L-6_Draft_RFP_Q_and_As_round_1_(08-01-19).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6134019R0061
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a draft Request for Proposals for contractor support services for the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division. The solicitation seeks to acquire approximately 200,000 hours per year of engineering, instructional systems, program management, and logistics support services requiring 26 labor categories. The anticipated award is an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a one-year base period and four one-year options, for a total potential period of performance of five years. The procurement is set aside for woman-owned small businesses with a NAICS code of 541330 and size standard of $38.5 million. The estimated release of the formal RFP is late March 2019, with questions due within 10 days of RFP release and an anticipated contract award date of December 1, 2019.
This attachment includes the Questions received thus far for the iCSS Draft RFP N6134019R0061 and the Government's responses to those questions. Any additional questions received within the specified timeframe in the RFP will be answered through subsequent postings.
View the file
Other files
Show all 37
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
DRAFT - RFP Questions
| Question # | Subject | Reference (i.e. RFP, SOW, Attachment, etc.) | Specific Question | Date Submitted | Government Response | Issued with Amendment # |
| 1 | NAICS Code 541330, Size Standard | DRAFT RFP, Section K, page 39, FAR 52.204-8 | NAICS Code is 541330, Engineering and Technical Services which carries a $38.5M small business size standard. The current DRFP referenced significantly smaller size standard ($15M). Can you confirm that the removal of this size standard exception was unintended and that the higher standard will be reflected in the final RFP? | 7/24/19 | The $15M reflected currently under clause 52.204-8 is an error. This will be updated to reflect the appropriate amount of $38.5M with the final release of the RFP. | |
| 2 | Mobilization | Draft RFP, pg 11, Section C.1, paragraph 1 | As the Government is considering a 30 day mobilization in lieu of a 60 day, would the Government consider making transition a factor? | 7/25/19 | No, we were just requesting feedback on this possibility at this point to guage the capability. | |
| 3 | G&A/overhead, CLINs | Draft RFP, pg 11, Section C.1, paragraph 13 | CLINS 0003, 0006 and 0009 are Cost only, no fee. Are offerors prohibited from adding G&A/overhead to these costs? | 7/25/19 | Costs include allowable indirect rates, such as G&A and overhead, but fee will not be allowable or applicable to these CLINs. | |
| 4 | FAR Clause | Draft RFP, pg 36, Section I | 52.217-9 says the maximum period of performance is 60 months. With the possible six month extension, should this be 66 months? | 7/25/19 | FAR Clause 52.217-9 applies to the Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, which would be accomplished through option CLINs 0005-0007. The base ordering period plus these option CLINs accounts for 60 months. The additional 6 months period for option CLINs 0008-0010 is accounted for under the authority of another FAR clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. | |
| 5 | NAICS Code 541330, Size Standard | Draft RFP, pg 39, Section K | 52.204-8(a)(2) reflects a small business size standard of $15M, however, the Government has always advertised this effort as one falling under an exception to 541330 with a $38.5M size standard (see e.g., FedBizOpps Announcement/Synopsis dated 2/1/2019; Page 9 of iCSS Industry Day PowerPoint presentation providing that the Solicitation is 100% set-aside: Woman-Owned Small Business with NAICS Code: 541330, Engineering Services and Size Standard: $38.5M; and, Pre-solicitation Notice posted on FedBizOpps on 7/8/2019) Will the Government please consider updating the RFP to reflect a NAICS of 541330 and exception allowing a $38.5M size standard? | 7/25/19 | The $15M reflected currently under clause 52.204-8 is an error. This will be updated to reflect the appropriate amount of $38.5M with the final release of the RFP. | |
| 6 | Past Performance | Draft RFP, pg 52, Section L.A, paragraph 4 | The Government states "It is requested, but not required, that Volume 2 Past Performance information be submitted 10 days prior…" Volume I is Past Performance. Would the Government please clarify which volume it is seeking early? | 7/25/19 | Volume I Past Performance is the volume being requested early. The final RFP will be updated to correct this. | |
| 7 | Past Performance | Draft RFP, pg 55, Section L.B, paragraph 1.4 | With regard to relevancy (more specifically complexities of efforts) of past performance, does the offeror have to have relevant past performance for each submitted reference or are the references taken in totality for substantiation of all past performance elements (For example: Past Performance A very favorably compares based on scope of effort but does not favorably compare for magnitude of effort or complexities of effort; Past Performance B favorably compares based upon magnitude of effort but does not favorably compare for scope of effort or complexities of effort; and Past Performance C favorably compares for complexities of effort but does not favorably compare for scope of effort or magnitude of effort. Can the combined past performances from Past Performance references A - C be used to hit all required targets (scope, complexity and magnitude) or does each past performance effort have to meet the scope, complexity and magnitude required compared to the effort being solicited? May the Offeror only address scope with reference to Past Performance A; complexity of effort with respect to Past Performance B; and magnitude of effort with respect to Past Performance C?) ? | 7/25/19 | In accordance with RFP M.B.1.2 ALL relevancy aspects (scope, magnitude and complexity) will be assessed for EACH record submitted and considered in assigning each record a relevancy rating in accordance with the table illustrated in this same paragraph. Additionally, in accordance with RFP L-1.B.1.4 "For EACH past performance contract submitted that is determined to be Recent, the Government will evaluate the effort identified to determine how relevant it is compared to this requirement". | |
| 8 | Past Performance/Facility Clearnace | Draft RFP, pgs 56 & 65, Section L & M, paragraphs 1.4 & 1.2 | Will an Offeror be given more credit under Complexities of Effort if they have a Top Secret facility clearance at the time of proposal submission? | 7/25/19 | Generally a past performance record where a Top Secret clearance (FCL) was utilized will be considered more relevant than a past performance record where a Secret clearance (FCL) or no clearance were utilized. This corresponds with the requirement at SOW 7.1. However, only a Secret clearance (FCL) is required at time of proposal submission in accordance with RFP L-1.B.2.4.d. | |
| 9 | Past Performance | Draft RFP, pg 54, Section L.B, paragraph 1.1 | Paragraph L.B.1.1. requires that the offeror identify a maximum of five (5) relevant Government or commercial past performance contract records with performance within the recency period as specified in L.B.1.4. In order to ensure that the WOSB Prime Contractor/Offeror is capable of performing at least 50% of the requirement, will the Government require that the WOSB Prime Contractor/Offeror submit a minimum of one (1) relevant Government or commercial past performance record as specified in L.B.1.4? | 7/25/19 | Paragraph L.B.1.1 states that " The offeror shall identify a maximum of five (5) relevant Government or commercial past performance contract records with performance wihtin the recency period as specified in L.B.1.4. UP TO three (3) of the five (5) records MAY be provided by PTMs, with a maximum of two (2) records provided for a single PTM." Additionally, this paragraph states "The Government will not evaluate the past performance of any company other than the prime offeror and/or PTM". Thus, at least two (2) of the five (5) past performance records submitted MAY be from the prime, while up to three other records MAY be provided for PTMs. Further, RFP M-1.B.1.4 states, "More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” which is considered a “Neutral” rating.". | |
| 10 | Telework | SOW | Can the Government please confirm that remote work/telework is permitted? Can the Government identify whether the remote work/telework is limited to certain labor categories? | 7/25/19 | Telework is not excluded for any labor category. The contractor is responsible for the accomodation of all personnel not specifically requested to work at the de Florez Building (SOW Para 5.1.5) or other locations (SOW 5.1.7). | |
| 11 | Government site vs Contractor site | SOW | Can the Government please identify which labor categories are located on Government site versus on Contractor site? | 7/25/19 | See SOW 5.1.5, which states "The contractor shall support all personnel required at contractor facilities, unless they are specifically requested at the de Florez building in Orlando." | |
| 12 | Contractor site to Government site | SOW | Can the Government please identify whether there is a distance or time requirement from the contractor site to the Government site? | 7/25/19 | The SOW identifies specific requirements for Contractor Program Manager/On-site Supervisors at SOW 5.1.1.2 and for other contractor personnel at SOW 5.1.5. There is, however, no distance or time requirement for the contractor/vendor itself. | |
| 13 | Compensation Plan | Draft RFP, pg 61, Section L.B, paragraph 2.4q | L.B.2.4q requires Offerors to submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for employees (including temporary and part time employees) who will work under the contract and are subject to the Act, and explain how the compensation plan complies with the Service Contract Act. Can the Government confirm whether Principal Team Members (PTMs) are required to submit a total compensation plan as well? | 7/25/19 | The requirement for the total compensation plan will be removed; However, offerors and/or team members shall propose SCA applicable labor categories in accordance with the current wage determination. | |
| 14 | NAICS Code 541330, Size Standard | Draft RFP, pg 56, Section L.B, paragraph 1.4 | Would the Government consider increasing the size standard to $38.5M (NAICS 541330) so that an Offeror may meet the requirements for the proposal which requires that the Offeror to provide past performance with the same or similar magnitude of effort? | 7/25/19 | The $15M reflected currently under clause 52.204-8 is an error. This will be updated to reflect the appropriate amount of $38.5M with the final release of the RFP. | |
| 15 | Contract Fee | Draft RFP, pg 8, Section B.1 | How is the Government planning to handle Fee for Prime Contractors and Subcontractors? | 7/25/19 | Fee will be paid in accordance with clause 5252.232-9510 Payment of Fixed Fee. | |
| 16 | Past Performance/Facility Clearnace | Draft RFP, pgs 56 & 65, Section L & M, paragraphs 1.4 & 1.2 | Will the Government give additional credit to an offeror already has a Top Secret Facility Clearance? | 7/26/19 | Generally a past performance record where a Top Secret clearance (FCL) was utilized will be considered more relevant than a past performance record where a Secret clearance (FCL) or no clearance were utilized. This corresponds with the requirement at SOW 7.1. However, only a Secret clearance (FCL) is required at time of proposal submission in accordance with RFP L-1.B.2.4.d. | |
| 17 | Total Compensation Plan | Draft RFP, Section L.2.4.q, page 61 | Are PTMs required to submit a Total Compensation Plan? | 7/26/19 | The requirement for the total compensation plan will be removed; However, offerors and/or team members shall propose SCA applicable labor categories in accordance with the current wage determination. | |
| 18 | Volumes | Draft RFP, Section L.1.4, page 52 | Which volume, past performance or cost, is the Government seeking early? The DRFP references Volume 1 Past Performance and Volume 1 is the cost volume. | 7/26/19 | Volume I Past Performance is the volume being requested early. The final RFP will be updated to correct this. | |
| 19 | Mobilization | Draft RFP, Section C.1.1, page 11 | Will the Government give additional credit to an offeror that can mobilize in only 30 days? | 7/26/19 | No, we were just requesting feedback on this possibility at this point to guage the capability. | |
| 20 | NAICS Code 541330, Size Standard | Draft RFP, Section K, page 39, FAR Clause 52.204-8(a) | All of the pre-RFP information stated the NAICS size standard would use "exception a" and $38.5M. The DRFP now says the size standard is $15M with no exception. Because the anticipated value of this effort is more than $15M per year, will the Government consider using "exception a" to $38.5 in order to have an offeror that has performed at this magnitude in the past? | 7/26/19 | The $15M reflected currently under clause 52.204-8 is an error. This will be updated to reflect the appropriate amount of $38.5M with the final release of the RFP. | |
| 21 | NAICS | Draft RFP, Section K, page 39, FAR Clause 52.204-8(a) | With regard to the size standard, is the Government using a 3-year, or 5-year look back in accordance with the Runway Extension Act? | 7/26/19 | Currently, the Runway Extension Act has not been implemented by the SBA and therefore the size standard will be based on the 3-year average. | |
| 22 | Past Performance | Draft RFP, Section L.1.4, page 55 | Does an offeror have to have all elements covered for each past performance reference to be counted as an eligible past performance reference? | 7/26/19 | In accordance with RFP M.B.1.2 ALL relevancy aspects (scope, magnitude and complexity) will be assessed for EACH record submitted and considered in assigning each record a relevancy rating in accordance with the table illustrated in this same paragraph. Additionally, in accordance with RFP L-1.B.1.4 "For EACH past performance contract submitted that is determined to be Recent, the Government will evaluate the effort identified to determine how relevant it is compared to this requirement". | |
| 23 | Unpopulated Joint Venture (JV) | Draft RFP | We have an unpopulated Joint Venture (JV). Both member companies of the JV have Top Secret Facility Clearances accredited by the DSS IAW DD Form 254. The JV does not since it is unpopulated. Other agencies allow unpopulated JV to use the TS Facility Clearances of the member companies. Will Government allow the JV to submit proposal in this scenario? | 7/26/19 | Response pending. This will be answered in a subsequent round of Q&As. | |
| 24 | Mobilization | Draft RFP | When are questions and/or comments regarding the 30 day mobilization due? When should we submit questions/comments? | 7/26/19 | Feedback regarding the capability of performing mobilization in 30 days is welcome immediately. The Government will use this feedback to make a final determination on the final Mobilization requirement at 30 or 60 days. Questions/Comments regarding the RFP and associated exhibits/attachments can be submitted now, but in accordance with RFP L-1.A.1.0, "It is required that all questions be received within 10 calendar days of the date the (final) solicitation is issued. The Government reserves the right not to respond to any questions concerning this solicitation after this question receipt date." | |
| 25 | Contract Award Date | Draft RFP, Page 15, Section F, Period of Performance | Per industry day – target contact award was 01 NOV 19. This revision lists a 01 December contract commencement date assuming a 60 day transition; does this translate to a 01 October vice 01 November award? | 7/29/19 | No, the Mobilization period will begin on contract award date, which, at this point is anticipated at 01 December 2019. | |
| 26 | Mobilization/transition | Draft, Page 15, Section F, Period of Performance | In regard to Mobilization/transition period, during this time many people will be on PTO for either Thanksgiving week and/or Christmas/New Year’s vacations, are holidays being considered as a factor during the transition period? | 7/29/19 | The Mobilization period will be for a specified amount of days (currently a 60-day period). This period will be measured by calendar days. Any holidays, etc. occuring during this period will still be counted as calendar days. | |
| 27 | Evaluation Factors | Draft RFP, Page 63, Section M 2.0 Evaluation Factors for Award | Per industry day and the February draft RFP, Mobilization/Technical was the number 1 evaluation criteria; what is driving the change to completely remove this as an evaluation criteria? Using PP as the number 1 evaluation criteria provides a definite advantage to a team that includes the current incumbent. | 7/29/19 | The Government made the determination that the Technical factor did not add significant value to the planned evaluation and resultant award, thus, this evaluation factor was removed. | |
| 28 | Facility Clearance | Draft RFP, Page 59, Section L, Part B, Para 2.4, Administrative Completeness | What was the rationale used to downgrade the facility clearance level from TS to Secret? | 7/29/19 | The Government decided to change this requirement for the level of clearance (FCL) required at proposal submission. There is still a future requirement for the Top Secret clearance (FCL) as identified in SOW 7.1. However, this requirement was determined to be less emergent at contract award and the Government will be able to sponsor an upgrade of clearance (FCL) from Secret to Top Secret post-award if necessary. | |
| 29 | NMCI | Draft RFP, Page 25, Section H, System Authorization Access Request Navy | Per industry day - Navy said the will supply “some” NMCI seats which comes with provided IT equipment; Has determination been made as to how many NMCI seats will be provided? Will the NMCI Number be provided prior to the final RFP? | 7/29/19 | All NMCI and non-NMCI computer assets required by contractor personnel for performance of assigned program duties shall be the sole responsibility of the Government to provide (SOW Para 5.2.1.2). The exact number of assests to be issued is indeterminate; however, the number will be based on program needs. | |
| 30 | Past Performance | Draft RFP, Page 51 , Section L, Section 3.0 | Does “as needed” for Past Performance and Cost = unlimited page count? | 7/29/19 | "As needed" as used to describe page limitations within the RFP L-1.A.3.0, means that there is no restriction to the number of pages that can be submitted for the applicable volumes. However, in accordance with RFP L-1.A.1.0, "In presenting material in the proposal, the offeror is advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Clarity, brevity, and logical organization shall be emphasized during proposal preparation." and "Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentation materials beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal is neither necessary nor desired." | |
| 31 | NAICS Code 541330, Size Standard | Draft RFP, Section K, page 39, FAR Clause 52.204-8(a) | Can you please clarify if the final solicitation, N6134019R0061 Contractor Support Services (CSS) for NAWCTSD, will apply Exception A to NAICS Code 541330 thereby making the small business size standard $38.5M? Industry day slides apply the exception showing a $38.5M size standard. Also, the pre-solicitation letter dated 8 July, also states the size standard as $38.5M. We noticed in the draft documents, the small business size standard currently identified is $15M. Can you also confirm the procurement will be set-aside for Woman Owned Small Business concerns? | 7/30/19 | The $15M reflected currently under clause 52.204-8 is an error. This will be updated to reflect the appropriate amount of $38.5M with the final release of the RFP. Yes, in accordance with the RFP L-1.B.2.4.n and M-1.B.2.4.n this effort is set-aside for Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB). | |
| 32 | ||||||
| 33 | ||||||
| 34 | ||||||
| 35 | ||||||
| 36 | ||||||
| 37 | ||||||
| 38 | ||||||
| 39 | ||||||
| 40 | ||||||
| 41 | ||||||
| 42 | ||||||
| 43 | ||||||
| 44 | ||||||
| 45 | ||||||
| 46 | ||||||
| 47 | ||||||
| 48 | ||||||
| 49 | ||||||
| 50 | ||||||
| 51 |
N61340-XX-R-0XXX
image1.emf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .