Amendment_2_to_RFP.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 Page Tw o for RFP Revisions and Questions and Answ ers Numbers 1-20.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 4

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Jun-2018

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 N6449818R0027

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-May-2018

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

20-Jun-2018

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER PHILA

CODE 02311, HEATHER RHOADS

215-897-1131, HEATHER.RHOADS@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:

N6449818R0027

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The purpose of Amendment 2 is to:

1) Revise the Statement of Work as shown below under RFP Revisions.

2) Answer vendor RFP questions numbers 21‐31 as shown belown under RFP Questions and

Answers 21‐31. Questions 1‐20 were answers in Amendment 1.

RFP Revisions:

SOW Section C has been revised to change any reference to the Labor Category “Cyber Programs Engineer” to the correct Labor Category “Cyber Systems Engineer” so that the SOW/LOE are consistent with the labor category identifed in the Cybersecurity Workforce (CSWF) Certifications matrix.

RFP Questions and Answers 21-31:

21. The incumbent Seaport‐e Task Order (N00178‐04‐D‐4077‐EHQ5) included a degreed, non‐key labor category

(Program Support Assistant) under which multiple FTEs of financial support have been provided. Offeror recommends that this labor category be added to the RFP labor mix to ensure the requisite personnel are proposed and the requisite hours of support can be provided. If not added, Offerors will be compelled to either propose more senior personnel and risk being non‐competitive price‐wise or to propose junior personnel who will not have the skills and experience needed to perform the work delineated in Sections

4.4.2.1 and 4.4.2.4 of the Section C – SOW.

ANSWER: The RFP includes the labor category “Program/Financial Support Assistant” as a non‐key position in SOW Section 7 and in the LOE in SOW Section 14. No change made to the RFP.

22. The labor category descriptions delineated in Section C – 7.0 of the RFP do not reflect a project management support labor category (Project Manager, detailed below) that is currently being provided under the incumbent Seaport‐e Task Order. Offeror recommends that this labor category be added to the RFP labor mix to ensure the requisite personnel are proposed and the requisite hours of support can be provided. If not added, Offerors will be compelled to either propose more senior personnel and risk being non‐competitive price‐wise or to propose junior personnel who will not have the skills and experience needed to perform the work delineated in Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.4.2.4, and 4.5 of the Section C – SOW.

Project Manager (non-degreed, key and/or non-key, at least four government site FTEs and at least two contractor site FTEs): Five or seven years of experience providing project management support to NAVSEA Programs in one or more of the following areas: acquisition ILS, Task Planning Sheet development, overseeing ongoing Full Ship Shock Test (FSST) and Post Shakedown Availability efforts, Ship Change Documents (SCD) development, production planning.

ANSWER: The Program Manager position in the RFP is sufficient and cancels out a need for a separate Project Manager. No change made to the RFP.

23. Recommend to add the following non‐key labor categories to ensure the requisite personnel are proposed and the requisite hours of support can be provided:

Junior Engineer (needed to allow entry level personnel) Engineering Technician (needed to allow junior or mid‐level personnel) Computer Systems Analyst (needed to provide junior cybersecurity support personnel).

ANSWER: These additional labor categories are not required. No change made to the RFP.

24. Page 16 of 99, Section 5.0, Table 1, lists: “Cyber Systems Engineer” as a labor category.

Page 18 of 99, Section 7.2, item e) lists: “Cyber Program Engineer” as a labor category.

Should these titles be the same?

ANSWER: Yes, the labor categories should be the same. The correct title is Cyber Systems Engineer. The RFP will be corrected in Amendment 2.

25. Page 16, Table 1 “Cybersecurity Workforce (CSWF) Certification Matrix” lists a Cyber Systems Engineer Labor Category. Would the Government please confirm this is intended to be the Cyber Program Engineer Key labor category listed on page 18?

ANSWER: Yes, the labor categories should be the same. The correct title is Cyber Systems Engineer. The RFP will be corrected in Amendment 2.

26. Page 29 includes HQ C‐2‐0065 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS clause, but there is neither any instruction/evaluation criteria in Sections L&M for this, nor a CDRL describing when/how it should be submitted. Would the Government please clarify?

ANSWER: The clause HQ C‐2‐0065 provides instructions on what should be submitted. CDRL A020 has been added in RFP Amendment 2 with additional direction. The Software Development Plan is required after contract award per CDRL A020. It is not part of the technical evaluation factors found in Sections L&M and is therefore not required as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal.

27. Page 19, Section C 8.0 Place of Performance lists anticipated work locations. Would the Government please clarify whether SUPSHIP Gulf Coast should be included in this list?

ANSWER: Yes, Mobile Al and Pascagoula, MS.

28. In Q&A #10 The government stated "There should be a space between paragraphs. Section L will be revised accordingly to say: Proposals shall be prepared on standard 8‐1/2 by 11' paper, set at single‐spaced with 1'' width spacing before and after paragraphs and 0'' left and right indent." Did the government intend for each paragraph to be separated by a single blank line?

ANSWER: Yes.

29. Based on the instructions in the RFP for electronic submissions in Section L.2.3 graphics and tables “shall be no smaller than 8pt font”; Does this apply to the hardcopy proposals as well?

ANSWER: Yes.

30. In reviewing the response to Question 11 on Amendment 0001 to the subject solicitation, we noted the response stated that an offeror cannot double count the socio economic categories for Small Business Participation Commitment Document. This seems counter to the standard small business reporting requirements where small business dollars are reported for each designation a small business fulfills. Would the Government please clarify what the intent of this form is? Furthermore, if a team member fulfills multiple categories, how does a prime select which one to designate on Attachment 3? The solicitation also requires a Small Business Individual Subcontracting Plan. Please confirm that double counting of the socio economic categories is permitted for this document.

ANSWER: The intent of the form and that evaluation factor is to capture the actual percentage of the work that is being committed to Small Business as a percentage of total contract value, double counting the categories artificially inflates that value. It is your discretion on how to select which socio‐economic category.

No changes are being made to how Individual Subcontracting Plans are evaluated.

31. RFP Section 7.0 Personnel Qualifications, Subsection 7.2 states…c) Senior Engineering Technician (V – 30085)

(five (5) resumes): Target Education: High school graduate or graduate of a trade, industrial school for engineering. RFP Section 7.0 Personnel Qualifications, Subsection 7.3 states…h) Program/Financial Support Assistant (ANFS): High school graduate and two (2) years’ experience in the use of spreadsheet and word processing software. Is a GED acceptable as a High School diploma in the above referenced positions?

ANSWER: Yes, a GED is acceptable as a High School diploma.