Questions_ _Answers_for_N61340-13-R-1057_LVCMS_10-8-13.docx
DOCX document 22 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6134013R1057
About this file
Industry Questions and Answers for solicitation N61340-13-R-1057.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Questions_ _Answers_for_N61340-13-R-1057__10-30-13.docx | DOCX document | |
| Questions_ _Answers_for_N61340-13-R-1057_10-25-13.docx | DOCX document | |
| N61340-13-R-1057-0002_Amendment.doc | DOC document | |
| Questions_ _Answers_for_N61340-13-R-1057__10-21-13.docx | DOCX document | |
| N61340-13-R-1057_LVCMS_Comments_Questions_and_Answers_10-17-13.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_(15)_LVCMS_RACT3_TEMP_PDX121613_25_Sept_2013.docx | DOCX document | |
| N61340-13-R-1057_Amend_0001.doc | DOC document | |
| N61340-13-R-1057_LVCMS_Comments_Questions_and_Answers_10_3_13.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_(5)_DD254.pdf | ||
| Attachment_(11)_PAC_and_Sample_Task_CDRLS.pdf | ||
| N61340-13-R-1057_LVCMS_Solicitation.doc | DOC document |
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
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.
8 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:
| The Government will not take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies or key personnel. In assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment rating, past performance effort of the prime performed as a subcontractor will generally not be considered as significant as past performance information of the prime offeror performed as the prime. In addition, in assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment rating, past performance effort of a principal subcontractor or team member generally will not be considered as significant as past performance information of the prime offeror. |
| The same evaluation procedures above also apply to legal joint venture and partnership offerors. If proposing as a legal joint venture or partnership entity, the offeror should provide up to three past performance references performed by the joint venture or partnership, and up to two past performance references for each principal subcontractor of the joint venture or partnership. If a joint venture or partnership has three past performance references, the government will not consider past performance references performed by individual team members of the joint venture or partnership unless the team member is a proposed principal subcontractor. |
| If a joint venture or partnership has less than three past performance references, each team member of the joint venture or partnership may individually submit no more than two references in addition to the past performance references submitted by the joint venture or partnership. The government will not consider past performance references performed by individual team members of the joint venture or partnership unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the individual joint venture or partnership team member – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided for meaningful involvement in contract performance. Merely stating that the offeror has access to the resources of an individual joint venture or partnership team member will not be considered relevant to the past performance evaluation. |
| If an offeror proposes the resources of a corporate parent, division, subsidiary, or affiliate the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed corporate parent, division, subsidiary, or affiliate unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the corporate parent, division, subsidiary, or affiliate – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided for meaningful involvement in contract performance that provides at least 30% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the offeror’s profit/fee) for the contract. Merely stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a corporate parent, division, subsidiary, or affiliate is insufficient and will not be considered relevant to the past performance evaluation. |
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.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .