L-8_RFP_Q_and_As_rounds_1-3_(09-16-19).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 71 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6134019R0061
About this file
This document provides details about a federal contract opportunity for Contractor Support Services to support the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Orlando, Florida. The contract involves providing approximately 200,000 hours of engineering, instructional systems, program management, and logistics support annually over a five year period. Key requirements include providing security cleared personnel at the Secret and Top Secret levels, as well as office space to support approximately 135 contractor staff. The solicitation is set aside for Woman Owned Small Businesses under NAICS code 541330 with a $38.5 million size standard. The contract type will be an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Cost Plus Fixed Fee arrangement. The estimated release of the final Request for Proposals is late March 2019.
L-8 RFP Q and As rounds 1-3 (09-16-19)
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
| Round # | Question # | Subject | Reference (i.e. RFP, SOW, Attachment, etc.) | Specific Question | Date Submitted | Government Response | Issued with Amendment # |
| Round 1 | 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 provision 52.204-8 is an error. This will be updated to reflect the appropriate amount of $41.5M with the final release of the RFP. Note that the Military exception associated with the selected NAICS code of 541330 was recently increased by the SBA effective 8/19/19. | updated with round 2 |
| 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 provision 52.204-8 is an error. This will be updated to reflect the appropriate amount of $41.5M with the final release of the RFP. Note that the Military exception associated with the selected NAICS code of 541330 was recently increased by the SBA effective 8/19/19. | updated with round 2 | |
| 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. | ||
| 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 may be considered more complex 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. | updated with round 2 | |
| 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 should be from the prime, while up to three other records may be provided for PTMs. However, in accordance with RFP M-1.B.1.4, "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". | updated with round 2 | |
| 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 | Yes, if a team member, not just a PTM, is proposed to provide one or more of the SCA applicable labor categories, they are required to submit this same info. | ||
| 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 provision 52.204-8 is an error. This will be updated to reflect the appropriate amount of $41.5M with the final release of the RFP. Note that the Military exception associated with the selected NAICS code of 541330 was recently increased by the SBA effective 8/19/19. | updated with round 2 | |
| 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 that shows a Top Secret clearance (FCL) was utilized may be considered more complex than a past performance record where a Secret clearance (FCL) or no clearance were utilized. This corresponds with the requirement at SOW 7.1. Note that the level of clearance utilized on a past performance record is one attribute of complexity, which is one attribute of relevancy overall. Also note that only a Secret clearance (FCL) is required at time of proposal submission in accordance with RFP L-1.B.2.4.d. | updated with round 2 | |
| 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 submission of a total compensation plan will be removed. | updated with round 2 | |
| 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 provision 52.204-8 is an error. This will be updated to reflect the appropriate amount of $41.5M with the final release of the RFP. Note that the Military exception associated with the selected NAICS code of 541330 was recently increased by the SBA effective 8/19/19. | updated with round 2 | |
| 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. | ||
| 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 | See follow-up response at question #61 | ||
| 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 within 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 provision 52.204-8 is an error. This will be updated to reflect the appropriate amount of $41.5M with the final release of the RFP. Note that the Military exception associated with the selected NAICS code of 541330 was recently increased by the SBA effective 8/19/19. 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). | updated with round 2 | |
| Round 2 | 32 | Clarification of Small Business (SB) Size Standard | Draft RFP, Page 39 of 70, Section K, Clause 52.204-8, (a)(2): "The small business size standard is $15,000,000." | During the Industry Day held 12 March 2019, the Government indicated the competition type for this requirement is 100% set-aside for Woman-Owned Small Businesses under NAICS Code: 541330, Engineering Services with a Size Standard of $38.5M (reference Industry Day presentation, slide 9). However, the Draft RFP released on 23 July 2019 indicated a Small Business (SB) Size Standard of $15M. Can the Government clarify the SB Size Standard for this acquisition? | 7/31/19 | The $15M reflected currently under provision 52.204-8 is an error. This will be updated to reflect the appropriate amount of $41.5M with the final release of the RFP. Note that the Military exception associated with the selected NAICS code of 541330 was recently increased by the SBA effective 8/19/19. 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). | |
| 33 | Best Value Evaluation and Technical Factor | Draft RFP, Page 63 of 70, Section M, 1.0 General | During the Industry Day held 12 March 2019, the Government specified Evaluation Factors which included Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The Technical Evaluation Factor included subfactors for Mobilization and Recruting and Retention. However, the Draft RFP dated 23 July 2019 specifies only two Evaluation Factors, Past Performance and Cost/Price. Section M.1.0 states: "'Best value' means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement." With Past Performance evaluated based on Relevancy and Confidence Assessment, deriving benefits of an offeror's proposal will be difficult and may not reflect the benefits proposed by the offeror, which could limit the Government's ability to make a valid "Best Value" evaluation. It is recommended that the Technical Factor be reinstated as one of the Evaluation Factors so that the Government can make a fair and accurate assessment of each offeror's benefits and risks in mobilization and recruiting and retention as defined by the Industry Day presentation (reference slides 14, 16, 20, and 21). | 7/31/19 | 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. | ||
| 34 | Supply Technician Labor Category | Draft RFP, Attachment L-5, Cost Tab, Row 59 et al | The Cost Summary Spreadsheet (Attachment L-5) contains multiple references to the "Supply Technician (Journeyman)" position. However, the Draft SOW dated 2 July 2019 does not include a labor category definition for this position. Can the Government update the SOW to include the Supply Technician Labor Category (Appendix A) and its personnel qualificiations (Appendix B)? | 7/31/19 | This position will be changed to a "Supply Support Specialist" in the Attachment L-5. This labor category will be added to the SOW with BLS SOC #43-5061. Although this labor category is currently assigned zero (0) hours in the Government's estimate, it shall still be priced within the Attachment L-5. | ||
| 35 | Accounting System Adequacy for All Team Members | Draft RFP, Page 61 of 70, Section L.2.4.o Administrative Completeness | The requirement for “…all offerors (to include the prime and all team members) to provide evidence from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), other federal civilian audit agency, or a private accounting firm that, as of the proposal due date, the offeror’s accounting system has been audited and has been determined adequate and suitable for administration of a cost-reimbursable contract” is atypical in Government contracting and onerous for small businesses. Usually, the DCAA deemed adequate system is not required at proposal submission; rather, a prospective awardee’s accounting system undergoes a thorough DCAA-led review via a Pre-Award System Adequacy Checklist. Additionally, small business subcontractors who may have skills a prime contractor requires are unnecessarily burdened by the cost of a third-party consultant audit, which can cost upwards of $15,000. This barrier to entry will no doubt reduce small business participation, and reduce small business subcontract participation. Will the Government change the proposal instructions to require a description of the offeror’s accounting system instead, and allow team members who do not have a completed Pre-Award Audit to participate in the competition? Alternatively, will the Government allow team members who do not have an adequate and suitable accounting system for administration of a cost-reimbursable contracts to participate if the prime plans to issue FFP LoE task orders to these team members? | 7/31/19 | The RFP will be updated to change the requirement where only the prime will be required to have an approved accounting system at proposal due date. Note that DFARS 242.7503 requires the use of DFARS clause 252.242-7006 for a cost-type contract, which includes requirements for an acceptable accounting system. | ||
| 36 | Number of Past Performance References for Prime and PTMs | Draft RFP, Page 54 of 70, Section L.1.1 | Section L.1.1 states "The offeror shall 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. 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." Given the magnitude, scope, and complexity of this requirement, it is recommended that the prime offeror's past performance be considered more important than the PTMs' past performance. In order to determine a realistic past performance confidence assessment of the prime offeror, the minimal requirement of two (2) references is insufficient in determining whether the prime offeror will successfully perform across such a broad and deep set of requirements. Therefore, it is recommended that the requirement be changed to "three (3) of the five (5) records shall be provided by the prime offeror, and up to two (2) of the five (5) records may be provided by PTMs, with a maximum of one (1) record provided by a single PTM." | 7/31/19 | RFP M-1.B.1.4 contains the statement, "past performance effort of a PTM generally will not be considered as significant as past performance effort of the prime offeror". The requirements for the submission of the maximum of five (5) past performance contract records and 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 as stated at RFP L-1.B.1.1 will remain the same. | ||
| 37 | TOP SECRET Facility Clearance | N/A | On 8 July 2019, the Government updated the security requirements as initially advertised in previous pre-solicitation information, reducing the Top Secret Facility Clearance requirement to Secret. Clearly, NAWCTSD’s security infrastructure will need to evolve to meet expanded classified network access requirements and handle additional security levels associated with higher classification programs as part of future growth. This growth will drive the need for the iCSS prime contractor to hold a Top Secret Facility Clearance. While the Government can sponsor the contractor's facility security clearance upgrade from Secret to Top Secret, this reduction in classification level will potentially introduce higher security risk to NAWCTSD and the iCSS contract. In preparing to manage additional security requirements, NAWCTSD requires a prime contractor who understands how to implement, manage, safeguard, and handle the requirements associated with security programs and infrastructure classified at Top Secret and above levels. Offerors who have only Secret level facility clearances do not have the understanding and experience to implement and manage security programs above the Secret levels. Therefore, it is recommended that the Government reinstate the original requirement for the Top Secret Facility Clearance to reduce overall contract and security risks as well as to ensure successful implementation of the expanded classified security programs and networks that will be required by NAWCTSD in the very near future. | 7/31/19 | The Government has assessed the risks involved and the requirement will remain for a Secret level (FCL) requirement at proposal submission; however, note that generally, a past performance record that shows a Top Secret clearance (FCL) was utilized may be considered more complex than a past performance record where a Secret clearance (FCL) or no clearance were utilized. This corresponds with the requirement at SOW 7.1. Note that the level of clearance utilized on a past performance record is one attribute of complexity, which is one attribute of relevancy overall. Also note that only a Secret clearance (FCL) is required at time of proposal submission in accordance with RFP L-1.B.2.4.d. | ||
| 38 | Total Compensation Plan (Element of Management Evaluation Factor) | Draft RFP, Page 61 of 70, Section L.2.4.q Administrative Completeness | Rather than merely requiring submission of 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" as part of the Volume II Cost/Price Proposal, it is recommended that a Total Compensation Plan be required for submission as part of a Management evaluation factor. Given the magnitude and complexity of this requirement, it is recommended that the prime offeror's retention strategies as related to total compensation for all employees be used as part of the evaluation criteria to determine whether the prime offeror will be able to sustain responsibility for full performance of contractual requirements at full staffing levels over the life of the contract. Through required submission of a Total Compensation Plan for all employees, the Government will be able to evaluate the management risk of all offerors with respect to retention and staffing. | 7/31/19 | The requirements stated in the RFP at L-1.B.2.4.q and the corresponding paragraph at M-1.B.2.4.q will be updated to remove the requirement for the total compensation plan. | ||
| 39 | Final RFP Release | N/A | Can the Government provide an estimated date for posting of the Final RFP? | 8/1/19 | The final RFP is currently estimated to be released by the end of August 2019. | ||
| 40 | Proposal Response Period | N/A | Can the Government provide the number of days that will be allowed for the proposal response period (i.e., 30, 45, or 60 days)? | 8/1/19 | 30 days | ||
| 41 | Estimated Contract Labor Hours by Labor Category | Draft RFP, Pages 5, 6, and 7 of 70, Section B Level of Effort | Using 1,920 hours as the basis for a work-year, and the estimated contract labor hours for each Labor Category defined in the Section B Level of Effort table, the number of work-years per labor category does not always equate to a round number of full time equivalents (FTEs). For example, there are 13,056 hours required for Base Period Year 1 for Journeyman-level Engineers, which is 6.8 FTEs. On the other hand, the specified number of required hours for all levels of Computer Programmers (Junior, Journeyman, and Senior) for Base Period Year 1 equates to a round number of 3, 3, and 4 FTEs, respectively. Can the Government provide clarification of the number of required hours for each labor category in cases when these hours do not equate to a round number of FTEs to assist offerors in the staffing planning process? | 8/1/19 | The hours provided are provided based upon program requirements. It can be assumed that not all Labor categories will be fulfilled by FTEs. | ||
| 42 | Confirmation of SCA Code for Technical Librarian | Attachment 5, Wage Determination 15-4553 and RFP Level of Effort Table, Page 6 | On page 6 of the draft RFP, the Level of Effort table cites the labor category “Technical Writer Journeyman” with SCA occupation code 30465. This code does not appear within Attachment 5, Wage Determination 15-4553. Please confirm the applicable code for this labor category. | 8/1/19 | This was an error within the RFP document which will be updated to reflect the correct SCA number 30462 for the Technical Writer. | ||
| 43 | CD-ROM Requirement | Section L-1, Part A, Para. 2.0 (page 51) and Para. 3.0 (page 52) | Section L-1, Part A, Para 2.0, Proposal Format states the offeror shall provide one complete copy of the proposal to the Contract Specialist as electronic files, however, Para. 3.0, Proposal Content and Volumes states 2 CD-ROM copies are required. Please provide clarification regarding the number of CD-ROMs required at submission. | 8/1/19 | The statement at RFP L-1.A.2.0 will be updated to clarify. The table listed at RFP L-1.A.3.0 is correct. | ||
| 44 | Past Performance Early Submission | Section L-1, Part A, Para. 4.0 | For planning purposes, given the request (not requirement) for submission of Volume I, Past Performance, ten days prior to the submission due date, can the Government provide the anticipated number of days allowed between solicitation release and submission due date? | 8/1/19 | 30 days | ||
| 45 | PPQ Submission as a Subcontractor to Prime | Section L-1. Part B, Volume 1, Past Performance, Para. 1.1, General | Can the Government advise how a PTM who wishes to propose relevant Past Performance gained in a subcontractor role can obtain an unbiased PPQ response from their Prime who may also be competing separately under the same solicitation? Will the Government allow these PPQs to be submitted directly to the Government customer for response? | 8/1/19 | Yes, the PPQ may be submitted to the Government POCs as identified in the RFP L-1.B.1.1, " In the event a CPAR does not exist for an active past performance reference within 6 months of the solicitation’s release date, the offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment L-2, to the past performance reference’s Program Manager, Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), and Contracting Officer Representative (COR), as applicable." The contractor shall appropriately identifiy their role in the past performance contract as a subcontractor within the PPQ's (Attachment L-2) Section I. | ||
| 46 | Number of Current and Planned FTEs | N/A | How many NAWCTSD iCSS FTE's are staffed on the current contract today, and how many will be required to be staffed with the award of the new contract as a result of RFP N6134019R0061. | 8/1/19 | Currently, approximately 135 personnel support the existing contract. Not all of these employees are FTEs. For the new contract solicited under N6134019R0061, see SOW 5.1.5, which will be updated to state "The government anticipates approximately 135 personnel being required annually". | ||
| 47 | Facility Requirement | Reference the iCSS “Industry Day” slides, dated 12 March 2019 (page 11) and the original FBO announcement dated 1 February 2019 | Based on the draft RFP, please confirm that contractor provided offices/workspace is required for at least 145 personnel in performance of this contract. | 8/1/19 | 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). However, there is no specific requirement for the contractor's offices/workspace (including tele-work), so long as the contractor personnel are able to report to the de Florez building within the stated time requirements at SOW 5.1.1.2 and 5.1.5. Note that any local travel associated with these stated time requirements is not reimbursable under the contract. Additionally, SOW 5.1.5, will be updated to state "The government anticipates approximately 135 personnel being required annually". | ||
| 48 | Government Furnished Property | Reference the iCSS “Industry Day” slides, dated 12 March 2019 (page 11) and the original FBO announcement dated 1 February 2019 | Will the government provide computers for all 145 contractor personnel, and the contractor be responsible for providing all telephones, printers, etc.? | 8/1/19 | All 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 Government will also provide telephones at the De Florez building or other Government buildings, as needed. The contractor will be responsible to provide all other equipment (i.e. telephones, printers, etc.) and services (i.e. internet, etc.) necessary to conduct business in accordance with the SOW at the contractor site or any other non-government site (i.e. telework). Additionally, SOW 5.1.5, will be updated to state "The government anticipates approximately 135 personnel being required annually". | ||
| 49 | Past Performance / Attachment L-3 Past Performance Contract Data | Reference the iCSS Draft RFP Section 1.3, pg. 55; and Attachment L-3 Past Performance Contract Data | Will the Government clarify whether there is a preference for Attachment L-3 remaining in excel format or will it also be acceptable in another format, such as a pdf file, for incorporation into the past performance volume? That is, is there a specific way that Attachment L-3 should be incorporated into the Past Performance Volume submission? | 8/1/19 | The Excel file for Attachment L-3 may be converted to a Word or PDF file for submission within the Past Performance Volume, but ensure that all of the information required is still included. | ||
| 50 | SOC Codes | Draft SOW dated 2 July 2019, pages 55-57 | SOC codes identified in the SOW are not found in the BLS for the following: |
a. Software Developer 15-1252 (found under 15-1132)
b. Computer Programmer 15-1251 (found under 15-1131)
c. Computer Systems Analyst 15-1211 (found under 15-1121)
d. Network and Computer Systems Administrator 15-1244 (found under 15-1142)
e. Computer Network Architects 15-1241 (found under 15-1143)
f. Software Quality Assurance Analysts and Tester 15-1253 (labor category not found in the BLS)
| g. Information Security Analysts 15-1212 (found under 15-1122) | 8/1/19 | The SOC codes identified in the SOW are correct. The Bureau of Labor Statistics SOC Codes are found and verified in the 2018 Standard Occupational Classification System located at the website here: https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/major_groups.htm | ||||||
| 51 | Pricing Labor Categories | L-5 Cost - updated 07-23-19 cost template; and Draft RFP, pages 8 and 9, para B-1 | Do we price all labor categories listed on the Composite Fully Burdened Rates Table, to include labor categories with no hours assigned? | 8/1/19 | In accordance with the Instructions tab/sheet within the Attachment L-5, the Government will complete the Composite Fully Burdened Rates tab/sheet and the corresponding table at RFP clause B-1 "Estimated Rates". For the Labor Categories within the "Cost" tab/sheet of the Attachment L-5, the offerors and/or team members shall price ALL labor categories, even those with no hours currently assigned. | |||
| 52 | Drafter/CAD Operator, Journeyman | Page 57 in the Draft SOW dated 2 July 2019; Row 57 in L-5 Cost - updated 07-23-19 spreadsheet; and page 7 in the Draft RFP, para 5252.211-9503, Level of Effort Table | Please clarify that the Drafter/CAD Operator is a SCA position. The L-5 Cost - updated 07-23-19 cost template and Draft RFP annotates it as SCA with asterisks and provides SCA code 30062; however, It is listed in the SOW as SOC 17-3010 (found under 17-3019). | 8/1/19 | The Drafter/CAD operator is a SCA applicable position corresponding with SCA code 30062. The BLS SOC provided for this labor category and all other labor categories within the SOW is for informational purposes to provide a generic labor description and classification. | |||
| 53 | Technical Writer | Page 7 of the Draft RFP,para 5252.211-9503, Level of Effort Table; and Page 6 of Attachment 5 Wage Determination 15-4553 | In the Draft RFP, Technical Writer, Journeyman SCA 30465 is listed. In Attachment 5, Wage Determination, Technical Writers are SCA 30461, 30462, and 30463. SCA 30465 is not an option. Please confirm which SCA code is correct. | 8/1/19 | This was an error within the RFP document which will be updated to reflect the correct SCA number 30462 for the Technical Writer. | |||
| 54 | Supply Technician, Journeyman | Row 59 in L-5 Cost - updated 07-23-19 spreadsheet; page 9 of the draft RFP, para B-1; and Page 1 of Attachment 5 Wage Determination 15-4553. Labor Category not listed in the Draft SOW dated 2 July 2019. | Is the Supply Technician, Journeyman, a SCA or SOC position? It is not annotated with asterisks in the L-5 Cost-updated 0723-19 template or the Draft RFP, nor is it listed in the SOW. This Labor Category is listed in Attachment 5, Wage Determination, with SCA 01410. Although 0 hours are allocated, if all labor categories are priced, is SCA 01410 correct? What level is required, i.e., Journeyman? | 8/1/19 | This position will be changed to a "Supply Support Specialist" and will be SCA applicable with code 01410 (Supply Technician). This labor category will be added to the SOW with BLS SOC #43-5061. The BLS SOC provided for this labor category and all other labor categories within the SOW is for informational purposes to provide a generic labor description and classification. Although this labor category is currently assigned zero (0) hours in the Government's estimate, it shall still be priced within the Attachment L-5. | |||
| 55 | Formula Error | Cell E306 in the L-5 Cost - updated 07-23-19 cost template | Please confirm there is an error in Cost Spreadsheet, Cell #E306. Formula in E306: " = Formula =Instructions!C11=SUM(E304:E305)" is linking to Instruction page, resulting in a “TRUE” or “FALSE” answer. | 8/1/19 | Yes, this is an error and the cell's formula will be corrected. | |||
| 56 | Excel Format | Draft RFP, Section L-1, Part A, para 2.0, page 51; and the L-5 Cost - updated 07-23-19 cost template | The Draft RFP states that electronic files should be fully compatible with Microsoft 2016; however, the L-5 Cost - updated 07-23-19 cost template is in Microsoft 97-2003. When initially saving the file, received an error message that “This document is both encrypted and password protected. The Office Open XML Formats available in Office 2007 and later provide stronger encryption. Do you want to increase the security of this document by converting to an Office Open XML Format?” Do you want us to answer this question "Yes" or "No"? | 8/1/19 | The Excel file for Attachment L-5 will be reissued as a Microsoft Excel Worksheet file, which is compatible with Microsoft 2016. Please do not convert the file to XML or any other format as this may cause an issue with our ability to open the file upon proposal submission. | |||
| 57 | de Florez Bldg., NSA Orlando | Draft SOW, pg. 46, para. 5.1.6 | Is there an approximate number of personnel required to work at the de Florez Building? | 8/1/19 | We cannot identify a specific number at this time. Please assume all personnel will be off-site. | |||
| 58 | Travel and Material | Draft SOW, pg. 47, para. 5.1.16 | How far in advance will Government notify Contractors of required travel related to CONUS and OCONUS travel? | 8/1/19 | The Government will make every effort to anticipate travel in advance. Normally, CONUS travel requirements notification will be at least ten (10) days in advance of anticipated travel. Infrequently, travel will be required sooner than 10 days. For OCONUS travel, SOW 5.1.16 "Assumes 60 day prior to travel notification by the Government". | |||
| 59 | OCONUS Travel Requirements | DRFP Sect. K 5252.232-9509 | Will iCSS travel include travel to the AOR? | 8/1/19 | Please clarify; What is AOR? | |||
| 60 | Foreign Military Sales | SOW | Does the iCSS contract include support to FMS programs? If so, please identify the applicable SOW paragraph(s). | 8/1/19 | Yes, Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programs are supported by the iCSS effort. The SOW will be updated to add a Section 3.5 "Program Director International (PDI)" that covers the scope of the FMS programs. | Updated with round 3 | ||
| 61 ( follow-up to question #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 | Yes, so long as all members of the Joint Venture (JV) hold Facility Clearances (FCL) at least at the Secret level in accordance with RFP L-1.B.2.4.d, the Government will sponsor the Top Secret FCL for the JV itself. | |||
| 62 | Past Performance | What are the past performance requirements for the Prime? | 8/6/19 | Past Performance submission requirements are specified in the RFP at L-1.B.1.0 and subparagraphs. | ||||
| 63 | Past Performance | Can we submit Subcontractor Past Performance? | 8/6/19 | Yes, as long as the subcontractor is a Principal Team Member (PTM) as defined in the RFP (See RFP L-1.A.1.0). | ||||
| 64 | DRAFT RFP | What is the length of the technical proposal? | 8/6/19 | No Technical proposal/volume is requested. | ||||
| 65 | DRAFT SOW | What is the number of Key Personnel? | 8/6/19 | None of the employees required of the RFP are identified as "Key Personnel". | ||||
| 66 | RFP | When is the final RFP coming out? | 8/6/19 | The final RFP is currently estimated to be released by the end of August 2019. | ||||
| 67 | Contract Vehicle | Will this be released under a contract vehicle? | 8/6/19 | This requirement will be fulfilled by a single-award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Cost Plus Fixed-Fee contract (see RFP FAR clause 52.216-1). | ||||
| 68 | Telework; Government response to questions 10 on telework. | a. Explain “accommodation of all personnel”. Must the contractor have a facility that can accommodate all 125 (or all) contractor personnel or can it have a facility that accommodates a much smaller number? |
| 8/8/19 | There is no specific requirement for the contractor to house all 135 projected personnel at a particular location, so long as the contractor meets the requirements of SOW 5.1.1.2, “The contractor shall designate a primary and alternate Program Manager (PM). The PM and the alternate shall be located in Orlando and available during business hours (8am – 5pm), specifically available in person at the de Florez building within one hour” and SOW 5.1.5, “For personnel working at the contractor's location, contractor personnel must be able to report to the De Florez building within two (2) hours of notification” but also note SOW 5.1.6, “The government may require some personnel annually to work at NAWCTSD headquarters in the De Florez building in Orlando, FL” and SOW 5.1.7, “The government may also request an additional 10 to 15 personnel each year in CONUS locations outside of Orlando, FL”. SOW 5.1.5 will also be updated to reflect an anticipated 135 personnel. | |||||||
| 69 | b. Is it the Government’s intent to only require the Contractor to have a small Program Management office? | See the requirements at SOW 5.1.1.2, “The contractor shall designate a primary and alternate Program Manager (PM). The PM and the alternate shall be located in Orlando and available during business hours (8am – 5pm), specifically available in person at the de Florez building within one hour”. | ||||||
| 70 | c. Can all personnel telework? | Yes, so long as they meet the requirements of the SOW otherwise. | ||||||
| 71 | d. What are the requirements for telework? | |||||||
| i. Geographic location | The geographic location requirements for telework correspond with the requirements stated in SOW 5.1.1.2, “The contractor shall designate a primary and alternate Program Manager (PM). The PM and the alternate shall be located in Orlando and available during business hours (8am – 5pm), specifically available in person at the de Florez building within one hour” and SOW 5.1.5, “For personnel working at the contractor's location, contractor personnel must be able to report to the de Florez building within two (2) hours of notification”. | |||||||
| 72 | ii. communication specifications (internet, availability, assets) | See SOW 5.2.1.2, “NMCI accounts and computers shall be the responsibility of the Government to provide, as needed. All government business shall be conducted on NMCI. The contractor shall be responsible and personally-liable for protection and care of the computer asset. The government will also provide telephones at the de Florez building or other government buildings, as needed. Personnel not working within the de Florez building shall be accessible by telephone.” The Government will provide the NMCI account and computer; however, the contractor will be responsible to provide all other equipment (i.e. telephones, printers, etc.) and services (i.e. internet, etc.) necessary to conduct business in accordance with the SOW at the contractor site or any other non-government site (i.e. telework). | ||||||
| 73 | iii. work hours | See SOW 5.1.8, “Working hours may be based on an eight hour or nine-hour daily shift with a start time between the hours of 0600 and 0800. Work weeks are 40 hours. There are two ways the government may require the contractor to support a work week. If the employees work nine hour shifts each day, they will work Monday through Friday during week one and Monday through Thursday during week two. If the employees work an eight hour shift each day, they will work eight hours each day, Monday through Friday. Contractor employee start time and work days will normally match those of their government customers. Hours are subject to change by the government customer. The government, based on emergent or urgent workloads, may have the requirement to work beyond the regular work shifts described above, including pre and post regular shift and weekends. Contractor employees shall not exceed 80 hours per employee over a two-week work period.” |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .