N6426720R0028_Questions.pdf

USMC ATS IDIQ

Solicitation No. N6426720R0028

Questions and Answers

1. Question. In the Notional Delivery SOW, Paragraph 5.2.2 it states: "The Contractor will not be responsible for the translation of acronyms (i.e. "VIPER/T", "APS", etc)... In many cases, a Nomenclature is followed by an acronym. Such as: Slip Ring Assembly (SRA). Does the government want the item nomenclature translated, but to leave the original acronym? Or, should the english nomenclatures be retained followed by an Arabic description?

1. Answer: The nomenclature shall be translated to Arabic followed by the acronym in alpha-numeric characters. The following is an example of the required translation for Slip Ring Assembly (SRA):

(SRA) الانزلاقیة الحلقة مجموعة

2. Question. The NAICS change combined with the notional task order pricing exercise appear to conflict with the primary scope of Section C of the solicitation.

a. Would the government provide additional insight driving the change from NAICS 541330 (Engineering/Technical Services) of the initial RFI to the latest NAICS 334515 (Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring & Testing Electricity/ Electrical Signals).

b. Secondly, would the government identify how the change aligns to the scope of the requirements under Section C, subsection 5 of the RFP? The latent NAICS change is confusing in that stated requirements in the RFIs and in the RFP (Section C) have remained much the same, and, the RFP structure appears to be aligned to the initial services NAICS. We understand that instrument manufacturing is quite different from the integration of manufactured instruments into a build-to-print test station or test program reproduction effort, such as the notional task order. Yet, integration of manufactured instruments for design and/or for long term life cycle logistics support would seem to meet the intent of the RFP, and, would be within the capabilities of competitive small business entities for which the RFP is reserved.

2 Answer. The RFI was for informational purposes only during acquisition planning. The NAICS Code identified in the posting has been determined by the Government to best fit the requirement, including Section C, subsection 5.

3. Question. Under Section L, page 75, 6.5 VOLUME 5 – FACTOR 4 - PRICE PROPOSAL:

Government release of the comprehensive GFI drawings and notes necessary to establish pricing for the notional task order has occurred midstream (16 April 2020) in the response period. The data is extensive and requires significant man hours to review for completeness and to effectively develop a competitive response by 18 May 2020 for the notional delivery order. Is the 16 April 2020 technical data package the consolidated and final build to print package?

3. Answer. Yes.

4. Question. Under Section L, page 75, 6.5 VOLUME 5 – FACTOR 4 - PRICE PROPOSAL, Notional Delivery Order: What is the Government’s intent to satisfy the requirement to provide a “basis of pricing” within this volume? Since this is under an Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation criteria, if an offeror provides a single price for the requested CLIN structure would this satisfy the Government’s intent for the offeror to provide a “basis of pricing” to meet Section L and M evaluation criterion?

4. Answer. “Basis of pricing” is information the Offeror used to develop the pricing for the Notional Delivery Order. No, a single price for the requested CLIN structure will not satisfy the Government’s intent for a basis of pricing in Section L.

5. Question. Under Section L, page 75, 6.5 VOLUME 5 – FACTOR 4 - PRICE PROPOSAL: Based on knowledge obtained to date, the global COVID-19 pandemic is distorting the pricing and delivery schedules that would otherwise be quoted by offerors. This data compared against should-costs established pre-pandemic would distort fair evaluation by the Government. Would the Government be willing to evaluate offerors on a satisfactory technical approach to identify the cost, schedule, and performance elements - without providing the actual pricing information?

5. Answer. The Offeror shall provide pricing for the Section 5, Requirements within the Notional Delivery Order, as follows:

CLIN 0001 to include pricing for:

5.1 TPS Fabrication Requirements

5.3 Program Management

5.4 Meetings, Reviews, and Reports

5.5 Acceptance Testing (Production Hardware)

CLIN 0007 to include pricing for:

5.2 Translation Requirements

5.6 Translation Review and Acceptance

Offerors shall provide pricing for the Attachments of the Notional Delivery Order in accordance with the section of the Requirements to which it applies.

6. Question. Under Section L, page 75, 6.5 VOLUME 5 – FACTOR 4 - PRICE PROPOSAL: Based on knowledge obtained to date, the global COVID-19 pandemic is distorting the pricing and delivery schedules that would otherwise be quoted by offerors. This data compared against should-costs established pre-pandemic would distort fair evaluation by the Government. Would the Government be willing to evaluate offerors on a satisfactory technical approach to identify the cost, schedule, and performance elements - without providing the actual pricing information?

6. Answer. No.

7. Question. Under Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices, page 6, clause “CLIN MINIMUM/ MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CLIN VALUE”: It is our understanding that the maximum quantities are cumulative for the ordering period of five (5) years of the IDIQ. Will the MAC awardees receive updated individual CLIN maximum ceilings quantities and values remaining after each delivery order award?

7. Answer. No.

8. Question. Section C - Descriptions and Specifications, page 15, clause C-217-H001 PROVISIONED ITEMS ORDERS--BASIC (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018): Is this clause requirement and expected minimums and maximum values tied to Section B, CLIN 0006?

8 Answer. See Section B, page 7, “CONTRACT MINIMUM.”

9. Question. Section C - Descriptions and Specifications, page 8, Performance Work Statement, subsection 5.0 REQUIREMENTS:

(1) Are the subtitled requirements aligned to the CLIN structure under Section B?

(2) Is it expected that each delivery order will specifically tie the Section C, subsection 5 requirements to align with the Section B CLINS in order to clearly identify in a LPTA approach the expected minimums and maximums as currently structured?

9. Answer. Yes, the subtitled requirements align to the CLIN structure under Section B. Yes, each Delivery Order will specifically tie the Section C, subsection 5 requirements to the Section B CLINs.

10. Question. Section C - Descriptions and Specifications, page 15, clause C-217-H001 PROVISIONED ITEMS ORDERS--BASIC (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018): Is this clause requirement and expected minimums and maximum values tied to Section B, CLIN 0006?

10. Answer. Yes.

11. Question. Section F - Deliveries or Performance, page 30, clause REQUIRED DELIVERY DATES:

Request clarification for the following sentence: “The required delivery date for orders is 40 weeks after receipt of order.” Please affirm that all upcoming competitive LPTA solicitations will require that all end deliverables must be provided to the Government for inspection and acceptance within 40 weeks after receipt of order? Therefore, any offeror who proposes an alternative schedule due to manufacturing constraints under an LPTA would be non-responsive. Correct?

11. Answer. Yes, all upcoming competitive LPTA solicitations will require that all end deliverables are provided to the Government for inspection and acceptance within 40 weeks after receipt of order. Yes, an offeror who does not comply with the competitive LPTA solicitations requirements would be deemed non-responsive.

12. Question. “Would the Government be willing to evaluate offerors on the detailed and comprehensive technical approach to identify the cost, schedule and performance elements required to demonstrate its knowledge without providing the actual pricing information?”

12. Answer. The Government will evaluate price, technical acceptability, and past performance. This is not a cost type contract and therefore cost elements will not be evaluated.

13. Question. “Section L Page 72/73 paragraph 5.0 Proposal content and Volumes: identifies 5 volumes while Section L, Page 71 Paragraph 2.2. A completed proposal will include: 6 deliverables a through f.

Are there 5 or 6 volumes?”

13. Answer. Solicitation No. N6426820R0028, Section L, page 73, the table contains 5 Volumes.

14. Question. “Does the SF 33 include the pricing of the CLINs 1 through 8?

If so, how is the pricing to be derived?”

14. Answer. Solicitation No. N6426720R0028, Section B, CLINs 0001-0007 are the Offeror’s proposed maximum amount for each CLIN. CLIN 0008 is Not Separately Priced and is placeholder for CDRLs.

15. Question. “Does the government have a reference document for TSR and TPHDSR content and format?”

15. Answer. A template was posted to the beta.sam.gov website.

16. Question. “Does the government mean traceability from source code to object code, or traceability to something else?”

16. Answer. “This requirement speaks to traceability from ATLAS source code to object (compiled) code.

For TPS integration efforts, the Government will require the Contractor to document the process/ provide instructions for compiling source code to object code. This will be submitted as a Software Product Specification. Refer to Data Item Description (DID) DI-IPSC-81441A for more information on Software Product Specification.” The DID was posted to the beta.sam.gov website.

17. Question. “Para 6.2 (Vol2 - Tech proposal) and Para 6.4 (Vol4 - Factor 3, Tech Proposal, Notional Delivery Order), Sub-para 2: The Offeror shall demonstrate its ability to meet the Government’s lead times as specified in each delivery order. COVID-19 significantly affects supply chain order fulfillment times around the world and is changing rapidly. How will the government evaluate lead times with this in mind?”

17. Answer. Prior to a solicitation of a Delivery Order, market research will be completed by the customer (USMC) and the Contracts Department (NSWC Corona Division). Lead times will be determined at this time.

18. Question. In the Notional Delivery Order Statement of Work (SOW), Paragraph 6.2.2 it indicates that the translation materials will be provided as Attachment 4: Translation Task #1 (MS PowerPoint) and Attachment 5: Translation Task #2 (MS Word). However, Attachments 4 and 5 are .PDF Files. Will the government supply MS Power Point and MS Word files?

18. Answer, resolution. The files in their original state (MS Power Point and Word) were sent to all Offerors.

19. Question. “Is the limit of three Past Performance Narratives a total number including offeror and all of their subcontractors? Or does it mean a maximum limit of three PPNs each for the Offerors and their subcontractors as well? The first implies 1 to 3 PPNs in total. The second implies 1 to 3 PPNs for each party on the team. If we have 2 subs contractors, we could potentially have 9 PPNs, 3 for each team member.”

19. Answer. This applies to each organization (Prime or Sub).

Prime: 1-3 PPN Sub#1: 1-3 PPN Sub#2: 1-3 PPN Etc.

Which could potentially be a total of 9 PPN. If there is no past performance FAR 15.305(a)(2) provides guidance on that as well. Hope this helps.

20. Question. We are asking for clarification on the 2 translation tasks that are part of the Notional Delivery Order. Is the expectation to submit actual translations of the two tasks (attachment 4 and attachment 5) as part of our response, or just discuss how the translations will be completed?"

20 Answer. Per the Request for Proposal (RFP), Offerors' technical proposals should specify how they intend to meet each requirement outlined in the SOW. There is no requirement to deliver translated documents.