20200429 RFP Questions.pdf

# SUBJECT Section of RFP Paragraph Page # Question EXWC Response 1 Factor 2, Management Plan L 1.11.2.1 48 Section L, paragraph 1.11.2.1 requires resumes for all Key

Personnel. Section C, paragraph 1.7, identifies the Key labor categories. Two of these Key labor categories are plural (Safety Officers and Automated Access Control Point (ACP) Engineers/Developers), which may imply that more than one position is required in each of these labor categories. Would the Government identify how many key personnel are required in each of these two labor categories so that offerors will know how many Key Personnel resumes to submit? Conversely, are offerors expected to determine how many Key Personnel in each of these labor categories are required to implement their proposed solution?

Also, Section L, paragraph1.11.2.1 states that the Key Personnel requirements are listed in paragraph C.5.1 of the PWS. The current PWS does not have a paragraph C.5.1. Would the Government please clarify/correct this paragraph to state that the key personnel are listed in paragraph 1.7 of the PWS or respectfully add paragraph C.5.1?

1) If the position requires, or the offeror desires to use, multiple personnel; submit the number of resumes that the offeror plans to utilize to perform the sustainment task order. Note that CDRL A009 requires a minimum of two personnel. Otherwise, it is the offerors choice on the number of personnel. 2) C.5.1 was renumbered to Section C paragraph 1.7

2 Key Personnel: Automated Access Control Point (ACP)

Engineers/Developers

L 1.7.4 18 Automated Access Control Point (ACP) Engineers/Developers:

Would the government consider allowing offerors to meet the total requirments of this position with multiple personnel?

Yes

3 Factor 2, Management Plan L 1.11.2.1 48 Factor 2 Management Plan requires the completion of the Key Personnel, Staffing Plan, and Training Plans. Please confirm that the Government intends for offerors to provide up to 100 pages for Factor 2.

This has been re-written to exclude resumes and letters of intent from the page limit for this factor.

4 Factor 4, Small Business L 1.11.4.2.3.3 and 1.12 51 The government has asked for 40% of contract value for SB set asides. Section 1.12 details the breakdown of the SB types. Will the government provide the correlating requirements goal and/or market research that was used to support these percentages, please?

The small business subcontracting targets are established by NAVFAC Headquarters. They were not developed specifically for this contract.

5 Supportability Strategy:

Service Level Agreement

M 1.11.1.1.2.7 48 Will the government respectfully provide a "plug number" for the Service Level Agreements needed to support the ATFP systems?

Any "plug number" that could be provided would be reflective of the current incumbant's strategy and not applicable to other offerer's individual solutions.

EXWC does not want to dictate how offerors accomplish the work, but we note that SLAs may not be required if the offeror has a teaming arrangement with the provider.

6 Supportability Strategy:

Service Level Agreement

M 1.11.1.1.2.7 48 Will the government respectfully provide the current SLAs, or the necessary data extract thereto, utilized under the existing NAVFAC ATFP Agreement? To that end, will the government also identify what current Service Level Agreements are required under the contemplated solicitation and the anticipated terms of those agreements?

1. See response to question #18 above. 2. SLA support requirements may be derived from Attachment 9, Section 1.4 Summary of Sustainment and Maintenance Tasks of the Sustainment PWS, in conjunction with Asset data contained in Appendix M Subcomponent Detail for Systems to be Sustained.

7 Supportability Strategy Plan Attachment 9 4.1 15 of

In our proposed implementation of the Supportability Strategy called for in PWS Section 4.1, will the Government allow contractors to leverage newly available technology such as Augmented Reality (AR) and Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) to reduce proposed costs? If so, will the Government consider using a revised Estimate At Completion (EAC) which accounts for the cost savings realized by the new implantation, to accurately reflect proposed costs and enable an equitable comparison?

1) The Government will consider Offerer's Supportability Strategies as proposed, but the offeror should clearly demonstrate the ability to maintain Operational Availability (Ao) requirements.

2) We know of no type of Fixed Price contract (FAR subpart 16.2) that would allow for a revised estimate at completion.

8 Town Hall OPP General n/a n/a Will the Mission Customer hold a virtual “town hall” meeting on this opportunity?

Presently, NAVFAC EXWC personnel have been directed to telework. We currently do not have an approved medium for hosting a virtual industry day.

The Navy is rolling out MS Teams, but we do not have a date for when it will be installed. We are not authorized to use commercial sources such as Zoom. We have not abandoned the concept for an industry day, virtual or otherwise.

9 ACP Engineer / Developers C 1.7 Key Personnel 17 Will the Government specify the number of Key Personnel positions required for the Automated Access Control Point (ACP) Engineers/Developers and Safety Officers?

As stated in Attachment 9, Section 4.4.2.3 of the PWS:

OPTION - Automated Access Control Point (AVP) Engineer/Developer, "AT/FP Ashore requires a sufficient number of ACP Engineers/Developers to support the quantity and location of Automated Vehicle Gates (AVGs) and Automated Pedestrian Turnstiles (APTs) under sustainment within the program. Quantity and location of these systems are identified in Appendix C List of AT/FP Ashore Systems to be Sustained Under the Contract .

It is expected that Offerors will identify how many Key Personnel are required in their respective solution.

10 Small Business Requirements L 1.11.4.2.3.3. 50 Will the Government consider making the 40% SB requirement be 40% of subcontracted dollars instead of total contract value? This allows more flexibility for offerors to build a team that not only meet SB requirements but adds value to the team and to the Government’s mission.

The subcontracting targets are of subcontracted dollars, not total contract value. Clarification added to section L.

11 Evaluation Criteria M 11.2 54 The evaluation criteria, with technical factors combined with past performance being equal to cost makes it very difficult for non-incumbents to successfully compete in this acquisition. Given the detailed pricing (almost 1,000 line items in Attachment 2), the incumbent has an advantage given they are performing the work today and have insight critical to pricing at this level. We recommend that the Government consider a true best value approach that focuses heavily on offerors’ management approaches (organization, corporate tools and processes). Most offerors will retain the majority of the incumbent workforce who possess the day-to-day technical expertise – the real differentiator among offerors is their management solutions. Will the Government consider restructuring Section M to encourage competition and level the playing field?

1) It is NAVFAC policy to have technical factors equal to past performance. 2) The decision to make the combined technical factors and past performance equal to price is done to not mislead offerors as to the true importance of price. There may be technical solutions that the Navy simply cannot afford given the budget for this program. 3) The pricing scheme submitted in this draft is different than prior approaches and we are still evaluating whether is viable.

Incubments will usually have a competitive advantage, we see no way of mitigating that; but do not believe it rises to an unfair competitive advantage.

12 Letters of Intent requirement L 1.11.2.1.1 48 We recommend that the Government remove the requirement for Letters of Intent for contingent hires which may prevent offerors from proposing personnel who may support or have supported the program. Some candidates are fearful to sign a letter of intent due to potential retribution. This requirement favors the incumbent since they have their Key Personnel in place and would not require any additional steps.

We have made this an optional requirement and adjusted both the factor and basis of evaluation.

13 Past Performance criteria M 1.2 54 The Past Performance ratings state that a Very Relevant (highest score possible) requires offerors to possess “essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.” It will be very difficult for most offerors to achieve the highest score given this description. The incumbent performing the work today likely will receive the highest score. We recommend the Government consider making changes to allow for similar, directly relevant work (e.g., similar maintenance activities for other systems/equipment where the maintenance approaches are easily transferrable).

The definitions used in Section M's Tables 1, 2, and 3 are dictated by the DoD Source Selection Manual. The past performance factor allows for the submission of five projects. The incumbent would only be able to submit the current contract as one project. Note that the Narrative Statement affords offeror's the ability to explain how the previous projects are relevant.

14 Overly restrictive criteria General n/a n/a We are very interested in supporting this effort and building on our more than 60 years of service to DOD, including Navy customers CONUS and OCONUS. However, after reviewing the Draft RFP, it is difficult to justify a business case to pursue this opportunity. The Draft RFP has several elements (importance of price, past performance evaluation, etc.) that make it difficult for anyone other than the incumbent to achieve the highest ratings. We have pursued teaming with multiple highly qualified vendors who have decided to no bid due to the structure of the Draft RFP. To increase competition and ensure that the Government receives the best value, we recommend that you restructure the proposal requirements in Section L and the evaluation criteria in M to highlight the true discriminators among bidders.

We hope the explanations provided above demonstrate the rationale for not concuring with all of the requested changes.

15 Industry Days General n/a n/a We recognize the complexities of navigating industry days during the COVID-19 crisis however, we strongly believe that industry days and one-on-one sessions will result in the Government receiving better responses to the RFP. We recommend that the Government conduct such sessions once travel restrictions are lifted.

Industry days also provide networking opportunities for small businesses – ensuring offerors can present a highly qualified team.

By the time the final RFP is released, offerors have already made bid/no bid, teaming decisions, therefore, it would advantageous if the Government considers at least conducting virtual industry day/one-on-one discussions with industry.

See response to question 8.

16 General n/a n/a If the Government makes significant changes to the RFP due to industry feedback, we recommend a release of a revised Draft RFP prior to the final RFP. This will allow offerors to make necessary teaming adjustments and make final pursuit decisions.

The draft RFP is being revised with track changes as changes are made.

17 Management Plan L 1.11.2.1 48 The 100-page limit for the Management Plan, which includes a Staffing Plan and Transition Plan, seems excessive. Will the government consider reducing the page count for Management Plan to 50 pages?

We were expecting comments that it should be more. We will consider depending on other comments received. Note that it is a maximum, not a minimum.

We do appreciate clear and concise proposals. No change made presently.

18 Safety Factor L 1.11.3 49 Under Factor 3, Safety, Section L.1.11.3.1 instructs offerors to complete Attachment 6. The subsections that follow (L.1.11.3.1.1 - 1.11.3.1.2.3.1) appear to provide guidance on completing Attachment 6; however, may intend a separate section on Safety in addition to Attachment 6. If offerors complete Attachment 6, does that constitute a complete response to Factor 3, Safety?

Only attachment 6 is required.

Historically this factor has been confusing for some offerors, so we believe the form helps ensure the submittal is complete. Made some changes to the factor in Section L, and revised the Basis of Estimate in Section M.

19 Small Business L 1.11.4.2 49 - 51 Under Factor 4, Small Business, Section L.1.11.4.2 identifies 3 documents that must be completed by Large Business – Attachment 3, Attachment 4, and Attachment 5. It appears that the remaining sections, starting at L.1.11.4.2.1, relate to these three documents. If large business offerors complete Attachments 3, 4, and 5, does that constitute a complete response to Factor 4, Small Business?

All offerors (large and small) must complete Attachments 3 and 4, which will be evaluated.

Large Businesses must also complete Attachment 5, which will not be evaluated but will serve as the subcontracting plan for the contract.

20 Small Business

L

1.11.4.2.3.3. 50 Will the Government consider making the 40% SB requirement be 40% of subcontracted dollars instead of total contract value? This allows more flexibility for offerors to build a team that not only meet SB requirements but adds value to the team and to the Government’s mission.

See response to question 10.

21 Staffing Levels APP C n/a n/a What is the current sustainment staffing level at each project work location (i.e. Full Time Equivalent labor support by project work location)? If detailed breakdown by location is not available, can the government provide FTE estimates by region?

Sustainment staffing levels are determined by the Offeror based upon their Sustainment Support Strategy in conjunction with Operational Availability requirements and historical data provided in APP-N Historical 3-yr Asset Failure Data and APP- O Historical 3-yr Record of Non- Gap Service Calls .

22 Work Stations APP C n/a n/a How many work stations are available for contractor staff at each work location?

The majority of work locations under this contract do not maintain work stations for contractors. For those locations where contractors are co-located, a sufficient quantity of work stations are provided to meet staffing requirements.

23 Pricing L 1.11.6.1.1 51 Request that the government provide clarity regarding the Price Schedule as represented in the spreadsheet and in Section L.1.11.6.1.1. The following are specific topics:

1. Please provide clarification regarding the definition of “Per Ticket” in the Price Schedule columns J/ K.

2. Please provide clarification regarding the definition of “Per Project” in the Price Schedule columns L, M, and N?

1. "Per Ticket" cost identifies the anticipated average cost to resolve one Service ticket associated with the project listing. Factors to consider might include type and location of system, historical nature of services requested, and staffing resources proposed under the Offeror's Sustainment Strategy.

2. "Per Project" costs in columns L-N refers to the individual cost elements for each column that are associated with the Project listed in column F, based upon relevancy of each element to that specific system.

23 Pricing L 1.11.6.1.1 51 3. How do these “Per Ticket” and “Per Project” costs combine to produce Unit Price and Total Amount in columns O and P?

4. Does each project have per project cyber, software, and SLA costs?

3. UNIT PRICE correlates with column O "Unit of Issue," equaling one-month.

Accordingly, this entry will include anticipated costs associated with the total number of Project tickets serviced within that period, plus all applicable costs derived from cost elements in columns L-N, prorated for the same period. The resulting "UNIT PRICE" can then be multiplied by 12 ("QTY," from column H) for the "TOTAL AMOUNT" entry.

4. Not every Project will have associated cyber, software, and SLA costs. These costs may be derived from information/data found in Attachment 9, Section

1.4 of the PWS, APP-M Subcomponent Detail for Systems to be Sustained, and the Offeror's own Sustainment Strategy Plan.

23 Pricing L 1.11.6.1.1 51 5. How do the QTY and Unit of Issue columns relate to the Total Amount?

6. For columns J and K, how many tickets per project, per month are required or estimated?

7. For columns L, M, and N, how many projects per month are required or estimated?

8. Under the Base Period – OPTIONS tab, what is the intended difference between ELIN B01A and ELIN C01A?

5. (See the response to question #3 detailing the relationship between QTY, Unit of Issue, and Total Amount.)

6. Estimations of tickets per project per month may be derived from data found in APP- N Historical 3-yr Asset Failure Data and APP-O Historical 3-yr Record of Non-Gap Service Calls.

7. Entries for cost elements associated with columns L-N relate directly to the specific Project identified in columns B and F.

8. ELIN B01A provides a quantity of 50 Gap service calls.

ELIN C01A provides for an additional 50 Gap service calls.

23 Pricing L 1.11.6.1.1 51 9a. Under the Base Period – OPTIONS tab, Line Item 0004, is the intended cost for a single system or the enterprise family of systems? 9b.The listing of 12 for QTY seems inconsistent with a base period that includes 60 months?

10a. Under the Base Period – OPTIONS tab, Line Item 0005, is the Unit Price intended to be per month? 10.b Please clarify the length of the cybersecurity lifecycle.

9a. Line Item 0004 under the Base Period OPTIONS tab is for the cost of the enterprise family of systems. 9b. The basic contract will have an ordering period of sixty months. The sustainment task order (Attachment 9) to which this pricing applies, will have a base year and four options years. Note Only the Base Year was included in this draft spreadsheet.

10a. The UNIT PRICE for Line Item 0005 under the Base Period OPTIONS tab is for each Full- Time Equivalent (FTE) Information Security System Professional (ISSP) proposed to meet the requirement of the option. 10b. The length of the cybersecurity lifecycle is indefinite as RMF Step 6 continues beyond accreditation and includes maintenance/modification efforts.

23 Pricing L 1.11.6.1.1 51 11a. Under the Base Period – OPTIONS tab, Line Item 0006, can the government provide the quantity of testing, upgrades, or advances in software? 11b. What is the period of time that the government would require these services?

11a. As the quantity of testing, upgrades, or advances in software is situational, the best indicator the government can provide is the number of applicable systems as detailed in APP-M Subcomponent Detail for Systems to be Sustained. 11b.

Period of time for Option Line Item 0006 is one-year.

23 Pricing L 1.11.6.1.1 51 12 Under the Base Period – OPTIONS tab, the government has not included any options under Option Period 1. Does the government anticipate requiring any optional services in Option Period 1?

12. Option items 0002, and 0003 are gap service calls that may be exercised in the base year of the sustainment task order. Items 0004, 0005, 0006 are options that we are confident will be exercised at the time of award of the sustainment task order, but may not be awarded in future option years of the task order (Please refer to section L, para 1.2 for the rationale). The draft spreadsheet that was provided only covered the base year. If we stay with this format, then there will be pricing provided for the entire sustainment task order period of a base year and four option years and an extension of service period.

ATO Status APP M n/a n/a

Can the government provide Authority to Operate (ATO) status for all systems / subcomponents to allow offerors to project cybersecurity costs?

ATO status for all applicable systems can be found in Attachment 2 - ELIN Price Schedule on the Options tab.

Software List APP M n/a n/a Can the government provide a Software (SW) list by system / subcomponent to allow offerors to project software costs?

Software detail can be found in APP-M Subcomponent Detail for Systems to be Sustained .

SLAs APP M n/a n/a

Can the government identify the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) applicable to each system / subcomponent to allow offerors to project SLA costs? Can the government provide the terms of the SLAs to show offerors what is covered by those SLAs (e.g. software licensing agreements)?

A comprehensive list of example SLAs are provided in the Attachment 9, PWS Section 1.4 Summary of Sustainment and Maintenance Tasks . The actual selection and terms of SLAs will vary according to each Offeror's Support Stategy Plan.

27 Key Personnel Section H 23 Due to the critical nature of the work performed by key personnel, retaining personnel in their respective positions reduces risk for the Government on this program. Will the Government modify its key personnel requirements such that each proposed key person must perform on the contract for a minimum of 12 months?

While we agree in theory, we think establishing it as a requirement would be an over-reach into the offeror's personnel relations. That doesn't mean the offeror can't propose a guaranteed term, with exceptions for serious illness, death, etc.

28 Ltrs of Intent Q&A #12; SectioMgmt Plan 4 & 48 As a result of the Government’s response in this Q&A to remove the Letter of Intent requirement, Offerors will be able to propose key personnel in their proposal without actual permission from the person. Letters of Intent provide the Government with assurances that the key personnel being proposed by Offerors are willing to work for the awardee after contract award. Will the Government reconsider its modifications to remove the Letter of Intent requirement?

We cannot help but wonder how an offeror would obtain a resume for personnel, without their consent; but we will take this concern under advisement.

29 POP PWS & ATT 2 Section 6 21 This section of the PWS states that the Period of Performance includes five ordering years and three option years, however Attachment 2- ELIN Price Schedule only reflects a Base Period of 12 months. Will the Government confirm the Base Period to be proposed in the ELIN Price Schedule should be a total of 60 months/5 years as reflected in the PWS? In addition, will the Government revise the ELIN Price Schedule to allow Offerors to propose all three option years and Option 1-5 pricing for all out-years of the contract?

The draft spreadsheet that was provided only covered the base year. If we stay with this format, then Attachment 2 will include tabs for the base year and four option years and an extension of service period.

30 ATT 2 L 1.11.6.1.1 51 Section L 1.11.6.1.1 states the following "Offerors shall complete the tabs in order to provide pricing for each annual option."

Attachment 2 only reflects a base year with a quantity of 12 months.

Is the Government expecting Offerors to modify Attachment 2 and duplicate the tabs for each year of the 5 Year Base period? Or should the tab say 60 months vice the 12?

See response to question 29.

31 Options Period Section F L 1.11.6.1.1 21 & 51Section F states "This contract will have an optional ordering period of 36 months" and Section L states that "Offerors shall complete the tabs in order to provide pricing for each annual option." Attachment 2 only reflects the base year with a quantity of 12 months. Is the Government expecting Offerors to modify the template in order to price the optional ordering period?

By regulation, the sustainment task order can only be a maximum of five years (and an extension of services period).

While the overall IDIQ can have an ordering period longer than 5 years. A second sustainment task order would need to be negotiated on a sole-source basis, if the Gov't determines to exercise the 36 month option.

32 Extension of Services Period Section F L 1.11.6.1.1 21 & 51Section F states "This contract will contain an extension of services period for no more than six months." Section L 1.11.6.1.1 states that "Offerors shall complete the tabs in order to provide pricing for each annual option." Attachment 2 does not reflect the extension of services period. Is the Government expecting Offerors to modify Attachment 2 in order to price the extension of service period?

See response to question 29.

33 ATT 2 ELIN Sked Attachment 2 does not appear to contain any instructions or formulas and the RFP instructions are minimal. Should Offerors provide the monthly unit price under Column O "Unit Price" and then multiply it by the 12 months to arrive at the value for Column P?

UNIT PRICE reflects the sum of anticipated costs for all applicable costs derived from elements in columns J-N after those costs have been factored to be applicable to the UNIT OF ISSUE (i.e., one-month). The resulting "UNIT PRICE" (column O) can then be multiplied by 12 ("QTY," from column H) for the "TOTAL AMOUNT" entry.

34 ATT 2 ELIN Sked Columns J through N in Attachment 2 request pricing per ticket or per project. Are the rates provided in these columns in excess of the monthly units of issue requested in Column I? Or should Offerors use these columns to arrive at the unit price in column O?

The UNIT OF ISSUE (column I) applies directly to the UNIT PRICE (column O). As stated, units in columns J-N are per ticket or per project as indicated.

35 Total Evaluated Price ELIN Sked Will the Government confirm the total evaluated price will be calculated using the total of A01A, A01B, B01A, C01A, D01A, E01A, and F01A?

The total evaluated price would include these cells, but also include the respective cells for the remaining four option years and extension of services period.

36 Cost Section 11 11 25-27 Can the government clarify if various ODC costs such as travel, transportation or shipping costs should be proposed as cost-plus-fixed-fee or cost-reimbursable (without fee)?

We do not intend for this to be a hybrid contract, nor we object to ODCs on the sustainment task order being burdened with profit.

37 Shipping ATT 9 5.6 21 In order to accurately estimate the required level of effort for the shipping and transportation of spares and the global nature of the program, will the government provide demand data relevant to the requirements for licensing and export control?

Demand data relevant to the requirements for licensing and export control is not a deliverable under the current contract, and is not available to the Government as it remains a by-product of the Incumbant's individual Supportability Strategy Plan.

38 Storage Section L &

ATT 9

1.11.1.1.2.1 & Section

48 & 20In order for an offeror to accurately estimate and cost anticipated storage and warehousing requirements, will the government, provide the approximate square footage or weights and dimms of spares and repair items for each Base or Site? If not, will the government provide how much of each item is typically stored at any given time?

While Attachment 9, Section

7.5.8 allows that Logistical Support, including storage space for spares inventory may be furnished by the Government for OCONUS sites, "if available and authorized by the appropriate base commander or designee", Section 5.5 Spare Parts, clearly states that "It is the Contractor's responsibility to find adequate workspace and storage of spares in order to maintain the required Ao." Requisite square footage for storage and quantities of items is based upon the Offeror's individual Supportability Strategy Plan.

39 Storage ATT 9 7.5.8 29 the government states "Logistical Support that may be furnished by the Government, if available and authorized". Should an offeror assume that no OCONUS space is to be provided for the storage of spares and repair items for the purposes of proposing costs?

See Response to question 38.

40 Spare Parts ATT 9 4.1 7 Specific demand data would allow an offereer to better estimate the cost requirements for shipping, storage and the procurement level of effort. Will the government provide historical procurement and shipping demand data in order to determine the magnitude of the movement of the spares?

Demand data relevant to historical procurement and shipping is not a deliverable under the current contract, and is not available to the Government as it remains a by-product of the Incumbant's individual Supportability Strategy Plan.

41 Spare Parts ATT 9 4.1 7 PWS states that an offeror is responsible for "creating and implementing a spare parts management system" as part of their proposed Supportability Strategy. Should this be assumed to mean that the government would not provide an inventory management system or require the use of the Remedy system for this function?

Yes.

42 Spare Parts ATT 9 5.3 20 PWS states that the government will furnish the IUID tags and the contractor will affix them to the part. When the government provides the IUID tag, will it contain all the appropriate marking or is that the responsibility of the contractor?

IUID tags provided by the Government will contain all the appropriate markings.

43 Supportability Strategy ATT 9 & APP J

1.11.1.1.2 & 4.1 48 & 7 APP J has descriptions of identified faults but in many cases does not determine the source of cause of said faults. In order more accurately predict the sustainment level of effort to respond to Gap Service Calls,

1. Will the government provide specific failure data such as expected Mean-Time Between Failure (MTBF) (or similar) for each system component?

2. Will the government provide any root cause analysis?

3. Will the government provide historical failure data per equipment/system?

All data related to system/equipment failure and/or root cause analysis to be provided by the Government is contained within Appendix J, Appendix N, or Appendix O.

44 Maintenance Strategy ATT 9 1.11.1.1.2 & 4.1 48 & 8 Navy MRC (Maintenance Requirement Cards) are traditionally utilized to capture the time and skill level required to perform a PMCS service call on equipment to be maintained. Would the government be willing to provide similar data for all PMCs and inspections for all systems to be sustained?

Attachment 9, Section 4.2.1 of the PWS identifies Preventive Maintenance Inspection (PMI) Checklists as Government Furnished Information (GFI).

The same section provides that "Recommendations for changes/improvements to the processes described in a PMI checklist may be submitted at any time to the NAVFAC AT/FP Ashore Sustainment Director for assessment and subsequent implementation." Attachment 8 provides samples of the PMI data contained therein.

45 Systems Sustained ATT 9 & APP-

C & APP-M

1.3 9 Will the government provide a complete system configuration for all deployed ATFP system that must be sustained on this contract? (Ex:

Is ACP-VG a system? Is CCTV a subsystem within ACP-VG? Is CCTV a standalone system? Is Lenel a system or is a manufacturer of components of a larger system under the “DPC-CDS,” system?)

The Government will not be providing a system configuration description at this time. The CCTV is not a standalone system. It is integrated into the ACP-VG and Perimeter monitoring systems. Lenel is an OEM for hardware/software that is used by the Navy for many of the ESS systems including DPC-

DCS.

46 Wage Determinations Section I 52.222-41 29 Will a Service Contract wage determination for each U.S. location priced in Attachment 2 be included in this solicitation?

Yes

47 Truth in Negotiations Clause Section I 52.215-10 29 Since more than one proposal can be expected to be received for this solicitation, why are the listed clauses relating to certified cost or pricing data included?

Because subsequent task orders will be in a sole source environment and most are expect to exceed the cost or pricing threshold.

48 Pricing Req. Section L 1.11.6.1.1 51 Is any cost or pricing information required to be submitted with proposals other than the basis of estimate narrative and completed Attachment 2 – ELIN Price Schedule?

No.

49 Small Bus. Subs Section L 1.12 52 Will proposing any small business subcontracting goal below any of the NAVFAC FY 20 subcontracting program targets listed (as a percentage of subcontract dollars), result in an evaluation weakness or deficiency for Factor 4?

The degree of how far below the targets would be needed to answer this question.