Questions_and_Answers__1-31_to_Solicitation_0027_posted_to_FBO.docx

Questions and Answers to Solicitation N64498-18-R-0027 Amendment 1 to the solicitation includes the questions/answers No. 1-20 and extended the closing date of the Solicitation to 11 July 2018.

Amendment 2 to the solicitation includes the questions/answers No. 21-31 Solicitation Questions and Answers:

1. Page 21 of 99, Section C – 14.0: Are offeror’s required to propose to the labor categories and hours presented in the LOE table?

ANSWER: The RFP states “For the purposes of preparing a cost proposal, the Offeror should assume that the following number and mix of labor hours will be required over a sixty (60) month contract ordering period. The total estimated composition of the total man hours of direct labor is as follows: [LOE CHART]”. The RFP will be amended to include the following statement “Offerors are to propose on the labor categories and hour estimates provided in the LOE. Offerors who propose other than the specified LOE may be considered nonresponsive.”

1. Request to know if Offeror’s questions and the Government’s answers, that don’t require a modification to the RFP, can be posted in FedBizOps as they come in/are adjudicated or in batches once or twice a week. If not, request to know if extension(s) can be made at the due date minus 14 calendar day if posted questions are not yet fully answered. Given the requirement for hard copy submissions and the associated processing time and proposal production and shipping costs for sealed packages, either of these two approaches would be very helpful.

ANSWER: Answers to questions and revisions to the RFP, if required, will be posted as quickly as possible to allow interested vendors time to develop their proposals.

1. Page 74 of 99 lists “252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist JAN 2014” in the CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. Would the Government consider waiving this requirement? If not, please advise where (in what volume) offerors are to provide this information, and please confirm that the checklist is excluded from any proposal page limitations.

ANSWER: 252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist is not required for this procurement and shall be removed from the RFP in Amendment 1.

1. Page 81 of 99, Section L.2.3, requires electronic (CD-ROM) copies of each volume. How many CD copies are required for each volume?

ANSWER: One (1) CD per volume should be submitted. The CD should be submitted with the volume that is labeled “original”. CDs for “copies” are not required.

1. Page 83 of 99, Section L.3.2.1 states: “If the individual is not currently employed by the Offeror, include a letter of intent signed by both the offeror and the contingency hire.” Please confirm that Letters of Intent are not required for currently employed subcontractor personnel.

ANSWER: Correct, a letter of intent is not required for employed subcontractor personnel. However, a letter of intent would be required if the individual is not currently employed by the subcontractor.

6. Would the Government please confirm Offerors should submit Attachment 4: Declaration of Non-Collusion Certification in Volume I, Proposal Documents?

ANSWER: This is correct. Offerors should submit Attachment 4: Declaration of Non-Collusion Certification in Volume I, Proposal Documents.

7. Would the Government please confirm that (per page 80, L.2.1 Paragraph 3 - list of exclusions from page limitations) the entire “Subfactor C – Small Business Subcontracting Commitment” is excluded from the technical proposal page count (including section L.3.3.4.2 SMALL BUSINESS COMMITMENT PAST PERFORMANCE narrative)?

ANSWER: Supporting documentation such as Attachment 3 (Small Business Participation Commitment Document) and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan are excluded from the page limit. Any narrative associated with the subfactor is not excluded.

8. Page 79 of the RFP, L.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS states, “Cost/pricing information should only be present in the Cost Volume.” Page 84 Section L.3.3.4.1 requires completion and submission of the SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT (SBPCD) (Attachment 3), which requires dollar value amounts to be shown. Would the Government please clarify whether Attachment 3 should in fact be included in Subfactor C as part of Volume II, or if it should be included in the Cost Volume?

ANSWER: Attachment 3 should be included as part of the Volume II submission found within Subfactor C.

9. Page 79 of the RFP, L.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS states, “Cost/pricing information should only be present in the Cost Volume.” Page 85 Section L.3.3.4.2 “Small Business Commitment Past Performance” lists the requirement for Large Businesses to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which per FAR 52.219-9 requires dollar values to be shown in the plan. Would the Government please clarify which Volume the Government intends for offerors to submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan?

ANSWER: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be included as part of the Volume II submission found within Subfactor C.

10. Section L.2, On page 80 of the first paragraph states “…single-spaced at 1 with spacing before and after paragraphs set at -0- and left aligned paragraphs.” Would the Government please confirm that if Offerors set the Paragraph spacing for both Before and After the paragraph at 0 pt, there is not a need for a hard return between paragraphs, and the proposal submission would still be deemed compliant?

ANSWER: 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.”

11. Attachment 3 to the RFP, the Small Business Participation Commitment Document, includes both a Data Validation List (i.e., drop-down menu) on the Direct Labor tab and formulas on the Summary tab that will total values for a given subcontractor in only one socio-economic category. It is not uncommon for small businesses to be eligible for multiple socio-economic categories (e.g., both SDVOSB and VOSB), but the Attachment 3 will not total the figures in this manner. May offeror change the drop-down menu and/or formulas in the spreadsheet to better display their commitment to small business participation?

ANSWER: Offerors are not allowed to change the sheet or double count the socio-economic categories. Please note that an updated/corrected Small Business Participation Commitment Document has been provided and the Offerors shall use the revised document.

12. Multiple instructions to offeror, such as that found in L.2, state that the “Non-Cost/Price Volumes of a proposal shall not contain any reference to cost.” Volume 2, Technical Approach, Subfactor C, Small Business Subcontracting Commitment, however directs that the SBPCD be included in this Non-Cost volume. The SBPCD contains both the offeror’s total cost proposed, as well as proposed costs by socio-economic category. Would it not be more appropriate for the SBPCD to be an attachment to Volume IV, Cost/Price, than Volume II, Technical Approach?

ANSWER: Attachment 3 should be included as part of the Volume II submission found within Subfactor C.

13. May offerors whose corporate offices are not located in Philadelphia ship their proposals to the point of contract listed in Block 7 of the SF-33? If so, please confirm whether USPS/UPS/FedEX is able to ship to this location, and whether the POC will be available to receive package on Friday, 22 June and/or Monday, 25 June.

ANSWER: Proposals should be mailed in accordance with RFP Block 9 to the point of contact in Block 7.

14. Please confirm whether or not offerors are to proposed indirect burdens in addition to the ODCs in CLIN 0002. There appears to be a conflict between Note 5 on page 3 (“… the Government will add the Offeror’s proposed indirect burden costs to the stated base support costs”) and CLIN 0002 on page 4 (“This is a Not-To-Exceed (NTE) amount).

ANSWER: Yes, the offeror should proposed indirect burdens to the Not-To Exceed amount identified in CLIN 0002.

15. Regarding page formatting, L.2.1 states that “Foldout may be used for… material only that could not be depicted otherwise on a standard 8 ½” by 11” paper … [and] shall not exceed 11” by 17”. L.2.3(e) states “when printed … each spreadsheet shall not exceed 8.5 x 11 inch paper.” Since the Cost Summary is a large spreadsheet, would the government consider allowing 11” x 17” for the Cost Summary.

ANSWER: Yes, the cost summary can be submitted on 11”x17” per Section L.2.1 (page 80 to the RFP) that states “Foldouts shall fold from left to right (sideways), shall not exceed 11”x17” and shall count as two pages.

16. Sections A Note 1, C.11, and F contain information regarding the period of performance and the ordering period, but all such references are relative to an undefined planned award date. For pricing purposes, a planned award date is necessary to calculate various cost factors, such as indirect rates and escalation. Would the government please specify a planned award date, or should offerors stated an assumed award date within the 180 day proposal validity period (e.g., 01 October, 2018) in our proposal?

ANSWER: Offerors should assume that award will be within the 180 proposal validity, roughly around November 2018.

17. Section L.3.3.4.2 directs large business offerors to “provide Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) submitted within the last three years for up to three relevant contracts.” For ID/IQ contracts, such as SeaPort-e, ISRs report data at the ID/IQ level. The Seaport-e portal, provides reporting at the Task Order level. Would the government consider accepting data at the Task Order level to supplement the ISR, such as Small Business Subcontracting Data exports from the SeaPort-e portal?

ANSWER: Yes, the Government will accept data at the Task Order Level.

18. RFP Page 82, Section L.3.1 Volume I: Proposal Documents states “This volume is the Offer’s contractual commitment, complete in every respect and ready for acceptance by the Government.” The description indicates that the information requested under (Page 86) L.3.5.1 Completed Standard Form (SF) 33 Solicitation offer and award document, as well as L.3.5.2 Completed RFP requested would be included in Volume I, as well as the L.3.1.1 Transmittal/Cover Letter. Should the documents described in both L.3.5.1 and L.3.5.2 (RFP Page 86) be included in Volume I OR should this be provided as an Attachment to Volume IV- Cost/Price Proposal?

ANSWER: The documents described in both L.3.5.1 and L.3.5.2 (RFP Page 86) should be included in Volume I.

19. RFP Page 87, Section L.3.5. Completed RFP, paragraph 4 states “NO COST/PRICE INFORMATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN ANY VOLUME OTHER THAN THIS COST VOLUME.” Per FAR 52.219-9 (d) (1), The Small Business Individual Subcontracting Plan contains subcontracted dollars. Should the subcontracted dollars be removed and only show the small business subcontracting percentage based on total contract value?

ANSWER: The Small Business Individual Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted with subcontracted dollars.

20. RFP Page 84, L3.3.4.1 Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD), RFP Attachment 3: Small Business Participation Commitment Document (Excel File). When small businesses are added to Attachment 3- SBPCD spreadsheet, the SB Participation total or the socio-economic total is incorrect. When the SB subcontractors are added to the Direct Labor or ODC tab we must select one SB classification. A small business can have multiple small business classifications. If the SB option is selected for all of the small businesses, the SB Participation total is correct but there will be no socio-economic total. If you add an extra entry for a small business showing their additional socio-economic classification, then the socio-economic total is correct but the SB participation total is incorrect. Will the government send a revised spreadsheet or can the vendor revise the spreadsheet to show the correct SB Participation and socio-economic totals?

ANSWER: Offerors are not allowed to change the sheet or double count the socio-economic categories. Please note that an updated/corrected Small Business Participation Commitment Document has been provided and the Offerors shall use the revised document.

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.