Amendment_4.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

See Summary of Changes

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Nov-2017

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N64498-18-R-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Oct-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

07-Nov-2017

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER PHILA

CODE 02311, ANTHONY RICCIARDI

215-897-1494, ANTHONY.RICCIARDI@NAVY.MIL

5001 SOUTH BROAD STREET

PHILADELPHIA PA 19112

N64498 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N64498-18-R-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES (REVISED)

1) The purpose of the subject amendment is to provide the following questions and answers:

Questions and Answers:

1. Should the TBD hourly fixed fee rates in Section B, Clause HQ B‐2‐0014, Payments of Fee(s) (Completion) rates be moved to Clause HQ B‐2‐0015 and then only be specified for CLIN 0001, which is for Term/LOE orders?

‐ No.

2. Throughout the SOW, Section L, and Section M, reference is made to having a NAVSEA 04XQ approved quality management system. However, TS 909‐310G, para. H‐3.11.1 requires approval of AIT QMS by NAVSEA 04RP. Can the Government confirm that it now requires a NAVSEA 04RP approved quality management system?

‐ Yes. XP responsibilities shifted to RP. A NAVSEA 04 approved QMS is required.

3. The SOW para 3.4.1.5 references RAPIDGATE, which is no longer in use by the Navy. Would the

Government confirm that it expects contractors to use the DBIDS system instead of RAPIDGATE for NCACS credentials?

‐ Yes. The contractor is responsible for obtaining and maintaining all security badges and security clearances to gain access to the ship's availability location CONUS and OCONUS. Contractors must conform to any and all Navy security systems during the course of the contract. DBIDS is now the current system for personnel without a CAC card. In the rare occasions when a Common Access Card (CAC)is required, the contractor must be vetted by their employer with favorable adjudication. CAC applications must pass thru the COR along with a completed form 1172‐2. The highest level of security requirements under this contract is CONFIDENTIAL as designated on the DD Form 254 in the contract. The Contractor is responsible for acquiring and maintaining security clearances at the level(s) required under this contract.

4. The SOW (paragraph 9.0) and DD‐254 (Exhibit 1) requirements for Facility Clearance Level (FCL) are

Confidential (Block 1a and 1b). A Secret personnel security clearance has been required for personnel working onboard submarines and to access spaces onboard surface ships and aircraft carriers for many of the Modernization Programs listed in RFP Section C2.0. Without a DD254 form requiring a Secret facility clearance, the contractor is unable to (1) clear employees to the Secret level for the resultant contract and (2) to be granted access to Secret‐cleared spaces onboard ships. Would the Government change the DD254 to SECRET in both Blocks 1a. and 1b?

‐ No. A contract elevated to the level of Secret would require everyone processing the contract COR/Contracting Specialist/Contracting Officer/Subject Matter Experts, etc. be raised to the Secret level. Contractor and government expenses would increase. In addition, the level of requirements and scrutiny would be greatly elevated, thus slowing down processing, award, and product delivery.

5. The eCraft labor category Manger, Program/Project II education requirements are different than those on

N64498‐17‐R‐4004 and N64498‐17‐R‐5019, where the former permits business administration degree and the latter permits experience in lieu of education. However, the functions are largely the same across the contracts, where they are “responsible for overall contract performance”. It has been represented that eCRAFT is being used to provide consistent and integrated metrics. Would the Government permit one or two of the six Manager, Program/Project II to meet the education requirement with a business administration degree?

‐ This RFP stands on its own and should not be compared to requirements of other RFPs.

6. The SOW paragraph 10.1 does not list Contractor Purchasing System, yet Section I contains DFAR Clause

252.244‐7001. Considering the contract contemplates up to $300M in ODC purchases, should the Contractor Purchasing System be included in this list and, if so, in what Volume should we provide the DCMA review/approval?

‐ A DCMA approved Purchasing System is required and has been added to Section 10.1 of the SOW. The DCMA approval can be included in the same volume as the Approved Accounting System paperwork.

7. Is SOW paragraph 11.3 intentionally excluded?

‐ Yes.

8. For Clause HQ C‐1‐0001, the Data Item Description (DID) for CDRL A0001 does not seem appropriate for the blue collar support services of this contract. Would the Government review the DID and confirm?

‐ The DID for Contract Status Report is appropriate to provide a status report IAW SOW paragraph 6.1 and associated CDRL A‐0001.

9. Is Clause HQ F‐2‐0006 applicable to this Solicitation or should it be removed?

‐ This clause has been removed.

10. Section H, Fair Opportunity Process, Selection Process, item 3 requests “the company’s subcontracting plan for the subject effort”. Is it the Governments intent that subcontracting plans be developed for each order?

‐ No. A subcontracting plan is developed as part of your proposal and if your company receives an award then you try to meet the subcontracting goals you proposed.

11. Section L, Subfactor 3B, Small Business Commitment Past Performance requires narrative on “relevant” contracts. For the purposes of this subfactor, what does the Government consider relevant (i.e. contracts containing FAR 52.219‐9)?

‐ The same standards of all past performance requirements. Work of similar scope, magnitude and complexity within the past 3 years.

12. Section L, Clause HQ L‐2‐0009 does not identify it is applicable to Large Businesses only. Can the

Government confirm it is not applicable to Small Businesses?

‐ Small Businesses don’t submit Small Business Subcontracting Plans.

13. Section M, Basis for Award identifies selection process, but does not include reference to or discussion of

Section I, Clause 52.219‐7. Is the Clause clear on its face, or is there procedural information from the Clause that should be included in Section M?

‐ Clause is clear on its face.

14. Can the Government update Section M to list the relationship in terms of importance between Factors 4, 5, 6 and 7?

‐ They are in descending order of importance.

15. The scope of work requires installation services at multiple locations around the country. Should we bid the SCA labor categories/hours based on the Wage Determination in Philadelphia, PA area or will the Gov’t provide hours by location for the SCA work? Will the Gov’t also provide the necessary Wage Determination for bidding purposes?

‐ The SCA does not apply. Per 10 USC 7299 provides that “each contract for the construction, alteration, furnishing or equipping of a naval vessel is subject to the Walsh‐Healey Act (41 USC 35, et esq.) unless the President determines that this requirement is not in the interest of national defense. For purposes of the bid for the contract it is estimated the percentage of the work shall be performed as follows 60% ‐ Norfolk, VA/San Diego, CA 30% ‐ Pearl Harbor, HI, Mayport, FL, Everett/Bremerton, WA and 10% ‐ Groton, CT/Portsmouth, NH.

16. Page 120, FACTOR 2 – QUALITY ASSURANCE states “Offerors shall provide its proposed quality assurance plan that complies to the Statement of Work requirements. The Offeror shall indicate if the proposed quality assurance plan has been approved by NAVSEA 04XQ Quality Assurance Plan/Quality Management System (QMS) in accordance with NAVSEA Standard Item 009‐004 or NAVSEA 04XQ0. If the proposed plan has been approved, the Offeror shall specify the date that the proposed quality assurance plan was approved.” Please clarify that the government intends that each offeror submit its entire Quality Assurance Plan even though it has already been submitted, reviewed and determined acceptable by a Regional Maintenance Command.

‐ The Government does require the plan.

17. Page 60, HQ F‐2‐0006 MILESTONE (NAVSEA) (SEP 1990), states “The Contractor shall submit, with its bid/offer, dates for the successful accomplishment of the following major job order milestones (See Attachment 1, Section L, Factor D2).” There does not appear to be a Factor D2 in Section L. Please clarify what is required and where it is to be addressed in the offeror’s proposal.

‐ This clause has been removed.

18. Page 56, HQ E‐2‐0015 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS (NAVSEA) (APR 2017), states

“The Contractor shall provide and maintain a quality management system that, as a minimum, adheres to the requirements of ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9001‐2015 Quality Management Systems and supplemental requirements imposed by this contract... Existing quality documents that meet the requirements of this contract may continue to be used.” In accordance with the guidance set forth by the International Standards Organization (ISO), companies have until September 2018 to start using an ISO 9001:2015 compliant Quality Management System. NAVSEA Standard Item 009‐04 references both the 2008 and 2015 standards. Please clarify whether or not compliance to ISO 9001:2008 is acceptable for the submission of proposals.

‐ It is likely that this contract will not likely be in place by Sept. 2018 so contractor’s should be using ISO 9001:2015.

19. Amendment 3, Questions 4 and 5, inquired as to whether or not the required Facilities information for

Section 2, Factor 1, and Quality Assurance information for Factor 2 could be excluded from the 50 page limit for the Technical Proposal. The Government’s response to both questions was “No”. We respectfully request that the Government consider that we have an approved 127 page Quality Assurance Plan and 85 pages of Facilities information (inclusive of all photographs, shops, equipment listings and model numbers. Page volume for most offers on this solicitation will be similar Please clarify how the Government expects an offeror to comply with these requirements within a 50 page limit.

‐ The page limit has been increased to 130 pages for Technical.

20. On page 29, Section 9.2.1 and Section 9.2.2 it states, “The facility must have the following capabilities:”

However, on page 119, Section 2, Factor 1 – Facilities it states, “Offerors must demonstrate that they possess or have the ability to obtain facilities and equipment requirements as specified in the Statement of Work:”. It appears that the verbiage in these two sections is different and the wording on page 29, Section 9.2.1 and Section 9.2.2 should state – “The facility must possess or have the ability to obtain the following capabilities:” or something similar. Does the offeror need to possess these facilities and equipment at the time of submitting the proposal, at the time of award of the contract, at the time Task Orders (TOs) are bid, or at the time of TO award?

‐ Offerors need to demonstrate that they possess all necessary facilities at the time of contract award.

21. Can the subcontractor facilities and equipment be used to demonstrate availability or access to the overall required facilities and equipment by the prime offeror team?

‐ Yes.

22. On page 138, Technical Evaluation, Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors: it states Offerors must receive a rating of “Acceptable” for all three (3) of the above factors to be eligible for an award. Offerors whom receive a rating of “Unacceptable” in any of the above factors will not be considered for an award.” Will a prime offeror that can meet the facilities requirement employing a combination of organic capabilities and subcontractor capabilities be viewed less favorably than the prime offeror that can provide all facility requirements organically?

‐ The RFP is clear on its face.

23. Does having a ISO 9001:2015 certification take the place of having a NAVSEA 04XQ approved Quality Plan/Quality Management System (QMS)? ISO 9001 is more rigorous than the NAVSEA 04XQ QMS system.

Contractors are required to have a NAVSEA 04 approved QMS. NSWCPD does not determine if ISO certification will be accepted by NAVSEA 04 in the process of obtaining NAVSEA04 approval.

24. What is the start date that should be used for cost proposals?

‐ 2019

25. Is there any government/contractor site split of hours that should be estimated?

‐ The Government is issuing this solicitation to determine that contractors can meet the requirements of the

SOW in order to make award. The Government does not expect contractors to estimate Government hours.

26. What is the validity period for proposals?

‐ One year.

27. Please clarify the employee threshold for 336611 for small business – it appears that the new threshold is 1,500 employees

‐ It is 1,250 employees as of 01 Oct 2017.

28. The RFP refers to code NAVSEA 04XQ as the approving agency for Quality Assurance/Management. Can the offeror assume that approval from code NAVSEA 04RP, which is the office that now has responsibility of reviewing the contractor’s QMS, to be the correct authority?

‐ Yes. See answer question 2.

29. Section C.10.1 of the RFP, states that approval of government property control procedures must be from Defense Contract Management Command (DCMC). Can the offeror assume that this certification is from the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) instead?

‐ Yes, DCMC is DCMA and has been corrected in 10.1.

30. As an ISO certified company, there could be more than 1,500 SOW relevant procedures which guide the quality of service provided to the Government. Would the Government reconsider the requirement for submission of the Offeror’s Quality Assurance Plan by allowing the Quality Assurance Plan to be excluded from the page allocation?

‐ No, see answer question 19.

31. The facilities and equipment necessary to provide a broad range of HM&E technical services required by this solicitation is extensive. In order for the Government to make an assessment of the offeror’s complete capability, the requirement to demonstrate the offeror’s facilities through pictures and equipment lists will encompass more than 50 pages alone. Would the Government reconsider and allow this requirement to be excluded from the page allocation?

‐ See answer to question 19.

32. Can the Government please identify the places of performance (CONUS and OCONUS) and the expected percentage of work at each location so that we can properly and competitively price the labor hours based on appropriate rates for each locale?

‐ See answer to question 15.

33. What is the expected award date and expected Contract Start Date that we should use for pricing the BY and

OY’s?

‐ See answer to question 24.

34. The Government identified eCRAFT labor categories. One of the terms of eCRAFT labor categories is they are

Service Contract Act (SCA). Does the Government intend for the labor to be SCA for this contract effort?

35. Will the government provide the estimated percentages of work to be performed at government and contractor sites?

36. The Attachment 2 Cost Summary Format has embedded algorithms related to Seaport proposals that limit fee percentages. Can these be removed since this is not a SeaPort bid and since the solicitation approves up to 10% fee on labor?

‐ No, the Cost Summary Format is still necessary to use in order to see build-up/application of direct labor rates, indirect labor rates (fringe, overhead and G&A), and pass through rates associated with subcontractor labor within Offerors’ proposals.

37. The Attachment 2 Cost Summary Format includes a pass-through analysis table at the bottom of the sheet. This states “When analyzing pass through costs, the Government will consider prime offeror fee on subcontractor price as an element of pass through as explained in the Section H Savings Clause of the MACs. In Section B, however, prime offeror fee on subcontractor price is a fee element rather than a cost element. Prime offeror fee on subcontractor price should be included in the fee column (rather than the cost column) of Section B.” There is no Savings Clause in Section H and there is no MAC associated with this solicitation. Will the government remove the pass-through section of the Attachment 2?

‐ Prime Offeror fee on subcontractor labor is considered a pass-through cost element, not a fee element.The

Fixed Fee amount referred to in Section B pertains to Prime Contractor’s Fee only. the Cost Summary Format is still necessary to use in order to see build-up/application of direct labor rates, indirect labor rates (fringe, overhead and G&A), and pass through rates associated with subcontractor labor within Offerors’ proposals.

38. For Key Personnel labor categories, may offerors substitute experience in lieu of degree for the education requirements?

39. For the Senior Program Manager (Key Position), it lists a minimum qualification of a BS in Engineering or

Naval Architecture. Does any engineering degree suffice (i.e., mechanical, electrical, industrial, aerospace, etc.)?

40. In Attachment 4 – SBPCD, on the Summary SBPCD sheet, line 5 requests RFP TOTAL SB%

REQUIREMENT (as % of DL). Does this line request just the DL portion of the total work (DL (in dollars) divided by the total of materials/ODCs (in dollars)) that are being sourced to small businesses or does it want the total SB% (in dollars of all DL and materials/ODCs) divided by just the DL (in dollars)?

‐ Ignore the “as % of DL” since it should have been removed. The Navy’s concern is the overall SB participation meeting or exceeding the 40% goal of the total contract value including labor and ODCs.

41. In Attachment 4 – SBPCD, on the Direct Labor sheet, the drop-down options in Column B only allow one designation per line. If we have labor we have priced for a SB that meets multiple socio-economic categories, should we list them more than once showing them under each part of their socio-economic category?

‐ Yes.

42. Attachment 4 – SBPCD requires ODCs to be broken out by vendor and specific PWS element identification with an estimated allocation of funds. With only a general PWS solicitation and without specific Task Order PWS requirements, it is impossible to dedicate or even estimate any ODC expenditures by vendor. Would it be allowable to identify an overall listing of target vendors by small business socioeconomic categories to meet the overall MQR of 40% required in the solicitation? If so, could Attachment 4 be revised to allow for this methodology?

‐ The form is for estimating purposes of meeting the SB goals. Based on the information provided in the SOW please list all SB subcontractors you expect to be utilizing and estimate the dollar amounts. Once actual task orders are issued we understand the dollar amounts won’t exactly match up but the goal is to meet or exceed the 40% SB participation.

43. The FACILITIES submittal requirements listed in Section L, page 119 are extensive in that the government is calling for, among other things, to “provide a capability statement and pictures of the shops” and a “list of proposed contractor furnished equipment by shop and by facility …[to] include model numbers [and] pictures of the equipment to demonstrate understanding of the requirements.” In prior contract proposals with similar requirements, a similar document for a single geographic area was in excess of 20 pages. Given the requirement to address two geographic areas (Norfolk and San Diego), such a listing with pictures may be 40 pages by itself. Will the government allow this listing to be excluded from the maximum page count of 50 pages currently established?

‐ See answer to question 19.

44. The QUALITY ASSURANCE submittal requirements listed in Section L, page 119-120, call for submittal of the offerors “proposed quality assurance plan”. In prior contract proposals with similar requirements, this document was in excess of 20 pages. Will the government allow the QA Plan to be excluded from the 50 page limit?

45. Based on the large requirement for small business participation, the small business teaming is an extensive component to a solution strategy. Please clarify if the Subcontract Management Plan can be excluded from the technical proposal page limit.

‐ No, see answer to question 19.

46. All Offerors (including small business Offerors) shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment

Document (SBPCD) provided as Attachment 4, and signed letters of commitment/intent for each proposed subcontractor listed on the SBPCD. Due to the large requirement of 40% SB participation, this constitutes a large body of support contractors and many Letters of Commitment. Please confirm the SBPCD (Attachment

4) and signed letters of commitment/intent can be excluded from the technical proposal page limit.

47. Factor 4 – Personnel: Please confirm the 16 Key Personnel Resumes (limited to 2 pages each) and any associated contingency hire “letters of intent” are excluded from the technical proposal page limit.

48. Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, Page 123, NOTE states: The North American

Industry Classification (NAICS) code applicable to the requirements contained within this solicitation is 336611. Therefore, companies proposing as a subcontractor under this solicitation as a small business concern must have had an average over their three (3) previous fiscal years that was less than 1000 employees. The size standard certified to by the Prime for their contract is valid for the ordering period and duration of any resultant Contract and Delivery Order issued against this solicitation. -- The small business size standard currently listed on SAM.gov and on the US Small Business Administration Table of Small business Size Standards last published and updated on February 26, 2016 shows that the small business size standard for NAICS 336611 is 1250. Would the Government confirm that 1250 will be the acceptable size standard as the largest that a concern can be and still qualify as a small business in support of this solicitation?

‐ See answer to question 27.

49. Would the government align the education requirement for the Senior Program Manager key position to be in-line with NAVSEA eCraft typical education requirement of “Bachelor's level degree in any technical or managerial discipline” as the requirement in the RFP will potentially exclude the Senior Program Managers who have successfully managed previous N65540-15-D-xxxx and N65540-11-D-xxxx contract task orders, greatly reducing the ability of offerors to utilize past lessons learned and adequately man key positions?

‐ See answer to question 5.

50. Under section C.3.4.1, it is required for the Site Foreman for each installation meet with NSWCPD Program

Manager, ISEA, or SME prior to the start of work. Given that the Site Foreman is traditionally manned on site at the work location, will the government confirm that these meetings can also be supported by a Designee as referenced in section C.3.3.1?

‐ In the emergent event the site foreman cannot attend, a knowledgeable designee may support; however, since almost all initial meetings are executed at or around the work location (local office, job trailer, etc), every attempt possible shall be made to ensure the site foreman is present.

51. Sections 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and throughout the solicitation require work onboard submarines. Sections 11.2.1, HQ-L-

2-0003 and the DD 254 state that the highest level of clearance required is Confidential. The following security requirement is quoted directly from USG authorities who approve or deny contractor badges and access to the bases, ships and submarines:

“FOR SSN access: U. S. Citizenship and a minimum of SECRET clearance is required.” Ref: Instruction Tab, SWRMC Visitor Access Request Form Updated 14 June2017, Block 42A.

In order to prevent delays and disruptions in performing NSWC work, access issues and potential security violations, Sections 11.2.1, HQ-L-2-0003 and DD254 block 1a. should be changed from Confidential to Secret. This would not change the requirement for Confidential storage at the contractor facility. It would simply authorize personnel security clearances at the Secret level to meet access requirements currently in place at the various bases and shipyards.

Will the Government update the DD-254 to Secret?

‐ See answer to question 4.

52. Riggers and Firewatch - Para 8.3.15 lists the following trades and the requirements for same. Electricians, HVAC techs, Equipment Mechanics, Pipefitter/brazers, Machinist, and Trades Helpers. The Note: in the para.

discusses the “need” for riggers. Firewatch personnel are not discussed at all. During the execution of the current BIG BLUE contract, RFQs were issued to price turnkey which made it necessary to include these 2 labor categories in the execution of the work. However, no line item is afforded them for pricing. Since it appears that the Gov’t will issue RFQs as turnkey which will require the full use of these 2 trades, the contractor requests that the trades of riggers and firewatch be specifically called out on their own labor line or included in a current one such as Maintenance Trade Helpers.

‐ Maintenance Trade Helpers is appropriate.

53. Para 9 states that the contractor must have facilities in Norfolk, Va. and San Diego, CA. It also states that the work will be in other areas such as Mayport FL, Everett WA, etc. Nowhere in the solicitation does it indicate what percentage of the work is expected to be performed in each location. For the purpose of pricing the solicitation, please provide the percentages of the work to be performed in the listed locations in para 9.1.

54. On a previous similar solicitation (N64498-17-R-4004, Amendment 0001), the following question was asked, “Q14. The FACILITIES submittal requirements listed in Section L, page 145 are extensive in that the government is calling for, among other things, a “list of proposed contractor furnished equipment by shop and by facility …[to] include model numbers [and] pictures” of the equipment to demonstrate understanding of the requirements. Given the nationwide performance requirement for this solicitation, such a listing may be extensive.

Will the government allow this listing to be excluded from the maximum page count of 50 pages currently established?” A14. “Offerors may submit the required information as an attachment. The attachment will not be included in the 50 page limit.”

Given the same requirements for Facilities detail and page limits, will the government consider the same approach and allow the detailed information to be provided as an attachment and excluded from the 50 page limit or increase the page count?

55. On a previous similar solicitation (N64498-17-R-4004, Amendment 0001), the following question was asked, Q15. The QUALITY ASSURANCE submittal requirements listed in Section L, page 145, call for submittal of the offerors ‘proposed quality assurance plan”. Will the government allow the QA Plan to be excluded from the 50 page limit? A15. Offerors may submit the required information as an attachment. The attachment will not be included in the 50 page limit.”

Given the same requirements for submission of a QA plan and page limits, will the government consider the same approach and allow the detailed information to be provided as an attachment and excluded from the 50 page limit or increase the page count?

2) All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.