Factor 4, Past Performance: To ensure that the Government receives offers from qualified 8(a) Offerors, would the Government consider incorporating the following requirements for Offerors with teaming agreements:

(1) A majority of past performance references must come from the Prime (since the Prime is required to perform the majority of the work); and

(2) When averaging/accounting for all three aspects of the past performance evaluation - more weight will be applied to the Prime past performance references than those coming from the Subcontractor.

(3) When averaging/accounting for all three aspects of the past performance evaluation - more weight will be applied to having multiple applicable prime past performance references (with a maximum of three) - e.g. three qualifying past performance will be rated more favorably than one or two qualifying past performances?

A14: Added to Section M.4 (4) b., Paragraph 1: “Offerors may provide a subcontractor/team member’s past performance so long as the offer includes evidence of the subcontractor /team member’s commitment to perform on a contract awarded from this solicitation, but the Offeror’s own past performance will generally have more predictive value than a subcontractor/ team member’s past performance.”

Q15: Amendment 0004, page 6 of 40, Q11: When asked in Q11 about LCATS, the Government responded with, “A11: ) No, Offerors are requested to provide proposal-using LCATS they think are best.”. The revised Pricing Sheet Attachment J-1 does not allow Offerors the capability to provide proposal-using LCATS we think are best.

Please clarify if Offerors are to utilize the Government directed LCATS and qualities established in N3943019R21260004Attachment_J-1_Schedule_of_IDIQ_Price.

A15: Yes, Offerors are to use Government directed LCATS and quantities established in Attachment J-1.

Q16: Amendment 0004, page 8 of 40: The Government’s response to A19 states, “Digital delivery is not requested. Page 4 of 6, Section L.6 Submission of Offers, Paragraph 2, of Amendment 0003 states: “Submit one

(1) original and one (1) copy of your price proposal and (1) original and (4) copies of your technical proposal to the cited address below no later than 8 July 2019 at 5:00 PM PST.”

Could the Government clarify if it requires Offerors to submit by 8 July or 22 July?

A16: We have extended the solicitation closing date to 22 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific, Inquiries should be submitted before 15 July 2019 at 5:00 PM Pacific. This extension is further reflected in Section L.2 and Section

Q17: Will the government provide an updated RFP that consolidates Amendment 1 changes as identified in section b)? If not, will the government at least provide an updated SF 33 for the Offeror to complete for the final proposal submission?

A17: A consolidated document will be provided in the next Amendment for Offeror’s final proposal submissions

Q18: In regards to Attachment J-1 Schedule of IDIQ Price 5-22-19, would the Government specify the education and experience levels required/expected for each labor category?

A18: In regards to Attachment J-1, Schedule of IDIQ Price, it is up to the Offerors to determine their mix of expertise level within each labor category, the Government isn’t going to specify what level to hire.

Q19: The page 1 footer and pages 2 and 3 headers of Attachment J-7 identify it as Attachment "I." Will the Government release an updated version of Attachment J-7 with the correct attachment number in all headers and footers?

A19: Attachment J-7 was updated and attached to this Amendment with the correct headers and footers.