Amendment_5.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 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-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

14-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) Shop equipment in the functional areas required by the RFP is comprised of major equipment (press breaks, shears, milling equipment, etc.) as well as hundreds of smaller items (welding machines, torches, gages, meters, etc.). If the offeror provides the detailed listing of each piece of equipment by make, model and serial number, including significant shop equipment (shears, brakes, etc.) and portable tools (e.g., electric drills), would the Government accept pictures of only shop equipment?

‐ No.

2) Factor 3a, Small Business Participation Commitment Document, requests signed letters of commitment/intent for each proposed subcontractor listed on the SBPCD. Would the Government allow the letters of commitment/intent as an attachment excluded from the page allocation?

‐ That is acceptable.

3) Although not specifically stated in the RFP, we assume that the same Corporate Experience (Factor 5) citations will be used in Past Performance evaluations (Factor 7). Request that the Government clarify that the same Factor 5 citations will be used in Factor 7 evaluations.

‐ Yes, it would be expected to be the same citations but that decision is left to the discretion of the Offeror.

4) Section L, Factor 5 lists a recency threshold of 5 years whereas for Factor 7, both Sections L and M lists a recency threshold of 3 years. Request that the Government clarify that recency thresholds are within 5 years.

‐ The recency is three (3) years for all factors.

5) The RFP does not provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template and instructions for obtaining POC evaluations of work not covered under the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases. For example, significant relevant work the Offeror has accomplished as a subcontractor. Request the Government provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template and instructions for performance not covered under PPIRS, FAPIIS, eSRS or other databases. Providing a PPQ arrangement will facilitate easier evaluations to determine Offeror’s past performance on work for which there is no Government database available (e.g., subcontractor work).

‐ Our Agency does not provide PPQ templates. The Past Performance work that an Offeror references in their proposal should be of similar scope, magnitude and complexity to the current requirement and have been accomplished within the past three (3) years.

6) Since the Contractors Quality Manual is the documentation approved by NAVESEA 04XQ for adherence to Standard Item 009-04 requirements, we assume the Government intends contractors to provide it to satisfy this requirement.

a. Please clarify that the Government requires submittal of the Quality Manual, stipulate whether associated Ops, WIs and QFs are required to be submitted and exclude this documentation from the page count restrictions.

‐ The Government needs the approved NAVSEA 04 letter; not the documentation submitted to SEA 04.

Therefore, there is no impact to the page limits and no exclusions shall be granted.

7) SB Participation Commitment Document – offerors are to include signed letters of commitment for each proposed subcontractor listed on the SBPCD. Does this include both labor subcontractors and material subcontractors? Is there a dollar threshold?

‐ The signed letters of commitment are for labor and there is no dollar threshold.

8) Is CDRL A005 in addition to the standard Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) submitted through eSRS on a semi-annual basis in April and October?

‐ It is in addition.

9) The Government’s Section L submission requirements for N64498-18-R-0003 are identical to that for N64498-17-R-4004 which was recently solicited. The offeror understands that the requirements of this RFP should not be compared to that one. However, Section L requirements for N64498-17-R-4004 required the same volume of documentation, for which this offeror submitted 342 pages, all of which was necessary to be compliant with the requirement for QA Plan, Facility Information and Letters of Commitment. The Contracting Officer/Specialist alleviated this problem by allowing these documents to be submitted as appendices outside of the page count. The government’s current requirements will prevent offerors from submitting a proposal that complies with the section L requirements as stated in the RFP and the subsequent amendments. Respectfully request that the government allow the QA Plan, Facility Information and the Letters of Commitment to be submitted as appendices outside of the page count.

‐ It is acceptable for those documents to be appendices outside of the page count.

10) The answer to Question 25 in Amendment 4 states that the offeror shall only estimate contractor hours, but does not identify how many of those contractor hours will be performed at a government facility or contractor facility. Will the government provide the estimated percentage of total contractor hours to be performed at a government facility (site) versus a contractor facility (site) so labor costs may be burdened appropriately? For example: 75% Government site, 25% Contractor site.

‐ It is roughly estimated 80% Government Site and 20% Contractor Site.

11) Through the 4 Amendments issued, numerous clauses, terms, and requirements have been changed. When will the government be issuing a conformed RFP with all the changes noted?

‐ The Amendments are the changes. There will not be a RFP released incorporating the changes. The eventual awards will incorporate the changes.

12) Amendment 4, Question 47 provides an answer that contradicts original Section L requirements which state: “L(2) PROPOSAL It is noted that the entire technical proposal shall not exceed FIFTY (50) PAGES in length, not including Resumes.” The government’s answer reverses the original statement of Section L, adds 32 pages worth of resumes to the volume, and immediately impacts the newly stated 130 page limit of Amendment 4, Question 19. Will the government consider allowing the resumes to be provided as an attachment to the Technical volume outside of the page limits as originally stated?

‐ See answer to question 9.

13) Section L – PD-L01 states: The “originals” shall be clearly identified as the “ORIGINAL”, and bear the original signature(s) of the Offeror. Are electronic signatures permitted as “original” signatures on the SBPCD and letter of commitment/intent for each proposed subcontractor or must the documents contain inked/wet signatures?

‐ Digital signatures are acceptable.

14) Are 11” x 17” foldouts permitted for tables, pictures, and graphics? If used, will foldouts count as a single page?

‐ The following was inadvertently omitted from the RFP and has now been added:

2.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF OFFERS

2.1 Offerors must comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal.

Proposals that do not comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal may be considered in-complete and may render the Offeror ineligible for award. The Government requires a minimum of 365 calendar days acceptance period.

2.2 Proposal format: In order to maximize efficiency and minimize the time for proposal evaluation, it is required that all Offerors submit their proposals in accordance with the format and content specified.

Responses must be in the exact order and numbered per the specific factors identified below. The electronic proposal shall be prepared with:

• No hyperlinks

• All files named with the file extension .doc or .docx or .pdf.

• Supporting cost data may contain spreadsheets in Microsoft Excel software, with all files named with the file extension .xls or .xlsx. Off Offerors shall submit a Cost Summary Format with functioning formulas used to generate and support the proposed cost data. The Cost Summary Format, and any other submitted spreadsheets supporting proposed cost data shall not contain hidden data (cells, formulas, or tabs), or broken formulas Additionally, the electronic proposal shall be prepared so that, if it is printed, the proposal meets the following format requirements:

• 8.5 x 11 inch paper

• Single-spaced typed lines

• No graphics or pictures

• Tables are allowed to enable organization of correlated information. Text font within the tables may be 10-point, 11-point, or 12-point Times New Roman Font in text

• 1 inch margins

• 12-point Times New Roman Font in text for other than tables.

• Page limits identified in each Section shall not be exceeded.

15) Is the Offeror required to submit cost or pricing data summarized as “Table 15-2” as a tab in its Excel spreadsheet cost proposal?

‐ Yes.

16) Actual Excel Attachments 1 and 2, per Section J, have different Attachment numbers when the file is opened. For example: Named file Attachment 1-LaborRateSubstantiation Table, when opened reads “Attachment 3”. Named file Attachment 2- Cost Summary Format, when opened reads “Attachment 4”.

Please update for clarity.

‐ Attachment 3 was corrected in FBO on 10/25 because it listed the wrong RFP number as explained in the description in FBO. The attachments already do match Section J, so no change is needed.

17) For estimating purposes, what is the anticipated date of award and Period(s) Of Performance (MONTH, DAY, AND YEAR, not simply the year) to allow for fair pricing across all bidders?

‐ Based upon the information currently available, it is difficult to estimate the award date due to unknown variables such as the number of proposals received, whether negotiations will be conducted, etc.

18) Bidder requests the percentage or LOE by labor category that should be proposed as working at a government site and a percentage or LOE by labor category that should be proposed as working at the bidder’s company site, not simply by geographic region.

For example: Senior Program Manager is allocated 25,000 hours LOE for each year. For bidding purposes only, how many of those hours should be proposed as being worked at a government site and how many hours should be proposed as being worked at the bidder’s company site? (i.e. 15,000 worked at government site, 10,000 worked at company site). This is important for fair labor rate pricing across all bidders.

‐ See answer to question 10.

19) RFP states that the contractor shall request access to ships and DOD commands via JPAS and RAPIDGate Pass Offices. Should the RFP state that the contractor shall request access to ships and DOD commands via JPAS and DBIDS Pass Offices for the Navy and Air Force Pass Offices; and RAPIDGate Pass Offices for the Marines and Army?

‐ See answer to question 3 on Amendment 4.

20) RFP states that in order to support increased security and streamline access to various Naval bases, the Contractor must apply and enroll for RAPIDGate badges. Should the RFP state that in order to support increased security and streamline access to various Naval bases, the Contractor must apply for DBIDS Credentials?

‐ See answer to question 3 on Amendment 4.

21) Would the Government consider a BS in Computer Science from an accredited college or university, for one (1) of the six (6) Sr. Program Manager’s required, as an acceptable minimum education requirement given that many of the systems covered in section 2.0 of the RFP are computer controlled?

‐ The RFP is clear on its face on what is required. In addition, all personnel that are required to have an Engineering degree must be an Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) college or university.

22) The Sr. Program Manager must have a BS in Engineering or Naval Architecture from an accredited college or university. Does a BS in Engineering Technology degree from an accredited college or university satisfy this requirement?

‐ No.

23) Lack of Best Value Trade-Off language in RFP. The Government does not explain how the trade-off process will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, only that tradeoff is permitted among cost and non-cost factors, and some degree of order of importance. Same is not clear when considering all language included in the RFP. Can the Government clearly provide how the tradeoff process will be used in Factors 4-6 and within Subfactors 1-4 of Factor 6? Are there points assigned to each Factor and subfactor? If yes, please provide? Can the Government provide the evaluation plan mentioned in 2.0(a)?

‐ The factors are in descending order of importance which was answered previously in Amendment 4. The ratings for the factors 4-6 are listed on page 140 of the RFP.

24) Can the Government please replace the following language "ALL SUBCONTRACT AND TEAMING AGREEMENTS SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL" with the Alternate I language as stated in the RFP as follows " Alternate I (June 2007). As prescribed in 44.204(a)(2), substitute the following paragraph (e)(2) for paragraph (e)(2) of the basic clause: (e)(2) If the Contractor has an approved purchasing system and consent is not required under paragraph (c), or (d) of this clause, the Contractor nevertheless shall notify the Contracting Officer reasonably in advance of entering into any (i) cost-plus-fixed-fee subcontract, or (ii) fixed-price subcontract that exceeds either the simplified acquisition threshold or 5 percent of the total estimated cost of this contract. The notification shall include the information required by paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv) of this clause." If the Government disagrees with the aforementioned request, can the Government please replace the following language "ALL SUBCONTRACT AND TEAMING AGREEMENTS SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL" with

“CONTRACTS WITH ANY FIRM NOT INCLUDED WITH THE PROPOSAL FOR THE

PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES that exceeds the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and with exception of ODCs”?

‐ The RFP is clear on its face.

25) Can the Government please confirm a Teaming Agreement is not required to be submitted with an Offeror’s proposal based on the letter of commitment/intent that will be submitted?

‐ The letter of commitment should detail the teaming agreement. Although the Teaming Agreement is not required it should be made available upon request.

26) Per A Guide for the Preparation of a DD Form 254, published by Defense Security Service Academy: Item

1. Clearance and Safeguarding. 1a. Facility Clearance Required Insert the highest level of facility clearance required for the contractor to perform on the contract (remember employees with a higher eligibility than what appears here will only be authorized access to the level of facility clearance).

‐ The rating stands at Confidential.

27) Will the Government provide a breakdown of the hours shown in the table on pages 8-11, indicating how many of the hours for each labor category is anticipated to be worked exclusively at a Government facility?

‐ See answer to question 10.

28) Our QA Plan alone significantly exceeds 130 pages. Because any acceptable QA Plan must be approved by NAVSEA 04RP (formerly 04XQ), we respectfully request that only the approval certification letter be required to meet the RFP QA Plan requirement.

29) Other Direct Costs. The item states “If an Offeror fails to identify, as part of its proposal, an indirect cost rate(s) that would otherwise be applicable to one of the support cost items, it shall not be allowed to invoice for the indirect rate(s) after award since the evaluation of its offer did not include that rate(s).” We have not seen such a limitation in prior RFPs. Over the course of the 60-month period of performance, if there is a modification to an offeror’s disclosed accounting practices which adds a pool to the offeror’s indirect rate structure, and DCMA approves the modified practice, the offeror is required to consistently apply this modified practice to applicable contracts. If the new indirect rate is approved by DCMA, would subject new indirect rate be allowed if applied to this prospective contract?

‐ Yes, it would be allowed if you provide the DCMA letter approving the rates.

30) Section L: Will the Government allow the use of tables/graphics produced on 11x17 folded paper?

‐ See answer to question 14.

31) Section L., Factor 1. Page 119 of 145: Regarding Section L, Factor 1 Facilities, does the Government intend for offerors to submit individual photos of all equipment, or a single photo of the interior of the facility showing all equipment within?

‐ See answer to question 1.

32) Section L, Factor 3 (b), 120 of 145: The RFP includes 3B-Small Business Commitment Past Performance.

Are small business prime contractors required to submit a response to this section? The requirement includes "demonstrate the extent of compliance with the offeror's small business subcontracting plans and any related incentives." However, small businesses prime contractors will not have a history of small business plans or incentives.

‐ All offerors regardless of their size must submit the requirements of FACTOR 3.

33) For Section L, Factor 3, page 120 of 145, Should Attachment 4, SBPCD be placed in the cost or technical volume? If it resides in the technical volume, can it be included as an appendix?

‐ This is the estimated Small Business Commitment so it is an appendix to technical.

34) Section L, page 120 of 145: Factor 3A SBPCD indicates to provide signed letters of commitment for each proposed small business subcontractor listed on the SBPCD. If the prime has teaming agreements from subcontractors, is a letter of commitment required, or should teaming agreements be included. Into which volume should the teaming agreement or letters of commitment be placed? If they are to be included in the Technical Volume, can they be included as appendices. Teaming agreements can be lengthy.

‐ See answers to questions 9 & 25. If you are just referring to the teaming to show technical capability then it should be in Technical but if it involves pricing then it should be under Cost.

35) Section C, page 22 of 145: The minimum education for Senior Program Managers is a BS in Engineering.

Does this include Engineering Technology?

‐ See answer to question 22.

36) Section C, page 29 of 145: Under 9.0 Facilities, the description includes "Contractors shall identify and provide all facility dimensions" as well as "Contractor shall describe the methods/systems used for monitoring of controlled access to all industrial and work areas." However, in Section L proposal instructions for facilities, the instructions do not include these requirements. Is the offeror expected to provide this information within the proposal or after award?

‐ Offerors are expected to provide the information within the proposal.

37) Section C, page 30 of 145: The communication description of section 9.3 requires, "The contractor shall list communication equipment that will be utilized and explain communication methods within all facilities/operational departments." However, these requirements are not included in Section L - Proposal Instructions. Does the Government intend for this information to be included in the proposal or provided after award?

‐ Offerors are expected to provide the information within the proposal.

38) Section L, Factor 6, 123 of 45: The RFP indicates, "a copy of the Consultant Agreement shall also be provided by the Offeror. The consultant agreement shall contain any cost information." Should this read shall not contain any cost information? Into which volume should the Consultant Agreement be placed?

Consulting agreements are quite lengthy. If the agreements are to be placed within the technical volume, can they be included as attachments?

‐ See answer to question 9. This is under technical and for technical purposes the Consultant Agreements shouldn’t contain cost. Information of consultant labor should be provided as a part of the cost proposal.

39) Section L, page 124 of 145: The past performance of "Major Subcontractors" are required. Can the Government define the criterion for a "Major Subcontractor"?

‐ Major Subcontractors are estimated at providing 10% or greater of the level of effort.

40) On pages 10 and 11 of 145 of the RFP, the ecraft code for Word Processor 1 is listed as 1610 and the Mechanic, Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning I is listed as 30083. However, this is inconsistent with the standard ecraft codes of 01611 for Word Processor I and 23410 for Mechanic, Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning. Can the Government address the discrepancy?

‐ The eCraft codes have been revised as follows:

Labor Category eCRAFT

Code Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

HVAC Technician (eCRAFT: Heating, Ventilation Air‐Conditioning Mechanic)

23410 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000

HVAC Technician (OT) (eCRAFT: Heating, Ventilation Air‐Conditioning Mechanic)

23410 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000

Clerk/Typist (eCRAFT: Word Processor I)

01611 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000

41) Will the Government allow 11 x 17 inch paper, folded to 8½ x 11, for graphs, pictures, etc.?

‐ See answer to question 14.

42) If allowed, will an 11 x 17 inch sheet of paper be considered one page or two?

‐ N/A, see answer to question 14.

43) Will the government provide a conformed copy of the solicitation to incorporate all questions and answers to include the responses to questions received today?

‐ See answer to question 11.

44) On Amendment 0004, page 3, Q&A 6, the government stated that “A DCMA approved Purchasing System is required and has been added to Section 10.1 of the SOW.”

Question: Is the government planning to provide a Conformed copy of the solicitation?

‐ See answer to question 11.

45) On Amendment 0004, page 5, Q&A 20, the government stated that the offeror must “Offerors need to demonstrate that they possess all necessary facilities at the time of contract award.”

Question: Considering the for Facilities detail and page limits, is the government inferring that we do not need to demonstrate in our proposal, and that we can simply state that we have adequate facilities to perform the work?

46) On Amendment 0004, page 5, Q&A 23, the government stated that the start date that should be used for cost proposals is 2019?

Question: Is the government referring to the calendar year 2019 or Fiscal Year 2019?

‐ Calendar year.

47) Page 120 of the solicitation document, Factor 3A SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT (SBPCD) requires signed letters of commitment/intent for each proposed subcontractor listed on the SBPCD.

Question: Will the government consider exempting Commitment Letters from the page count?

48) Page 3 of the solicitation document, Notes to Section B states “All questions in regards to this subject RFP shall be submitted in writing to anthony.ricciardi@navy.mil no later than 13 November 2017 by 04:00PM

EST”

Question: Given that the RFP submission date is 12 January, and the number of questions and answers already submitted will the government provide an extension of time to submit questions to allow time for offerors to review all of the RFP documentation and amendments?

‐ There will not be an extension to the question deadline at this time. Considering the RFP closes two (2) months after the last day of submission of questions, it is more than enough time for an offeror to review the amendments. Especially since many of the questions from the amendments are duplicates.

2) All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.