N3943019R2126-0007.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The Purpose of this amendment is to:

1) Provide response to Offer's questions.

2) Section K, FAR 52.209-7 is now in full text.

3) Modify Section L.6

4) Modify Section C.1.3

5) Modify Section L.7

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 47

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Jul-2019

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N3943019R2126

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-May-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

16-Jul-2019

CODE

NAVFAC EXWC

CODE ACQ / NAVAL BASE VENTURA COUNTY

1100 23RD AVE BLDG 1100

PORT HUENEME CA 93043-4301

N39430 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N3943019R2126

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 7

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

Q1: 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:

Would you consider Contracting Teaming Agreement (CTA) between 8(a)’s?

Can CTA members submit their past performances?

A1: Yes

Q2: As per Section L.7 page 12 of Amendment 0005 under (1) Factor 1, Technical Approach it states offerors are to provide a detailed narrative in each of the functional areas listed (SDLC, Cyber Security Support, Business Systems Operations, IT Operations and Enterprise Analysis and Management Services).

As per Section C.1.3 Scope, Paragraph 1, Amendment 0001 page 4, Question & Answer 25, the Government seems to recommend that contractors respond to all functional areas and breaks the original 7 functional areas into 9 functional areas. Yet Section L & M didn’t change to add these sections to the evaluation criteria.

Will the Government be evaluating the 9 listed functional areas? If the Government will be evaluating the 9 listed functional areas, we request that the Government please update the PWS and Section L and M.

A2: In Section C.1.3 Scope, Paragraph 1, Cloud Operations, Cloud Migration, Cloud System Development, and Secure DevOps Infrastructure have been removed from the list in this Amendment. Cloud and SecDevOps environments are not discrete requirements but are supported within the five functional areas.. Section 3 of the PWS describes each performance requirements and if/how each requirement relates to a cloud or SecDevOps environment. Offerors will be evaluated on the five areas listed in section M.

Q3: In Amendment 5, the government extended the deadline for inquiries to July 15, 2019 but did not extend the proposal due date. Typically proposals are shipped one extra day ahead what is needed in case of problems with shipping. Since this proposal is due on a Monday, proposals need to ship no later than Thursday, July 18, 2019.

Given that the government will need to respond to any questions submitted as late as July 15th and then need to release a conformed RFP, we ask that the government extend the proposal due date one week, to Monday, July 29, 2019, to ensure that Offerors have sufficient time to submit a compliant proposal that incorporates any and all last minute changes and/or revisions to the RFP.

A3: The closing date for the solicitation is still 22 July 2019 by 5:00 PM PST.

Q4: Page 14 of 40, Amendment 0004, Section C.1.3: "The scope of this effort is to acquire IT services and solutions through the performance of broad ranges of services across multiple functional areas..."

Is the Government's intent to evaluate the proposed offeror across each of the IT services and functional areas?

If yes, then the Government has opted to effectively set aside this procurement for either (a) A very large super 8(a), e.g., 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 in one or a few of the areas outlined, and that it is not necessary for the contractor to have demonstrated experience across all areas.

A4: The proposed offeror will be evaluated against the evaluation criteria in Section M of the Solicitation

Q6: Can the subcontractor's past performance be submitted for Factor 4 if the prime does not have sufficient Past Performance/CPARS?

A6: Section M.4.4.b of the Solicitation states: “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.”

Q7: Will the prime contractor's evaluation be graded insufficient if the past performance is provided by the subcontractor only?

A7: Section M.4.4.b of the Solicitation states: “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.”

Q8: Due to holidays and people on vacation I was wondering if you can extend this proposal for one more week.

A8: The closing date for the solicitation is still 22 July 2019 by 5:00 PM PST.

Q9: Please confirm you would like to see the glossary following the Table of Contents in each Volume prior to the body of the proposal.

A9: As stated in section L.5 Content of Proposal, Paragraph c., “Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.” It is at the Offerors discretion to place the glossary following the Table of Contents in each Volume.

Q10: When referring to sections beginning on a new page, please confirm if you mean Factors.

A10: As stated in the conformed copy of Amendment 0006, Page 30 of 134, Question 24, “Each Section is referring to each Factor.”

Q11: Regarding the CMMI Certification, is it acceptable to provide a copy of the certification in an Appendix of Volume I? If so, does this count towards the page restrictions?

A11: Certificates do not count toward total page count.

Q12: Amendment 4, Q&A#1, reference – Section L.7, Factor 4, past Performance] Q#1: “…should I provide a short narrative and then include the CPARS as attachments?...” A#1: “A narrative is not necessary”

Reference 2: Section L.7, pg. 73, Factor 4 (b) Past Performance, the RFP states: "In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration will be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of service/support, complexity dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontract/teaming.

In order to ensure all offerors’ submissions are evaluated by the same standards we respectfully request that either narratives be required with proposal submissions or excluded from them across the board, with revisions made to the RFP accordingly.

A12: A narrative is not necessary and is not required to be included with proposal submission.

Q13: For equal/equivalent comparison of prices received from offerors please provide labor category descriptions (i.e. junior, mid-level, senior, degreed or non-degreed, years of experience), along with what location(s) are to be priced.

A13: It is up to the Offerors to determine their mix of expertise level within each labor category; the Government is not going to specify what level to hire. Rates provided in Attachment J-1 shall be maximum ceiling rates per labor category regardless of location.

Q14: The spreadsheet title is labeled ‘estimated firm fixed price’. Could the government please clarify this term?

Does this mean offerors will not be held to these prices and will be allowed, upon award of contract, to re-price on a task order by task order basis?

A14: Attachment J-1 is titled “Total Estimated Firm Fixed Price” because the hours provided (1,920 hours) in Attachment J-1 are used for evaluation purposes only and will not be included in the contract award.

Q15: Amendment 4, Factor 5, Pricing, Q&A #1: “Regional labor rates can significantly impact a price model, should contractors price labor categories for a specific location from the statement of work?” Answer: “It is at the Contractor’s discretion to price labor categories for a specific location from the statement of work.”

If Offerors do not provide pricing for all locations referenced within the RFP, upon award, will they be allowed to provide pricing at the task order level for other regions?

A15: No

Q16: Page count was increased from 44 pages to 55. Will the government provide an updated RFP reflecting this change?

A16: The table in Section L.5 and Paragraph “d.” of Amendment 0006 were both updated to reflect the page increase from 44 to 55 pages.

Q17: Page 4, section C.1.3, Amendment 0001, Q&A #25: “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? Answer: “Corrected. Each item is now broken out.”

The corrected PWS supplied in Amendment 4 breaks out the bullet that used to read ‘Cloud Operations/Migration/System Development’ into 3 separate bullets; however the PWS still does not include a section/content for them or for ‘Secure DevOps Infrastructure’. Are offerors expected to respond to these areas that have not been addressed within the PWS?

A17: In Section C.1.3 Scope, Paragraph 1, Cloud Operations, Cloud Migration, Cloud System Development, and Secure DevOps Infrastructure have been removed from the list in this Amendment. Cloud and SecDevops are not discrete requirements but are supported within the five functional areas of the PWS. Section 3 of the PWS provides details of when specific requirements may apply to a cloud or SecDevOp environment. Consequently, offerors should only propose on the five areas described in section M.

Q18: Attachment J-1, pricing, Q&A #31 and Q&A#17: Both questions are in regards to what locations the labor categories should be priced to.

There appears to be conflicting answers from the government regarding specific locations to be priced. We request clarification be provided and the RFP documents be amended accordingly.

A18: It is up to the Offerors to determine their mix of expertise level within each labor category; the Government is not going to specify what level to hire. The estimated ratio of performance location is as follows: 80% at Contractor’s Facility, 15% onsite in Port Hueneme, and 5% onsite on the East Coast. It is up to the Offeror to determine how they would like to place their labor rates.

Q19: As pricing is of equal importance to non-price factors combined, and no LCAT descriptions have been provided for offerors to price from, to ensure all offers are evaluated fairly, we respectfully request that the RFP and Attachment J-1 be revised to require that offerors clarify (per-labor category) whether their pricing is representative of junior, mid, or senior level personnel, and what location they are pricing.

If offerors only provide pricing for junior level labor categories will they be allowed to provide additional pricing later for mid-level and senior level personnel for those labor categories on a task-order by task-order basis?

A19: It is up to the Offerors to determine their mix of expertise level within each labor category; the Government is not going to specify what level to hire. Rates provided in Attachment J-1 shall be maximum ceiling rates per labor category regardless of location.

Q20: Will the Government allow for supplemental information to be added to the pricing sheet in an effort to display the estimated pricing differences for places of performance and required subject matter expertise?

If the Government allows for supplemental information to be added to the pricing sheet, please provide a revised Attachment J-1 that allows changes to be made, currently the spreadsheet is password protected.

A20: The Government will not allow for supplemental information to be added to the pricing sheet.

Q21: Page 14, Amendment 0004, Section 1.3, Scope: Is the Government’s expectation that offerors will provide separate content for additional functional areas of Cloud Operations, Cloud Migration, Cloud Systems Development and Secure Dev Ops Infrastructure?

A21: In Section C.1.3 Scope, Paragraph 1, Cloud Operations, Cloud Migration, Cloud System Development, and Secure DevOps Infrastructure have been removed from the list in this Amendment. Cloud and SecDevOPs are not discrete functional areas but are supported within each of the five areas. Section 3 of the PWS describes if/how Cloud and/or SecDEVOPs may be supported by each requriements.

Q22: Page 14, Amendment 0004, Section 1.3, Scope: Will the Government provide performance requirement in support of additional functional areas of Cloud Operations, Cloud Migration, Cloud Systems Development and Secure Dev Ops Infrastructure?

A22: In Section C.1.3 Scope, Paragraph 1, Cloud Operations, Cloud Migration, Cloud System Development, and Secure DevOps Infrastructure have been removed from the list in this Amendment.

Q23: Amendment 0005, Q&A 25: Will bidders be allowed to propose new rates on task orders requiring OCONUS work?

A23: Bidders will not be allowed to propose new rates on OCONUS work.

Q24: Page 14 of 20, Amendment 0005, Factor 5, Price: Financial Institution/Bank Information of Prospective Contractor.

The RFP requires offerors to submit financial institution/bank information to verify financial responsibility.

Understandably, this is highly sensitive information. Historically the U.S. Government has accepted Dunn & Bradstreet numbers/reports and accompanying financial statements as adequate proof of financial sustainability.

Would this be sufficient evidence for this proposal as well?

A24: Yes, Dunn & Bradstreet numbers/reports and accompanying financial statements would be sufficient.

Q25: To allow sufficient time to adjust our proposals and incorporate the revised RFP instructions and final Q&A, anticipated to be released in Amendment 6, will the Government grant a one-week extension to the current proposal due date?

A25: The Government will not grant a one-week extension. The Solicitation closing date is still 22 July, 2019 at

5:00 PM PST.

Q26: We are seeking more information related to Amendment 6; Q31. In the Government’s response to the question, we see there is a pending amendment that could significantly change vendor responses to the solicitation (affect the evaluation criteria) and given the current due date of July 22, 2019 there are only 4-5 businesses days realistically left before vendors must have completed, printed proposals ready to ship because of the requirement for hardcopy submittals. Given the hardcopy requirement, vendors must be given sufficient time between the final solicitation publication and the proposal due date to correct/update, print and ship their proposals. That timeframe is minimally 5 business days. Request the government provide no less than a 5 business day extension to the due date for proposals when the final solicitation documents are published.

A26: The Solicitation closing date is still 22 July, 2019 at 5:00 PM PST.

Q27: Please confirm that the Proposal Cover, Cover Letter, Tables of Content and indexes are not considered a “page”

A27: The Government confirms that the Proposal Cover, Cover Letter, Tables of Content and indexes are not considered a “page”.

Q28: Page 71 of 80, Section L.6, Original Solicitation. Can the vendor hand carry our proposal to the following address?

NAFVAC EXWC ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT

N39430-19-R-2126 ECITS

EXWC Code ACQ73 Attn: Chris Wolf and Carol Contreras 1100 23RD Avenue, Bldg 1100 Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4301

A28: Yes, If the Offeror has base access, please contact Christopher Wolf at (805) 982-3953 for delivery.

Q29: Amendment 0006, Question 31: The Government has answered Question 31, which significantly affects proposals, with: “RESERVED. WILL BE ANSWERED IN AMENDMENT 7.” If the answer to the question is no, many offerors will likely need to drop the bid. If the answer to the question is yes, offerors will need to adjust their proposals. It is July 15th and Amendment 0007 has not yet been released. Since a hard copy proposal submission is due, offerors outside of the local area will need to mail their bids on Thursday, July 18, 2019. We respectfully request an extension of one (1) week to July 29th to account for Amendment 0007 and any remaining Q&As that have emerged from Amendment 0006 to be answered.

A29: The Government will not grant a one-week extension. The Solicitation closing date is still 22 July, 2019 at

Q30: The clarification of the magnitude requirement for past performance significantly affects proposals. For this reason as well we request a 1 week extension.

A30: The Government will not grant a one-week extension. The Solicitation closing date is still 22 July, 2019 at

Q31: The pricing spreadsheet does not account for the variation in places of performance. As rates for the same labor category may vary dramatically based on location, can the Government please update the spreadsheet to reflect at least the eight (8) listed places of performance?

A31: Rates provided in Attachment J-1 shall be maximum ceiling rates per labor category regardless of location.

As stated in section L.7 (5) c. (i), Paragraph 2, “Base contract annual labor rates will become the ceiling rates that may be proposed on task orders. Offerors are free to propose lower rates on task orders in order to be competitive.”

Q32: On Amendment 0006 A.10 (page 3) the Government states that “Offerors should not provide a narrative for past performance in addition to a CPARS or Attachment J-2.” On the conformed solicitation document provided with Amendment 0006, in Section L (4) Factor 4, Past Performance (page 126 of 134) it states, “An offeror shall not submit a PPQ (J2 attachment) when a completed CPARS is available.” On this same document in Section M on page 133 of 134 in paragraph b. it states, “Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontract/teaming.” On that same page in the Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method “Very Relevant” is defined as “Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.”

Section M states that factor 4 past performance will be evaluated on scope similarity and complexity. The CPARS do not contain information regarding scope similarity and complexity, so how will the Government evaluate this if only CPARS are provided? We respectfully request that either a narrative with this information or page one of the PPQ (J2 attachment) is allowed to be submitted with the CPARS to provide the Government with this information for evaluation purposes and so that offerors can meet the definition within the Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method chart.

A32: A CPARS will be sufficient for Government evaluation of scope similarity and complexity.

Q33: On Amendment 0006 A8 (page 3) the Government states that “Offeror’s may choose to detail ‘Cloud Operations/Migration/System Development and Secure DevOps Infrastructure’ capability/experience within technical approach and past performance.”

How will the Government evaluate those offerors who “choose” to provide additional technical approaches? Will offerors who include these areas in their technical approach or past performance be scored higher in evaluation than those offerors who do not choose to include additional documentation. Will these sections be evaluated and scored? If so, how will the Government evaluate the responses?

A33: In Section C.1.3 Scope, Paragraph 1, Cloud Operations, Cloud Migration, Cloud System Development, and Secure DevOps Infrastructure have been removed from the list in this Amendment. Cloud and SecDevops are not discrete requirements but are supported within the five functional areas of the PWS. Section 3 of the PWS provides details of when specific requirements may apply to a cloud or SecDevOp environment. Consequently, offerors should only propose on the five areas described in section M.

Q34: In Section K 52.204-8 (b)(1) on page 115 of the Amendment 0006 Conformed Copy states that “If the provision at 52.204-7, System for Award Management, is included in this solicitation, paragraph (d) of this provision applies.” On page 121 of the Amendment 006 Conformed Copy it references 252.204-7007 Alternate A. Annual Representations and Certifications (DEC 2018) that instructs to “Substitute the following paragraphs

(d) and (e) for paragraph (d) of the provision at FAR 52.204-8.”

This FAR provision has been updated as of June 2019 to read “Substitute the following paragraphs (b), (d), and

(e) for paragraphs (b) and (d) of the provision at FAR 52.204-8.” Please advise how the Government would like us to respond to this Representations and Certification instruction.

A34: Propose as the contract states.

Q35: Can the Government please release FAR 52.209-7 clause in full text as stated, since it was not provided with Amendment 0006?

A35: FAR 52.209-7 is now in full text in Section K of this Amendment.

Q36: Please can you kindly provide detailed instructions for hand delivering proposals?

A36: Please see revised Section L.6 of this Amendment.

Q37: In Amendment 0005, the Government provided the labor category (LCAT) definitions, including years of experience required for a few LCATs. Will the Government provide the years of experience required for the remaining LCATs, or should offerors assume years of experience required based on our experience and the expected complexity of the work?

A37: Offerors should use whatever mix of experience they feel will best satisfy requirements.

Q38: Schedule B, DFARS 252.211-7003, B.1. The work anticipated under the NAVFAC ECITS IDIQ is not applicable to the DFARS 252.211-7003 clause referenced in Section B.1. This clause refers to physical or tangible assets equipped with a scanable asset tag.

Can the government please clarify how the labor hours/rates should be presented in the price schedule so as to be compliant with Section B.1?

A38: Pricing is not required at this time.

Q39: Schedule B, DFARS 252.211-7003 (unique identification and valuation): As no physical/tangible assets have been identified at the IDIQ level please remove the requirement to provide FFP for Schedule B Items 0001 and 0002, or revise the RFP to specifically state what assets should be included in the pricing.

A39: Assets are unknown at this time.

Q40: Factor 4, Past Performance, Instructions and Evaluation, pgs. 126-127 and 132-133, “common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of service/support, complexity….use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontract/teaming.”

A40: Q&A has clarified that past performance narratives are not to be provided by offerors. The RFP requires a CPARS to be submitted (if available) in lieu of a PPQ. PPQs are the only avenue in which a description of the scope of work can be provided. Aside from offerors submitting PPQs with project descriptions and incumbents submitting their current NITC ECITS contract as past performance how can past performance be evaluated for similarity of service, complexity, key personnel and extent of teaming for those offerors who must submit CPARS? Would the government remove evaluation criteria from the RFP that is not observable within CPARS (i.e. similarity of service/support, complexity) and change evaluation criteria to match only those things that can be assessed by reviewing CPARS.

Q41: As there were many changes in amendment 006, we would like to request a week extension for providing compliant and quality proposals. Please let us know if an extension is possible.

A41: The Government will not grant a one-week extension. The Solicitation closing date is still 22 July, 2019 at

Q42: Based on amendment 0006, Q9: Amendment 0003, Page 5, Section L.7(4), Paragraph 3: Please clarify that we can reference only three projects / contracts that we are providing in Attachment J-2 for in our technical proposal. A9: Only three projects/contracts can be referenced. Please clarify if our understanding is correct - We are only allowed to reference 3 contracts in Factor 1 - Technical Approach. We must demonstrate our capability for all areas using these 3 projects/ contracts.

A42: The three project/contract maximum does not apply to Factor 1, Technical Approach; Offerors do not have to demonstrate their capability for all areas using the three projects/contracts used in Factor 4, Past Performance.

Q43: Page 129 of Amendment 0006 Conformed Copy, Section M.2 of the Solicitation states:

The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is the technical factors (Factors 1, 2, and 3) are of equal importance to each other and, when combined, are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

Will the Government confirm that the technical evaluation is approximately 8.33% of the total evaluation?

A43: Please refer to Section M.2 Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors as it states: “The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is the technical factors (Factors 1, 2, and 3) are of equal importance to each other and, when combined, are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.”

Q44: Page 133 of Amendment 0006 Conformed Copy, Section M.4.4.b of the Solicitation states:

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.

Will the Government consider the past performance of a subcontractor performing 33% or more of the work of the ECITS contract to be considered equal in predictive value to the past performance of the prime?

A44: No, prime past performance will have more predictive value.

Q45: Page 132 of Amendment 0006 Conformed Copy, Section M.4.4 of the Solicitation states:

The term “magnitude” refers to projects/contracts within a range of $3.5 to $4 million Projects/contracts in excess of $4 million should not be considered less relevant because larger contracts will not be less complex.

Is the Government considering contracts in excess of $4 million less relevant than contracts in the $3.5 million to $4 million range?

A45: Magnitude is one aspect of relevancy, each project is evaluated individually by magnitude, scope, and complexity.

Q46: Page 132 of Amendment 0006 Conformed Copy, Section M.4.4 of the Solicitation states: The term “magnitude” refers to projects/contracts within a range of $3.5 to $4 million.

Usually, contract values for past performance are given in lifetime amounts, with any annual amounts computed based on the lifetime value of the contract.

Is this offeror’s understand correct that the range of $3.5 million to $4 million is a contract lifetime value?

A46: Stated magnitude refers to projects/contracts.

Q47: Page 125 of Amendment 0006 Conformed Copy, Section L.6 of the Solicitation states:

The proposals shall be submitted to the cited address below.

Is hand delivery of proposals allowed?

A47: Yes, hand delivery of proposals is allowed.

Q48: Page 125 of Amendment 0006 Conformed Copy, Section L.6 of the Solicitation states the delivery address to be:

NAFVAC EXWC ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT

N39430-19-R-2126 ECITS

EXWC Code ACQ73 Attn: Chris Wolf and Carol Contreras 1100 23RD Avenue, Bldg 1100 Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4301

There is no room number specified.

If hand-delivery is allowed, is the delivery address the same as the address stated in the solicitation?

A48: A room number is not necessary. If the Offeror has base access, please contact Christopher Wolf at (805) 982-3953 for delivery to provided address. If Offeror does not have base access, please review revised Section L.6 Submission of Offers of this Amendment.

Q49: Page 125 of Amendment 0006 Conformed Copy, Section L.6 of the Solicitation states the delivery address to be:

The proposals shall be submitted to the cited address below.

Should offerors expect any delays for screening when submitting, either through hand-delivery or USPS, Fedex, or other mail delivery service?

A49: The Offeror should not expect delays for screening.

Q50: The solicitation states that appraisals/certifications such as CMMI DEV or SVC and ISO may be required at the Task Order Level. Both CMMI Level 3 DEV or SVC and ISO 9001 are appraisals/certifications that reflect on the prime contractor’s ability to deliver on any task order in a process-oriented, high quality manner.

Therefore, these should be requirements at the IDIQ level rather than at the Task Order Level. Our client believes that by requiring such certifications at the Task Order level, the government is attempting to aid specific companies who do not have these appraisals or certifications, and trying to provide them time to be able to obtain them after the fact. Our client respectfully requests that the government either explicitly state that it will not require these certifications for task orders or ensure that all bidders have these certifications/appraisals in place at the time of submitting their bid. In addition, because they are process-based appraisals or certifications, they should be held by the prime contractor, or in the case of a joint venture, by all members of the joint venture. A lower acceptance standard essentially defeats the purpose of the requirement.

A50: Reference sections L&M. Certifications are not required at IDIQ level but will be used as part of the evaluation process as described in sections L&M.

Q51: Similarly, the government has stated that a Secret clearance may be required at the Task Order level but is not requiring this at the IDIQ level. This is even more inexplicable. By definition, the clearance levels on any contract or task order must be held by the prime. Therefore, not requiring a FCL from the prime at the time of the bid once again appears to be a way to help certain companies, specifically small companies that are essentially “fronts” to the incumbents who are no longer able to bid as prime. Our client requests that the government either explicitly state that no clearance will be required at the task order level or require the appropriate clearance level at the IDIQ level.

A51: This is an unclassified contract; however, per DoD/DoN requirements individuals performing IT work require background investigation/clearance. Secret clearance eligibility is required by technical staff as described in the PWS.

Q52: We intend to mail our packaged proposal ahead of time to ensure that it arrives at the required destination on time. However, if for any reason, a variable beyond our control (i.e. weather) somehow prevents our package from arriving at 5:00 PM PST on Monday, 07/22/2019 – will proof of delivery (i.e. FedEx receipt with postmark date) be acceptable?

A52: Please reference FAR 15.208 Submission, modification, revision, and withdraw of proposals.

Q53: Concerning the requested OSHA DART and TRC rates in Blocks 5-8 of the Attachment J-7:

As brought up in previous Q&A, OSHA exempts NAICS 5415 from Safety reporting requirements and considers 5415 as a low-hazard industry. Will the Government consider this an acceptable reason for being “unable to submit OSHA DART and TRC rates”?

A53: Follow requirements outlined in section L.7 (3) Factor 3, Safety; outline reasoning in applicable areas of Attachment J-7

B. Portions of the Solicitation were altered as follows:

1. Section K, FAR 52.209-7 is now in full text.

2. Section L.6 Submission of Offers now states:

L.6 Submission of Offers

The proposals shall be submitted to the cited address below. The package(s) shall be marked with the name of the proposer, the solicitation number, and the date and time specified for receipt of proposals. No other markings shall be used on the package(s). Proposals not received at the below address on or before the hour and date set forth for receipt of proposals shall be subject to the provisions of FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to offerors—Competitive Acquisition (OCT 1997).

Offeror shall submit the technical and cost proposal in the following format:

• Volume I – Technical Proposal: Submit one (1) original technical proposal and four (4) copies separately bound and organized by evaluation factor in paper (hard copy) format, as well as on (4) CD electronic copies in PDF format.

• Volume II – Cost Proposal: Submit one (1) original signed cost proposal and one (1) copy separately bound and organized in paper (hard copy) format, as well as on three (3) CD electronic copies in Excel and PDF format.

Submit all of the requested paper (hard copy) and CDs (electronic) to the cited address below no later than 22 July 2019 at 5:00 PM PST.

NAFVAC EXWC ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT

N39430-19-R-2126 ECITS

EXWC Code ACQ73 Attn: Chris Wolf and Carol Contreras 1100 23RD Avenue, Bldg 1100 Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4301

Offerors are advised to be aware of FAR 15.208 and take proper steps to ensure timely receipt of their proposals at NAVFAC EXWC Acquisitions Department, Code ACQ73, Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme.

Federal Express and United Parcel Service deliveries are made to the shipping and receiving section of Bldg. 1100. Packages submitted through the U.S. Postal Service are sorted in another location before being distributed to the buildings on the installation. If proposals are hand carried, Offeror’s are advised to contact the contract specialist to coordinate receipt of the proposal at the Pass and ID office located at the Sunkist Gate.

3. Section C.1.3 Scope, Paragraph 1 now states:

The scope of this effort is to acquire IT services and solutions through the performance of broad ranges of services across multiple functional areas, including but are not limited to:

- Systems Development Lifecycle Support

- Cyber Security Support

- Business Systems Operations and Support

- IT Operations Management and Enterprise

- Analysis and Management Services.

4. Section L.7 (5) c. (i) Schedule of Prices now states:

Offeror shall submit completed schedule of price (Attachment J-1 of the RFP). This attachment requires the offeror to propose maximum hourly rates for the labor category indicated. The rates will be the maximum annual fully priced direct labor hour rates that the offeror may propose on future task orders.

Rates shall be fully priced direct labor hourly rates which include: base pay rate, fringe benefits, operations overhead, general and administrative (G&A) expense, profit, and any other applicable rates and factors.

Annual Labor Hours by Labor Category - The Offeror shall use the Government provided annual labor hours included in Attachment J-1, to develop it the total price of the price proposal. The Government provided annual labor hours will used for evaluation purposes only, and will not be incorporated into the contract award. The schedules contain a worksheet for each 12-month interval that comprise the Base 60-month ordering period and a schedule for the 6-month option period. The offeror will input the maximum labor rate for each of the labor categories identified on each of the tabs, base period thru option period 5.

These labor rates are multiplied by the provided hours and summed to arrive at the subtotal direct labor.

These subtotal direct labor amounts from each tab are then incorporated and summed on the summary tab to determine the total evaluated price. Base contract annual labor rates will become the ceiling rates that may be proposed on task orders. Offerors are free to propose lower rates on task orders in order to be competitive.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

STATEMENT OF WORK

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

ENTERPRISE COMPUTER AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (ECITS)

1. INTRODUCTION

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Command Information Officer (CIO) is procuring information technology services including Systems Development Lifecycle support, Cyber Security support, Business Systems Operations and Support, IT Operations Management, and Enterprise Analysis and Management Services in support of all NAVFAC personnel, stakeholders and users throughout the world. The NAVFAC

Information Technology Center (NITC) serves as NAVFAC primary Information Technology service provider offering a wide variety of technical solutions and support to the NAVFAC organization.

1.1. Mission

NITC is NAVFAC center of excellence for delivery of Enterprise Business Systems and applications.

NITC is focused on IT service delivery and support of Enterprise business applications that enable Navy business processes. NITC is responsible for the complete system life cycle (design, development, implementation, operations/maintenance, enhancement), Enterprise Operations support, system cyber security, Information Technology (IT), Cloud Systems Operations and Development, as well as supporting NAVFAC business systems, applications, hardware and software. NITC is the Central Design Agency (CDA) for NAVFAC business systems and provides/manages the hosting infrastructure for non-mainframe business systems. NITC is the CDA for mainframe systems that are unique to NAVFAC (e.g. FIS).

1.2. Background

NAVFAC Command Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for the oversight and management of Information Technology tools and capabilities to NAVFAC personnel, stakeholders and users throughout the world. NITC reports to the CIO office. The NITC organization provides the expertise, management discipline, and specialized technical skills necessary to ensure that best value Information Technology is acquired and managed in a manner consistent with law, and DoD and DoN policies and procedures. NITC delivers a range of services including: CDA responsible for software configuration and sustainment of Navy facilities systems;

production system support for all NAVFAC enterprise systems; command-wide management of Navy Marine Corps Internet (NMCI) / Next Generation (NGEN) and Navy Enterprise Network (ONE-NET) services; IT/IM acquisition and portfolio management; telecommunications support, NAVFAC Cloud Brokerage; and Cyber Security and Cyber Security compliance for systems, devices and networks.

1.3. Scope

NOTE: Complete list of acronyms applicable to this Performance Work Statement (PWS) are explained in Appendix B.

The scope of this effort is to acquire IT services and solutions through the performance of broad ranges of services across multiple functional areas, including but are not limited to:

- Systems Development Lifecycle Support

- Cyber Security Support

- Business Systems Operations and Support

- IT Operations Management and Enterprise

- Analysis and Management Services.

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

• CMMI Level III (or higher) – SVC

• Oracle Certified Gold Partner

• Microsoft Certified Partner

• ISO/IEC 20000

• Information Technology Infrastructure Library (current version)

• PARTNER PROGRAM

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Non-Personal Services

The Government shall neither supervise contractor employees nor control the method by which the contractor performs the required tasks. Under no circumstances shall the Government assign tasks to, or prepare work schedules for, individual contractor employees. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to manage its employees and to guard against any actions that are of the nature of personal services, or give the perception of personal services. If the contractor believes that any actions constitute, or are perceived to constitute personal services, it shall be the contractor's responsibility to notify the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) immediately.

2.2 Business Relations

The contractor shall successfully integrate and coordinate all activity needed to execute the requirement.

The contractor shall manage the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification. The contractor shall provide corrective action plans, proposal submittals, timely identification of issues, and effective management of subcontractors. The contractor shall seek to ensure customer satisfaction and professional and ethical behavior of all contractor personnel.

2.3 Contract Administration and Management

The following subsections specify requirements for contract, management, and personnel administration.

2.3.1 Contract Management

The contractor shall establish clear organizational lines of authority and responsibility to ensure effective management of the resources assigned to the requirement. The contractor must maintain continuity between the support operations at various locations and the contractor's corporate offices. Localities requiring support may include, but not limited to:

1. Port Hueneme, CA

2. San Diego, CA

3. Washington DC

4. Pearl Harbor, HI

5. Norfolk, VA

6. Yokosuka, Japan

7. Kansas City, MO

8. Bremerton, WA

Specific place of performance will be addressed at the task order level.

2.3.2 Contract Administration

The contractor shall establish processes and assign appropriate resources to effectively administer the requirement. The contractor shall respond to Government requests for contractual actions in a timely fashion. The contractor shall have a single point of contact between the Government and Contractor personnel assigned to support contracts or task orders. The contractor shall assign work effort and maintaining proper and accurate time keeping records of personnel assigned to work on the requirement.

2.3.2.1 Contractor Personnel Security Status Report. The purpose of this report is to maintain current and accurate records of the hiring and related clearance status of all contractor and subcontractor personnel. Information contained is considered Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and must be protected and transmitted as such. Verification of U.S. citizenship and background investigation results for all personnel will be conducted by the government Security Management Office.

The report shall contain, at minimum:

a. Full name, with middle name, as applicable, with social security number;

b. Citizenship status with date and place of birth;

c. Proof of the individual’s favorably adjudicated background investigation at the applicable level

(as required by each functional area of the PWS), consisting of identification of the type of investigation performed, date of the favorable adjudication, name of the agency that made the favorable adjudication, and name of the agency that performed the investigation. If personnel shall be performing across multiple functional areas with different required IT levels, the personnel shall demonstrate performance at the highest required IT level;

d. Company name, address, phone and fax numbers with email address;

e. Location of on-site workstation or phone number if off-site;

f. Delivery order or contract number and expiration date; and name of the Contracting Officer;

g. Contract labor category

h. Date request letter sent to Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

i. Date of Common Access Card (CAC) issuance and expiration;

j. Comments (if applicable)

The Contractor Personnel Security Status Report shall be delivered within 10 business days of award. The Contractor is required to provide and keep current the information for each individual.

Should any contractor or subcontractor personnel information or status change, or if contractor/subcontractor employees are added or removed from employment on this contract, the Contractor shall provide an updated information list within 3 business days of the change. See CDRL 0001- Contractor Personnel Security Status Report.

2.3.2.2 Monthly Contract Status Report. Each Prime contractor shall create and maintain a contract summary monthly status report which reports on high level metrics, performance, cost (including Earned Value Management metrics when applicable)/price and schedule elements for all active awards within the reporting time period. Strategic planning, staffing/training and certification status, risk management, problem and issue identification/resolution and action plans shall be included. See CDRL 0002- Monthly Contract Status Report.

2.3.2.3 Monthly Contract Status Report Meeting. Each Prime contractor shall participate in a contract summary monthly status meeting with government personnel such as the contracting officer and CORs. The prime shall ensure participation from their designated staff. The contract summary monthly status report shall be reviewed and discussed.

2.3.2.4 Contract Corrective Action Plan. A corrective action plan is a step by step plan of action that is developed to achieve targeted outcomes for resolution of identified problems or issues. The government may request that the contractor submit a corrective action plan for contract administration and management issues (including safety, training, security, clearance and cybersecurity workforce issues) if determined necessary. To be submitted ad hoc in accordance with CDRL- 0003 Contract Corrective Action Plan upon request.

2.3.3 Personnel Administration

The contractor shall provide management and support as required. The contractor shall provide for their employees during designated Government non-work days or other periods where Government offices are closed due to weather or security conditions. The contractor shall maintain the good standing of their employees by providing initial and refresher training as required to meet the performance work statement (PWS) and basic contract requirements. The contractor shall make necessary travel arrangements for employees.