N61340-13-R-1057_LVCMS_Comments_Questions_and_Answers_10-17-13.docx

Solicitation N61340-13-R-1057 LVCMS ASW VAST Comments, Questions and Answers

Answers that require any changes to the solicitation will be addressed in an amendment at a later date.

17 Oct 2013

1. In the solicitation, proposals are due by November 12, 2013. On page 130, you state that an award is expected by November 15, 2013. Will an award be made after 3 days of evaluation? Or is this a typo?

Answer: This is a typographical error. Section F (Page 17) states that contract award is anticipated at 30 January 2014. The solicitation will be amended.

2. In addition to the GFI referenced under Attachment (6), request[ed] [is] the following:

• MH-60R AOP 86 Mod29 version (specified in Section 3.2.1 of the Sample Task 1 SOW)

• Actual AOP software that makes up the AOP Answer: The RFP contracting and program offices do not currently possess the MH-60R AOP. As a result, the government does not plan to provide the MH-60R AOP software to offerors to prepare proposals.

3. In Section L, 3.1 General, the last sentence of the first paragraph states: “When possible, these contracts should include up to three of the most relevant contracts for the prime contractor and up to two of the most relevant contracts for each (Offeror emphasis) principal subcontractor and (Offeror emphasis) team member. (as defined in Paragraph I, General Instructions).” Question: Is it the Government’s intent to allow for up to two past performance contracts for each principal subcontractor and up to two past performance contracts for each non-principal subcontractor?

Answer: No. It is not the government’s intent to allow for up to two past performance contracts for each principal subcontractor and up to two past performance contracts for each non-principal subcontractor. The government will evaluate the past performance of principal subcontractors; team members of joint ventures and partnerships where the joint venture or partnership does not have three relevant past performance contracts; and a corporate parent, division, subsidiary, or affiliate that provides at least 30% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the offeror’s profit/fee) for the contract. The government will amend a portion of Section M.3.0, as follows:

4. Sections B and C require that offerors utilize the contract labor rates in Attachment 2 Resource Allocation Matrix for all delivery order proposals as well as utilize the fixed factor rates for burdens on Materials, Travel and Other Direct Costs. Section C and Sections H.2, Labor Categories, and H.3 Material, Travel and Other Direct Costs, state that a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data must be furnished for delivery order proposals that exceed the TINA value, with Section C including the requirement for a Certificate for both FFP and CPFF delivery orders and Sections H.2 and H.3 including the requirement only for CPFF delivery orders.

Q: Since the contract labor rates in Attachment 2 are required to be utilized for delivery order proposals, as are the fixed factor rates for burdens for Materials, Travel and Other Direct Costs, it seems that a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data would not be appropriate because the contract labor rates and fixed factor rates required to be used will be determined upon award of the IDIQ contract; i.e., they will not be ‘current’ as of the date of delivery order negotiation and award. Would the Government please clarify how the requirement for a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data can apply in this situation where negotiated rates are included in the IDIQ contract for use throughout the life of the contract?

Answer: Contract labor rates and fixed factor rates for burden for material, travel, and other direct costs set forth in Attachment 2 of the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract are not subject to the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA). Those labor rates and fixed factor rates are fixed at the time of award of the ID/IQ contract. There is other information, however, that is subject to cost or pricing data, as that term is defined at FAR section 2.101. For example, to negotiate a delivery order with the government under the ID/IQ contract, the contractor will propose certain labor categories and a certain number of labor hours for each labor category. The proposed number of hours and proposed labor categories are subject to TINA if the delivery order exceeds the TINA threshold.

5. Generally throughout the RFP, there is a requirement to utilize the Attachment 2 contract labor rates and fixed factor rates for delivery order proposals.

Q: 5.a) Will Attachment 2 be incorporated into the awarded contract? If so, for CPFF delivery order proposals, are these rates to be used only for estimating purposes with actual rates used for invoicing purposes? If not, it seems that CLINs x003 are more like T&M CLINs versus CPFF. Please clarify the purpose of the Attachment 2 rates as they relate to CPFF delivery orders.

Q: 5.b) Are the fixed factor rates for burdens on Materials, Travel and Other Direct Costs meant to function as ceilings or will they be considered negotiated rates that must be utilized notwithstanding forward pricing rates?

Answer:

Answer 5(a): Attachment 2 will be incorporated into the contract at award. For cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) delivery orders, the labor and fixed factor rates set forth in Attachment 2 will be used by the contractor for estimating and invoicing purposes. Actual labor rates will not be used for invoicing purposes. An offeror's "costs" will be invoiced using the labor rates that are fixed at contract award and set forth in Attachment 2. You are correct that CLINs X003 are more like Time & Material (T&M) CLINs rather than CPFF CLINs, but fee is not included in the burdened rates.

Answer 5(b): The fixed factor rates for burdens on materials, travel and other direct costs are not meant to function as ceilings. The fixed factor rates that are set forth in Attachment 2 at the time of contract award are negotiated factor rates that will be used regardless of forward pricing rates that may be available when the parties negotiate a delivery order under the ID/IQ contract.

6. Sections B and C state that proposed Material, Travel, and Other Direct Costs will be burdened utilizing the fixed factor rate(s) in Attachment 2. However Section G, Contract Administration Data, G.1 CPFF Payment, states “Materials, ODCs, and travel will be paid on actual costs incurred in accordance with 5252.232-9509.”

Q: Please clarify: is the intent that in delivery order proposals, Materials, Travel and ODCs will be estimated utilizing the fixed factor rates for burdens but that for awarded CPFF delivery orders, payment will be based on actual costs versus on fixed factor rates?

Answer In a CPFF scenario, actual costs for direct materials, ODCs, and travel may differ from the negotiated costs at the time of award. These costs shall be billed based on actual costs incurred plus the burden of the applicable fixed factor established in Attachment 2.

7. Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.2.3.7, Conferences and Reviews, reference Key Personnel. Section L - CONTENT OF PROPOSALS (SUPPLIES OR SERVICES) (JUN 2011), PART B SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, Element 1.2 – Personnel Allocations, lists some very specific elements under amplifying information.

Q: Does the Government intend for the offeror to include Key Personnel by name in the Personnel Allocation and Attachment 2 Resource Allocation tables, with actual rates for those Key Personnel?

Answer: No, the government does not intend for offerors to identify proposed personnel by name with actual rates for those personnel. In addition, the RFP does not identify any “key personnel” labor categories.

8. In section L, Part A, subsection 3.0, the table references a 120* page limit for the Technical/Management Volume. This direction references an asterisk footnote which states:

“* Page limitation does not include resource allocation matrix and Annex A Small Business Participation Plan and Small Business Subcontracting Strategy and Plan.”

Question: Since the resource allocation matrix does not appear in Volume 1, Technical/Management but rather in Volume 2, Price/Administrative would it be more appropriate for this exemption from the page count in Volume I to pertain to the Personnel Allocation Matrix vice the Resource Allocation Matrix?

Answer: Page limitation does not include the personnel allocation matrix. This will be corrected in an upcoming amendment.

9. Section L, Part B, subsection 1.0, Element 1.4 states: “…describe the technical approach, processes, procedures, methods, and steps the offeror will employ to build and deliver three RACT3 production units within 18 months after acceptance of the RACT3 prototype unit.”

Section L, page 127 says: “The anticipated award date for this requirement is [15 November 2013]. This information is provided for use as a basis for schedules and burden (labor, overheads, G&A, etc.) mid-point calculations.” The date in that clause was later clarified by the Government in its Questions and Answers posted on October 3, 2013 to be January 30, 2014, meaning that date is to be used as a basis for schedules and burden calculations.

Section L, Part B, subsection 2.0, page 135 says: “To establish prices for the out-year CLINs (1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002), recalculate the price for Sample Task 2 using the out-year rates proposed in the Resource Allocation Matrix. The offeror shall calculate the estimated total CLIN price for each year by filling out the tables (examples below.)” The date in that clause was later clarified by the Government in its Questions and Answers posted on October 3, 2013 to be January 30, 2014, meaning that date is to be used as a basis for schedules and burden calculations.

a. Question: Will the Government clarify whether or not schedule and burden calculations for Sample Task 2 are to be calculated from January 30, 2014 or from the projected date of acceptance of the RACT3 prototype unit?

b. Question: Should Sample Task 2 be projected to require more than 12 months, will the Government clarify if the full cost of Sample Task 2 should be calculated for each of the out-year CLINs (1002, 2002, 3002, 4002)? For example, if Sample Task 2 were projected to require 18 months, should the full 18 month cost be condensed into each of the out-year CLINs (1002, 2002, 3002, 4002)?

c. Question: Depending on the answers to questions (a) and (b) above, Sample Task 2 may be projected to be performed, all or in part, in out-year CLINs (e.g., 1002, 2002, and/or 3002). Will the Government clarify whether or not Sample Task 2 must be recalculated for out-year CLINs in which the work is projected to be performed?

Answer:

9(a) For the technical approach, the offeror shall propose with the assumption that delivery of three RACT3 production units are required within 18 months after acceptance of the RACT3 prototype unit. For pricing purposes of CLIN 0002, performance should begin January 30, 2014.

9(b) The rates are applicable to the time period. The sample task may exceed one (1) calendar year. If that is the case, the appropriate out year labor year should be utilized for performance in that out year. However, the entire cost should be proposed under the CLIN in which performance begins.

9(c) The Sample Task should be proposed for year 1 and recalculated for all out-year CLINs with a start date consistent with the respective CLIN’s period of performance as detailed in Section F. Tasks may exceed one (1) calendar year. If that is the case, the appropriate out-year labor year should be utilized for performance in that out year. However, the entire cost should be proposed under the CLIN in which performance begins.

10. Section J, Attachment 1 SOW, Subsection 3.1.6.1.1 states: "An OPSEC plan shall be delivered IAW the CDRL (A00B) for the base contract to document the contractor’s established security plan to address the protection of classified, proprietary, sensitive, and controlled unclassified information. CDRL A00B shall be delivered IAW section 3.2.1.1. (Post Award Conference)", while Section L, Section B Specific Instructions, Element 1.1, Para C states: "Security: The offeror shall provide an OPSEC plan that describes their approach for meeting security requirements."

Question: Will the government please clarify if the OPSEC plan is to be submitted as part of the proposal, or at the Post Award Conference as CDRL A00B, per Section 3.2.1.1?

Answer: The OPSEC plan shall be provided as part of the proposal for evaluation purposes. The OPSEC plan will be resubmitted at the PAC for Government acceptance.

11. SOW Paragraph 3.1 states "All materials created or acquired under this SOW for RACT3 development, including final hardware, software, documentation, will be property of the Government."

Will the Government accept Government Purpose Rights?

Answer: Yes, the Government will accept Government Purpose Rights for technical data, computer software, and computer software documentation developed with mixed funding, in accordance with DFARS clauses 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014. The Government shall have Unlimited Rights in works first produced, created, or generated and required to be delivered under the contract, in accordance with DFARS clause 252.227-7020.

Additionally, the following RFP language will be amended. Attachment 10 of the RFP, Sample Task 1 SOW, paragraph 3.1, will be updated as follows:

NAWCTSD will oversee the program/engineering management, systems engineering, software engineering, subject matter experts, testing, and configuration management for the procurement of RACT3. All materials developed created or acquired under this SOW for RACT3 development, including final hardware, software, documentation, will be property of the Government. The RACT3 training system may be located in various locations, locally, nationally, and/or internationally. The contractor shall provide the design and capability for the RACT3. This capability shall include the use and implementation of the Aircraft Operational Program (AOP). The system shall include the capabilities for the Pilot, Co-Pilot, and Sensor Operator. There shall be an Instructor Operator Station (IOS) with capabilities for standalone, High Level Architecture (HLA), Navy Continuous Training Environment (NCTE), and Navy Aviation Simulator Master Plan (NASMP) functionality. Operator Station capability shall include the use of all airborne sensors to include: sonobuoys, Airborne Low Frequency System (ALFS) (Dipper), and radar.

Section M, Part B, Section 1.0, Element 1.3(i) will also be amended as follows:

i. Emphasis will be placed on the offeror’s accurate representation of the MH-60R Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) capability. Requirements traceability from requirement analysis through test and evaluation will be evaluated. The offeror’s proposed architectural and computational system will be evaluated. The offeror’s design approach for the IOS and AAR will be evaluated. The offeror’s commonality plan across the hardware and software selection will be evaluated. Justification for non-common items will be evaluated. The offeror’s proposed usage of available data and development tools will be evaluated. The offeror’s overview of any non-developmental software and developmental software will be evaluated for cost-effective lifecycle maintainability. The offeror’s assumptions to meet the requirements of this effort will be evaluated.

12. Will the Government provide a Romeo flight model from another program as GFI to the selected offerer to help contain costs?

Answer: The RFP contracting and program offices do not currently possess a Romeo flight model from another program. The Sample Task is fictitious and this GFI will not be provided.

13. Will the Government provide the following required software components as GFI to the selected offerer after contract award?

• MH-60R AOP 86 Mod29 version

• Actual AOP software

Answer: The RFP contracting and program offices do not currently possess MH-60R AOP 86 Mod29 version or the Actual AOP software. The Sample Task is fictitious and additional GFI will not be provided.

14. Will the Government provide the Mission Computer or other Romeo hardware as GFE?

Answer: The Government will not provide the Mission Computer or other Romeo hardware as GFE . The Sample Task is fictitious and no GFP will be provided.

15. CLIN 0002 is identified as FFP throughout the RFP except in Attachment 10, Sample Task 1 - where it is identified as CPFF.

3.2.1 RACT3 System and Platform Requirements CLIN 0002 (CPFF) The paragraphs in the sections below provide the scope of detailed requirements. (Ref: LVCMS ASW VAST ID/IQC SOW PDX13EE02, para. 3.2). This entire trainer system shall be priced as a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) for all items within 3.2.1.1.

Is this correct? Section M states the evaluation criteria for this section is based upon FFP.

Answer: Sample Task #1 (CLIN 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, 4003) is CPFF. Although the SOW references CPFF, the offeror should propose Sample Task #2 as FFP based on the Sample Task #1 SOW with the modifying assumption that the offeror is now required to build and deliver three RACT3 production units within 18 months after acceptance of the RACT3 prototype unit. The production units will be delivered to Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville, FL, NAS North Island, San Diego, CA, and NAS Kaneohe Bay, HI.

16. Attachment 10, Sample Task Order #1, Section 3.2.4.10 -- Statement: "The system cold start procedures, developed in accordance with SOW paragraph 3.2.4.1.1, shall be included …" Correction: The cold start procedure is in SOW paragraph 3.2.2.4.6.1.

Please confirm.

Answer: Cold Start Procedures for Sample Task #1 are detailed in the Sample Task #1 SOW under paragraph 3.2.4.1.1. The Base SOW also addresses Cold start procedure under SOW paragraph 3.2.2.4.6.1. The offeror should propose Sample Task #1 in accordance with the Sample Task #1 SOW.

17. Due to the Government shut down, there have been issues with trying to coordinate the submissions of the Past Performance questionnaire. According to the RFP, the questionnaire must be submitted to the identified customer(s) no later than 11 October 2013. We would like to know if the 11 October 2013 is a hard date, or if the date has fluidity as long as the PP questionnaire is submitted no later than the offeror’s proposal submission.

Answer: The language in Section L Volume 3 Factor C Past Performance will be updated as follows:

"All questionnaires shall be forwarded in a timely manner after the RFP release date to ensure sufficient lead-time so that responses can be received by the Government. The Offeror shall include instructions for the customers to send completed questionnaires prior to the RFP closing date and time via e-mail to jonathan.catalano@navy.mil or via fax number 407-380-4164, while allowing the customer adequate lead time to complete their response."

18. Section L states, “For contracts or delivery orders that have CPARS Reports that are more than six months old, e.g., the completion date is more than six months before the due date for this Past Performance Volume,”

What date on the CPAR is the Government referencing as the completion date above? There are three potential options that can be construed as being the completion date.

1. The “Contract Completion Date” on the CPAR

2. The end date of the “Period of Performance Being Assessed” field on the CPAR

3. The date the “Assessing Official” signs the assessment

Answer: The language in Section L Volume 3 Factor C Past Performance will be updated as follows:

“For contracts or delivery orders that have CPARS Reports that are more than six months old, e.g., the date the Assessing Official completed the assessment is more than six months before the due date for this Past Performance Volume….”

19. Section L.2.0 (Page 129) states:

“The Offeror must present proposal information in a manner that facilitates a one-to-one comparison between the information presented and this Proposal Instruction. Proposal information must be structured such that its paragraph number/letter is identical to the Proposal Instructions paragraph number to which it is responding, although the Offeror may add lower tier subparagraphs.”

If we are interpreting this direction correctly, this will result in a Past Performance outline that will be exceedingly confusing for Reviewers. For those Offerors submitting more than 1 Past Performance (PP), the resultant outline (OUTLINE A) would look like:

OUTLINE A

3.1(a) – Contract data

· PP Contract #1

· PP Contract #2

· PP Contract #3 3.1(b) – Brief Description

· PP Contract #1

· PP Contract #2

· PP Contract #3 3.1(b)(1) – Meeting Technical Requirements

· PP Contract #1

· PP Contract #2

· PP Contract #3 3.1(b)(2) – Meeting Schedule Requirements

· PP Contract #1

· PP Contract #2

· PP Contract #3 3.1(b)(3) – Controlling Contract Costs

· PP Contract #1

· PP Contract #2

· PP Contract #3 3.1(b)(4) – Managing the contracted effort

· PP Contract #1

· PP Contract #2

· PP Contract #3 3.1(c) – Systemic Improvements

· PP Contract #1

· PP Contract #2

· PP Contract #3

3.2 – Past Performance Data Requirements

· PP Contract #1

· PP Contract #2

· PP Contract #3

The resultant outline/format will not allow a reviewer to review a Past Performance contract as a whole; rather the Reviewer gets a glimpse of PP Contract #1, then jumps to a glimpse of PP Contract #2, etc. We recommend an outline that will facilitate review of each of the Offeror’s Past Performance submissions via a unified approach. The following recommended outline adheres to the intent of Section L.2.0 while affording Reviewers the opportunity to review Past Performance Contract submissions sequentially and in order.

The recommended outline (OUTLINE B):

OUTLINE B

P/P Contract #1

3.1 General

3.1.a – Contract Data 3.1.a.1 – Relevancy 3.1.b – Past Performance info 3.1.b.1 – Meeting Technical Requirements 3.1.b.2 – Meeting Schedule Requirements 3.1.b.3 – Controlling Contract Costs 3.1.b.4 – Managing Contracted effort 3.1.c – Systemic Improvement

3.2 – Past Performance Data Rqmts (Table)

P/P Contract #2

3.1 General

3.1.a – Contract Data 3.1.a.1 – Relevancy 3.1.b – Past Performance info 3.1.b.1 – Meeting Technical Requirements 3.1.b.2 – Meeting Schedule Requirements 3.1.b.3 – Controlling Contract Costs 3.1.b.4 – Managing Contracted effort 3.1.c – Systemic Improvement

3.2 – Past Performance Data Rqmts (Table)

P/P Contract #3

3.1 General

3.1.a – Contract Data 3.1.a.1 – Relevancy 3.1.b – Past Performance info 3.1.b.1 – Meeting Technical Requirements 3.1.b.2 – Meeting Schedule Requirements 3.1.b.3 – Controlling Contract Costs 3.1.b.4 – Managing Contracted effort 3.1.c – Systemic Improvement

3.2 – Past Performance Data Rqmts (Table) Question: Is OUTLINE B compliant with Section L.2.0 of the RFP?

Answer: Yes, the language in Section L Volume 3 Factor C Past Performance Paragraph 3.1 (a) states, “Provide all the information identified below separately for each contract.” The Government’s intent by specifying “separately” is for each past performance record to be proposed as a complete and comprehensive record separate from other records. Therefore, Outline B is a compliant format.

20. The Sample Task requires the contractor to update the TEMP under SOW Paragraph 3.2.4.8. Will the government provide a sample TEMP?

Answer: Yes, the TEMP is provided as Attachment (15) LVCMS RACT3 TEMP.