N6449822R4014 Amendment 0001.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

The purpose of this Amendment is to revise sections of the RFP, answ er questions submitted by potential Offerors, and extend the closing time from 20 April 2022 to 02 May 2022. See Section A "Amendment 0001 Summary" for further details. The Government does not intend to provide responses to any additional questions prior to the due date for proposals.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 48

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Apr-2022

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 N6449822R4014

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Mar-2022

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 X is extended, 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 1 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

19-Apr-2022

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER PHILA

CODE 0221, NICOLE ECKMAN

445-444-5277, NICOLE ECKMAN@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:

N6449822R4014

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 20-Apr-2022 06:00 PM to 02-May-2022 06:00 PM.

The number of offeror copies required 1 has been added.

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001 SUMMARY

Changes made via Amendment 0001 are summarized as follows:

1. Extend the closing date from 20 April 2022 to 02 May 2022.

2. Provide responses to fifty (50) questions received. See Section A “SOLICITATION Q&A” for all questions and responses.

3. The total contract value in Section A “Solicitation Information” has been revised from $47,474,671.53 to

$47,458,616.45.

4. Section B CLIN descriptions have been revised. See Section B for changes.

5. Section C has been revised as follows:

a. Section C, Level of Effort (LOE):

i. FROM 379,800 (75,960 hrs per year) TO 395,640 (79,128 hrs. per year).

ii. See Chart for revised LOE.

b. Section C, Statement of Work (SOW) Section 12.0 Personnel:

i. Revised/additional minimum requirements for each LCAT.

ii. See Section 12.0 for all required minimum education/minimum experience requirements.

c. Sectin C, SOW, Section 3.10:

i. Remove “real-time” from Section 3.10.

ii. Remove “on-site” from Section 3.10.1.

6. Infomormation in Section L has been revised as follows:

a. L.1 General Instructions has been revised as follows:

i. The statement “A “major subcontractor” is considered to be any entity proposed to perform 30% or more of the total proposed contract value for the purposes of this solicitation” has been replaced with “A “major subcontractor” is considered to be any entity proposed to perform 30% or more of the total contract value for the purposes of this solicitation.”

ii. The statement “Offerors shall propose base year escalation for the time period between the direct labor rate support (payroll date) and the estimated award date provided in F- 211-H021 Delivery or Performance (NAVSEA) (MAR 2019)” has been removed from the RFP.

b. L.2 Proposal Format has been revised as follows:

i. “The font shall be Times New Roman with a font size of 12 throughout the document” has been replaced with “The font shall be Times New Roman with a font size of 10 throughout the document.”

c. L.2.1 Page Numbers and Limits:

i. “Proposal Adequacy Checklist (DFARS 252.205-7009)” has been removed from the list of items not included in the page limitation.

d. L.3 Proposal Content and Organization:

i. Column titled “Hard Copies” has been removed from the chart.

ii. The Chart has been revised to show Factor 4, Past Performance, as its own Volume within the Proposal and has been revised to clearly state there are no page limitations on Past Performance references provided.

e. L.3.2 Section 2.0—Factor 1: Personnel/Oualificatins & Staffing Plan

i. The sentence “Offerors shall also provide a staffing plan to include an overview of the individuals the Offeror intends to utilize to execute the efforts identified in the solicitation and Statement of Work (SOW), including any categories which shall be filled with a subcontractor (a table may be used to summarize this information). Offerors staffing plan shall also include information regarding its plan to respond to workload fluctuations, handle overlapping tasks in a timely manner, and the feasibility to engage in full performance of the task order once the firm receives notice of award” has been replaced with “Offerors shall also provide a staffing plan, in accordance with the LOE established in the RFP, to include an overview of the individuals the Offeror intends to utilize to execute the efforts identified in the solicitation and Statement of Work (SOW), including any categories which shall be filled with a subcontractor (a table may be used to summarize this information). Offerors staffing plan shall also include information regarding its plan to respond to workload fluctuations, handle overlapping tasks in a timely manner, and the feasibility to engage in full performance of the task order once the firm receives notice of award.”

f. L.3.2 Section 5.0—Factor 4: Past Performance

i. Factor 4: Past Performance has been moved from L.3.2 to L.3.3 Volume III Past

Performance

ii. The sentence “Offeror’s shall provide a list of no more than four (4) relevant contracts performed within the last three (3) years by the Offeror or a proposed major subcontractor (any entity proposed to perform 30% or more of the total proposed contract value for the purposes of this solicitation), whether completed or not, including Federal, State and Local Government and private sector contracts” has been replaced with “Offeror’s shall provide a list of no more than four (4) relevant contracts performed within the last three (3) years by the Offeror or a proposed major subcontractor (any entity proposed to perform 30% or more of the total contract value for the purposes of this solicitation), whether completed or not, including Federal, State and Local Government and private sector contracts”

7. Information in Section M has been revised as follows:

i. M2. Factor 3: Small Business Subcontracting Commitment Paragraph 1.0:

1. The sentences “The baseline small business Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) for small business is 10% of the total proposed contract value (not subcontracting dollars). Proposals that do not use the total proposed contract value as the base inany calculations contained in the SBPCD, or that do not meet the MQR, will be considered unacceptable” have been replaced with “The baseline small business Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) for small business is 10% of the total contract value (not subcontracting dollars).

Proposals that do not use the total contract value as the base inany calculations contained in the SBPCD, or that do not meet the MQR, will be considered unacceptable.”

2.

SOLICITATION Q & A

N6449822R4014 Questions and Answers

Q# Solicitation Document

Section/ Paragraph No.

Page No.

Question

1 SF33 RFP B 3-4 In Section B, Supplies or Services, CLIN 0003 is defined as FFP and the Unit is an undefined number of hours, while CLIN 0004 is defined as CPFF and the Unit is defined as 1 Lot. Should the Units within Section B be revised to reflect UNDEFINED under the FFP CLIN 0003 and UNDEFINED hours under the CPFF CLIN 0004?

A1 CLIN 0003 has been revised to read as 1 LOT.

2 SF33 RFP B 3 In Section B, Supplies or Services, CLIN 0001 defines a maximum quantity of hours at the IDIQ level. Since there is no cost volume being

Q# Solicitation Document

Section/ Paragraph No.

Page No.

Question submitted at this time and the actual requirements are unknown, would the Government consider deleting the 379,800 hours from the Max Quantity on CLIN 0001 and establishing the hours at the task order level?

A2 No. LOE identified in the Max Quantity on CLIN 0001 will remain as the overall LOE for the MAC is established at the base level.

3 SF33 RFP C 33 The LOE table found on page 33 of 147 includes the mix of labor hours and performance site locations (Contractor/Government site) by labor category. It is worth noting that the LOE table does not allocate hours for both Contractor and Government site performance for each of the labor categories identified. Historically, in Task Order execution under other NSWCPD IDIQ MAC Prime Contracts, Prime Contract holders have been limited to utilizing the Contractor/Government site location as specified in the IDIQ Prime Contract.

For example, under the resultant MAC, Offerors would be limited to offering Configuration Management Specialist support at Government site or conversely, would be limited to using Contractor Site support to support Ship Cost Estimator, Electrical/Electronics Engineer, Mechanical Engineer and Structural Engineer.

While the LOE table section includes verbiage that indicates that "It is understood and agreed that the number of hours and the total dollar amount for each labor category specified in any Level of Effort (LOE) Task Order issued under this contract are estimates only and shall not limit the use of hours or dollar amounts in any labor category which may be required and provided for under an individual Task Order.

Accordingly, in the performance of any LOE Task Order, the Contractor shall be allowed to adjust the quantity of labor hours provided for within labor categories specified in the Task Order provided that in so performing the Contractor shall not in any event exceed the ceiling price restrictions or any Task Order, including modifications thereof."

Given the fact that the verbiage included under the LOE table does not expressly address performance site, will the Government consider revising the LOE to allow for both Government and Contractor site performance under IDIQ labor categories or revising the verbiage to allow for execution at either performance site for all labor categories?

A3 The performance site is identified in the LOE chart on page 33, column titled “Contractor/Government Site.” The RFP is clear on its face.

4 SF33 RFP C 33 Since there is no pricing being submitted at the IDIQ level and the actual requirements are unknown at this time, would the Government consider removing the LOE table and the associative verbiage found on Pages 33- 35 of 147 and including this detail at the task order level when a more accurate LOE can be determined?

A4 LOE is established at the base for overall MAC. The hours for each task order will be defined at the task order level.

5 SF33 RFP B 5-6 In Section B, clause B-215-H001 MAXIMUM RATES (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018), the Government has provided TBD percentages for both the maximum pass-through rate and maximum fixed fee rate applicable to all Task Order types. Are prospective offerors to propose the maximum percentage for pass-through and maximum fixed fee amounts for the base contract? If yes, under what volume should this information be provided?

A5 TBD is representative of “to be determined.” These rates will be proposed and agreed upon prior to award of task orders.

Document

Section/ Paragraph No.

Page No.

Question

6 SF33 RFP B 5-6 In Section B, clause B-215-H001 MAXIMUM RATES (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018), the Government has provided TBD percentages for both the maximum pass-through rate and maximum fixed fee rate applicable to all Task Order types. If prospective offerors are not to propose the maximum percentage for pass-through and maximum fee mounts for the base contract, will the Government please provide these totals to prospective offerors?

A6 TBD is representative of “to be determined.” These rates will be proposed and agreed upon prior to award of task orders.

7 SF33 RFP C.5.3, C.5.3.6,

C.5.3.7

24, 25 Section 5.3 indicates that "the Contractor is required to have and maintain a Confidential clearance." Sections 5.3.6 requires contractors to "have access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)" and Section

5.3.7 requires contractors to "have access to Unclassified Nuclear Work Area (UNNPI)." Are there security requirements for personnel working on this contract?

A7 The RFP is clear on its face.

8 SF33 RFP C.5.3, C.5.3.6,

C.5.3.7 24, 25 Section 5.3 indicates that "the Contractor is required to have and maintain a Confidential clearance." Sections 5.3.6 requires contractors to "have access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)" and Section

5.3.7 requires contractors to "have access to Unclassified Nuclear Work Area (UNNPI)." Will the Government confirm that all contractors shall possess and be required to maintain a Confidential Facility Clearance under performance on the resultant IDIQ?

A8 The RFP is clear on its face.

9 SF33 RFP C.12.3 30-32 All Non-Key labor categories include a minimum education requirement of a bachelor’s degree. Request that the Government add a non-degreed labor category for Drafter/CAD Operator III (eCraft code 30063) for the execution of SOW requirements 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.11.

A9 Yes, the Government has revised the LOE to include a Drafter/CAD Operator level III and IV.

10 SF33 RFP C.12.3 30-32 All Non-Key labor categories include a minimum education requirement of a bachelor’s degree. Request that the Government add a non-degreed labor category for Engineering Technician IV (eCraft code 30084) for the execution of SOW requirements 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.9.

A10 This LCAT has not and will not been added. Please refer to revised LOE included in the RFP after issuance of Amendment 0001.

11 SF33 RFP C.12.3 30-32 All Non-Key labor categories include a minimum education requirement of a bachelor’s degree. Request that the Government add a non-degreed labor category for Word Processor III (eCraft code 01610) for the execution of SOW requirements for 3.6, 3.7, 3.9 and 3.11.

A11 This LCAT has not and will not been added. Please refer to revised LOE included in the RFP after issuance of Amendment 0001.

12 SF33 RFP C.12.3 30-32 All Non-Key labor categories include a minimum education requirement of a bachelor’s degree. This category minimum may unnecessarily limit access to qualified staff with many years of experience but no degree. In this tight labor market, the government will benefit by including an education versus experience equivalency for all of the Non-Key categories.

This would provide offerors with the flexibility to utilize such equivalencies to provide qualified personnel without obtaining pre-approval.

Would the Government be willing to provide an experience equivalency (e.g. a bachelor’s degree is equivalent to no degree and four years of

Document

Section/ Paragraph No.

Page No.

Question experience or to an Associate degree and two years of experience) for the minimum education requirements aligned to the non-key categories?

A12 The RFP is clear on its face. Offerors must propose individuals that meet the minimum education and experience requirements outlined in Section C.

13 SF33 RFP C, J 41-

42, Section 12.3 classifies all labor categories as Non-Key however, the Solicitation includes Clause C-237-H002 SUBSTITUTION OF KEY PERSONNEL (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018). Paragraph (c) of C-237-H002

SUBSTITUTION OF KEY PERSONNEL (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018)

indicates that "Key Personnel are identified in an attachment in Section J." Further, a Key Personnel exhibit or attachment is not listed under Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other nor is the referenced Attachment, included with the release of the solicitation.

Will the Government please confirm that all labor categories are considered "non-key" and that Clause C-237-H002 SUBSTITUTION OF KEY PERSONNEL (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018) and the reference to a Key Personnel exhibit are not applicable to the IDIQ and amend the Solicitation accordingly?

A13 All LCATs are non-key. Clause will not be removed.

14 SF33 RFP L.1 126 Since no Pricing is being requested, should the requirement stating, “Offerors shall propose base year escalation for the time period between the direct labor rate support (payroll date) and the estimated award date provided in F-211-H021 Delivery or Performance (NAVSEA) (MAR 2019)” be removed?

A14 Statement has been removed.

15 SF33 RFP L.2 126-

Section L.2. of the RFP states that the font shall be Times New Roman with a font size of 12 throughout the document. Will the Government allow a reduced font size of 10-point Times New Roman for text within tables, organizational charts, process flow charts, and other graphics included in the proposal response?

A15 Yes, font size has been revised to 10-point Times New Roman.

16 SF33 RFP L.2.2, L.3 127,

Section L.2.2 indicates submission of proposals should be electronic only.

In the table under L.3, 1 Hard Copy is required for Volume II. Please confirm that no hard copies are required for this proposal effort.

A16 No hard copies. Electronic submission only.

17 SF33 RFP L.3.4.1 132-

In Section L.3.4.1, the Government has requested a fully executed copy of the RFP with fill-ins in all areas listed as Offeror fill-in other than Section B. Is it permissible for offerors to provide the executed copy of the RFP and the fill-ins as an Appendix to Volume I – Proposal Documents?

A17 Yes, submitting the information as an Appendix is acceptable.

18 SF33 RFP L.1, L.3.2-

Section5-Factor 4, M.2-Factor 3

126, 132, Section L.1 – GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS includes a definition of a “major subcontractor” as any entity proposed to perform 30% or more of the total proposed contract value for the purposes of this solicitation.

Additionally, L.3.2 – SECTION 5.0 – FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE states that "Offeror’s shall provide a list of no more than four (4) relevant contracts performed within the last three (3) years by the Offeror or a proposed major subcontractor (any entity proposed to perform 30% or more of the total proposed contract value for the purposes of this solicitation), whether completed or not, including Federal, State and Local Government and private sector contracts."

Given the fact that Offerors are not required to submit a Cost Proposal, will the Government please provide the basis under which this quantitative factor will be measured?

Document

Section/ Paragraph No.

Page No.

Question

A18 Evaluation is based on the consistency of information found in SBPCD compared to information found in the technical proposal and percentages (%) found in your subcontracting plan.

19 SF33 RFP L.3.2, Section 4, Attach 1

130-

In Section L.3.2, Section 4.0 - Factor 3, the Government requests that all Offerors prepare a Small Business Participating Commitment Document (SBPCD) in the format provided under Attachment 1. Due to the fact that there is no Cost Proposal, will the Government confirm that Offerors should only provide percentages within this document and all dollar figures should be noted as "TBD" or left blank?

A19 Confirming Offerors should provide percentages (%) of total contract value within the document.

20 SF33 RFP L.3.2, Section 4 131 -

In Section L.3.2, Section 4.0 - Factor 3, the Government has requested that all Large Business offerors complete a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Due to the fact that there is no Cost Proposal and the NTE values denoted in the Solicitation represent the maximum value across all awarded IDIQs, will the Government confirm that offerors should provide proposed percentages within this document and that all dollar figures should be noted as "TBD" or left blank?

A20 Confirming Offerors should provide percentages (%) of total contract value within the document.

21 SF33 RFP L.3.2, Section 4 131 Please confirm that all Small Business Commitment Past Performance narratives are outside of the 45-page limit for Volume II.

A21 RFP is clear on its face. Page 131 states “The SBPCD Attachment and signed letters of intent/commitment are excluded from the page count.”

22 SF33 RFP M.2, Factor 3 145 Section M, FACTOR 3. SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING COMMITMENT, Subfactor 1. Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) indicates that Offerors will be evaluated on the consistency of the proposed subcontracting commitment when compared to the information in its cost and technical proposal and its subcontracting plan.

Given the fact that Offerors are not required to provide a Cost Proposal in response to this Solicitation and performance will be determined at TO level, will the Government please clarify how subcontracting commitments will be evaluated for "acceptability"?

A22 Evaluation is based on the consistency of information found in SBPCD compared to information found in the technical proposal and percentages found in your subcontracting plan.

23 SF33 RFP L.3.2, Section 4— Factor 3, M.2, Factor 3

130- 132, When evaluating Factor 3 Small Business Subcontracting Commitment, please confirm that an Offeror’s response for this factor “meets requirements of the solicitation” and is therefore “Acceptable” if they provide: 1) a completed SBPCD in the format provided under Attachment 1, 2) a narrative on how we “meet or exceed the baseline MQR for small business participation equal to or greater than the specified percentage of the Total Contract Value (TCV),” 3) signed letters of commitment/intent for proposed SB subcontractors OR a narrative discussing the reason why one was not established, 4) a “narrative describing their use of small business concerns over the past three years on relevant contracts,” 5) Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) submitted within the last three years for up to three relevant contracts” (for large businesses), and 6) a Small Business Individual Subcontracting Plan (for large businesses).

A23 The RFP is clear on its face.

Document

Section/ Paragraph No.

Page No.

Question

24 SF33 RFP Section C para 3.10

19 Can the Gov't provide additional detail of the type of Professional Engineer required to be on-site (Civil/Structural, Mechanical, Electrical etc.)? As PE's licensed in specific areas can only seal engineering plans relating to their specific area of licensure?

A24 “On-site” and “real-time” have been removed from Section C paragraphs 3.10 and paragraph 3.10.1.

25 SF33 RFP Section C para 12.0

30 Can the Gov't identify which LCATs are required to carry a PE license since Section 12.0 Personnel is currently silent to this requirement?

A25 The Contractor shall determine which LCAT, so long as the requirements in Section C, 3.10 and 3.10.1 are met.

26 SF33 Section C Para 3.1.1

13 “Update and maintain a “Whole-Site, Computer-Based Model,” including legacy facility designs, in AutoCad or commercial computer-aided drafting software…..”. Would the Government consider adding an Engineer, Designer I (ED1) LCAT to support performance of this task?

A26 This LCAT has not and will not been added. Please refer to revised LOE included in the RFP after issuance of Amendment 0001.

27 SF33 RFP Section C 3.1.3

13 Section C, 3.1.3, Page 13 states that “This support includes the purchasing of incidental graphic displays and presentation materials, such as easels, pointers, etc.”

Would the Government consider adding an Administrative LCAT to support purchasing processing?

A27 Administrative Manager II (MANA2) is already included in non-key personnel. No additional LCATs will be added for this tasking.

28 SF33 RFP Section C 3.4.3

15 “Develop a complete, comprehensive/detailed drawing package, which provides sufficient details and associated information to allow for the fabrication, installation and operation of the systems and equipment. The drawing package shall include system diagrams, machinery/equipment arrangements, piping arrangements and details, structural/foundation drawings, mechanical, electrical diagrams and details of utilities-connections.”

Would the Government consider adding an Engineering Technician IV (30086) and adding an Engineering Technician III (30083) to support performance of this task?

A28 This LCAT has not and will not been added. Please refer to revised LOE included in the RFP after issuance of Amendment 0001.

29 SF33 RFP Section C 3.6; 3.6.3; 3.6.4;

3.6.6; 3.6.8

17 Design Logistics Documentation Support. “Would the Government consider adding a Logistician II (LGT2) LCAT to accomplish these tasking?”

A29 Logistician II (LGT2) LCAT was inadvertently not included at RFP issuance.

This LCAT has been added with Amendment 0001. Please refer to revised LOE included in the RFP after issuance of Amendment 0001.

30 SF33 RFP Section C, 3.9

18 Design Administrative and Tracking Support. “There is a need for administrative support in order to cross-reference tracking documents…..” Would the Government consider adding an Admin/Clerk LCAT to support performance of this tasking?

A30 Administrative Manager II (MANA2) is already included in non-key personnel. No additional LCATs will be added for this tasking.

31 SF33 RFP Section C 3.11

19 Design Program Support “Programmatic support regarding the system/equipment fabrication, installation, test and evaluation”. Would the government consider adding an Engineer, Designer I (ED1) LCAT to support performance of this task?

Document

Section/ Paragraph No.

Page No.

Question

A31 This LCAT has not and will not been added. Please refer to revised LOE included in the RFP after issuance of Amendment 0001.

32 SF33 RFP Section C 3.4.6

15 “Review all drawings for correctness and completeness and provide a Quality Assurance (QA) checklist IAW CDRL A049, Quality Assurance Checklist.” Would the Government consider adding a SPECIALIST, QUALITY CONTROL IV (SQC4) to support performance of this task?

A32 This LCAT has not and will not been added. Please refer to revised LOE included in the RFP after issuance of Amendment 0001.

33 SF33 RFP Section C 12.3

32 Labor Category Mechanical Engineer III: Would the Government consider adding Bachelor’s in Naval Architect and Marine Engineering as an alternative to Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering?

A33 No, the miniumum education requirements outlined in the RFP are unchanged for this LCAT.

34 SF33 RFP Section C 12.3

32 Labor Category Structural Engineer IV: Would the Government consider a Bachelor’s degree in Applied Mechanics or Civil Engineering and a Professional Engineering License in lieu of Master’s in degree in Applied Mechanics or Civil Engineering?

A34 Structural Engineer IV has been removed and replaced with Structural Engineer III. Please see Section C for the minimum requirements for this

LCAT.

35 SF33 RFP Section C 12.3

31 Labor Category Ship Cost Estimator: Would the Government consider additional professional experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree in that many tradesmen have developed skills and knowledge to be successful project cost estimators.

A35 No, the miniumum education requirements outlined in the RFP are unchanged for this LCAT.

36 SF33 RFP Section L 3.2

129 Technical Volume: Paragraph 2 references the scope of work as follows “….any information of interest to technical reviewers shall be contained in the technical proposal in sufficient detail so that the Offeror’s understanding of the scope of the work may be adequately evaluated.” Section M, Factor 2: Management Approach. Page 144 indicates that the Offeror will be evaluated on the firm’s organization structure and management process related to the facilitation of the statement of work. This seems to imply that the detailed information regarding the Offeror’s technical approach to the requirements in Section C, paragraphs 3.2 through 3.11, including previous experience executing similar requirements, will not be an evaluation factor.

Will the Government clarify this evaluation factor?

A36 The RFP is clear on its face. Please refer to the Factors outlined in Section L and M.

37 SF33 RFP C-247 41 Is there a key personnel requirement?

A37 No key personnel. Section C contains only non-key LCATs.

38 SF33 RFP M, Factor 3, M.4 146 In M.3 COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION INSTRUCTIONS “The

Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.” However, “the Government reserves the right to enter into discussions with Offerors as it is determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the Government’s best interest.” Please verify that cost or price are not being evaluated.

Document

Section/ Paragraph No.

Page No.

Question

A38 Cost or price are not being evaluated at the base award. Cost and price will be evaluated on any subsequent task orders issued.

39 SF33 RFP CLIN 0001 is reserved for cost-plus-fixed-fee LOE TOs with a total of 379800 hours. CLIN 0003 is reserved for Firm-Fixed-Price task orders but no hours are allocated? Page 33 Level of Effort Table has a total of 379,800 hours across 5 years. What is the FFP task order hour allocation?

A39 CLIN 0003 has been updated to read as “1 Lot.”

40 What is the difference between CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0004 if no pricing or cost is being evaluated?

A40 CLIN 0001 is reserved for issuance of CPFF Level of Effort (LOE) task orders. CLIN 0004 is reserved for issuance of CPFF Completion task orders.

41 Should there be CLINs for each year?

A41 RFP is clear on its face.

42 L.3 126 The RFP reads “set at single space with 1” width spacing.” Is this meant to indicate that the margins should be 1” all around the paper?

A42 Yes.

43 L.3 128 The table in L.3 indicates that we are to submit a hard copy of Factors 1-

4, but we are not permitted to hand deliver or mail proposals – how are we to get the hard copy to the government office? And if we are to send a hard copy, is the date it is received by the government considered to be the day it arrives at the government location or the postmarked date?

A43 No hand delivery is required. L.3 has been updated to state only electronic copies.

44 L.2.1 127 If resumes and letters of intent are required in the proposal, we request the Government provide the key personnel requirements and that an additional time period/extension of two weeks is provided to respond.

A44 Key personnel are not included in this RFP. Amendment 0001 has extended the closing time of the RFP from 20 April 2022 to 02 May 2022.

45 CLIN 0001 is reserved for cost-plus-fixed-fee LOE TOs with a total of 379800 hours. CLIN 0003 is reserved for Firm-Fixed-Price task orders but no hours are allocated? Page 33 Level of Effort Table has a total of 379,800 hours across 5 years. What is the FFP task order hour allocation?

A45 CLIN 0003 has been updated to read as “1 Lot.”

46 SF33 RFP L.2.1 127 In Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, under

Paragraph L.2.1 found on page 127, the Government indicates that a Proposal Adequacy Checklist (DFARS 252.205-7009) is not included in the page limitations of the proposal. However, a Cost Proposal is not required in response to the solicitation making the requirements N/A. Will the Government please verify that the requirement for a Proposal Adequacy Checklist (DFARS 252.205-7009) is not applicable to this Solicitation and that Offeror’s are not required to submit a Proposal Adequacy Checklist with their proposal response?

A46 Yes, confirming this is N/A and has been removed from the RFP.

47 Section L.2.1. States that Past Performance References are not included in the volume's page limitation. Please confirm the "list of contracts performed" along with the information required (Factor 4.0: Past Performance) are not included in the page limitation.

A47 Information for Factor 4, Past Performance, is not included in the page limitation.

48 SF33 RFP C, 3.1.1 11 With the complexity of the electrical systems that are the subject of this section, would the Government consider the addition of a labor category for ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONICS ENGINEER IV?

Document

Section/ Paragraph No.

Page No.

Question

A48 This LCAT has not and will not been added. Please refer to revised LOE included in the RFP after issuance of Amendment 0001.

49 SF33 RFP C, 3.1.1 11 With the complexity of the mechanical systems that are the subject of this section, would the Government consider the addition of a labor category for MECHANICAL ENGINEER IV?

A49 This LCAT has not and will not been added. Please refer to revised LOE included in the RFP after issuance of Amendment 0001.

50 SF33 RFP C, 3.3.3 14/17 Section C, 3.3.3, Page 14. “Conduct Electro Magnetic Interference (EMI) and acoustic noise surveys, submitted IAW CDRL A010, Electro Magnetic Interference Report and CDRL A011, Acoustic Noise Surveys’ and Section C, 3.5.4., Page 17. “Analyze designs and installed systems to verify acoustic equipment/system performance for accuracy and adherence to design requirements.” Would the Government consider adding an ENGINEER, ACOUSTICAL IV to support performance of these tasks?

A51 This LCAT has not and will not been added. Please refer to revised LOE included in the RFP after issuance of Amendment 0001.

The following have been modified:

SOLICITATION INFORMATION

1. CONTRACT TYPE: The Naval Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD) proposes to award Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF) and Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts to all qualifying Offerors. A qualifying Offeror is defined as a responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is considered to be technically acceptable in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in Section M and the Contracting Officer has no reason to believe it would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. Price or Cost will not be a factor in award of the IDIQ, however, price or cost will be considered as one of the factors in the selection decision for each task or delivery order under the IDIQ.

Only one Prime Contract is allowed per company. "Company" includes affiliates and business units as defined in FAR 2.101. The resultant contract(s) will also contain provisions for Task Orders to be awarded on a fixed price basis when feasible.

The resultant contract(s) will be made under the Land Based Engineering Sites (LBES) Design Multiple Award Contract (MAC) Program, with an ordering period ending 22 October 2027 and a period of performance ending 22 October 2028.

2. BASIS OF COMPETITION: At the task order level, award determination will be based on Task Order RFP requirements conducted in accordance with FAR Clause 52.216-18 ORDERING.

3. MULTIPLE AWARDS: As detailed in Section M, award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose offer(s) are determined to be technically acceptable to the Government based on the criteria described herein.

a. Any awards made in response to this RFP will become Prime Contracts under the LBES Design Program

MAC.

b. The MAC will expire when either the ordering term expires or the cumulative total of all orders issued to all awardees equals the Government's total program ceiling of $47,458,616.45

c. The minimum value of services that must be ordered from each awardee will be $500.00. The minimum shall be satisfied by the issuance of the first Task Order issued under the resultant contract award(s) in response to this RFP.

4. NAICS INDUSTRY CODE: The NAICS for this requirement is 541330 Engineering Services.

5. The Government Furnished Property/Government Furnished Information will be provided at the Task Order level.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0001

The pricing detail quantity has increased by 15,840.00 from 379,800.00 to 395,640.00.

CLIN 0003

The pricing detail quantity has changed from UNDEFINED to 1.00.

The unit of issue has changed from Hours to Lot.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

LEVEL OF EFFORT

The estimated LOE for the performance of this contract is based upon an anticipated total estimated LOE of 395,640 man-hours (79,128 hours per year) of direct labor for the entire contract performance period. The total number of man-hours of direct labor includes subcontracted labor hours, but does not include holiday, sick leave, vacation and other absence hours. The anticipated labor hours to be expended hereunder is estimated below; the quantity set forth herein or as expressly changed by formal modification thereto, is hereafter referred to as “estimated total hours”.

For purposes of preparing a cost proposal, the Offeror shall assume that the following number and mix of labor hours will be required, equally from year to year over the sixty (60) month contract ordering period. The total estimated composition of the 395,640 man-hours of direct labor is as follows:

Labor Category

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Contractor/Government Site

Program Manager 5760 5760 5760 5760 5760 KTR Program Manager OT 570 570 570 570 570 KTR eCRAFT: MANAGER, PROGRAM/PROJECT II;

Code: MANP2

Administrative Manager 5760 5760 5760 5760 5760 KTR Administrative Manager OT 570 570 570 570 570 KTR eCRAFT: MANAGER, ADMINISTRATIVE II;

Code: MANA2

Management Confirguration Specialist 5760 5760 5760 5760 5760 GOV

Management Confirguration Specialist OT 570 570 570 570 570 GOV eCRAFT: SPECIALIST, CONFIGURATION MGMT III; Code:

SCM3

Ship Cost Estimator 5760 5760 5760 5760 5760 KTR Ship Cost Estimator OT 570 570 570 570 570 KTR eCRAFT: SHIP COST ESTIMATOR;

Code: SCE

Design Engineer 5760 5760 5760 5760 5760 KTR Design Engineer OT 570 570 570 570 570 KTR eCRAFT: ENGINEER, DESIGN IV;

Code: ED4

Drafter/CAD Operator 5760 5760 5760 5760 5760 KTR Drafter/CAD Operator OT 570 570 570 570 570 KTR eCRAFT: DRAFTER/CAD OPERATOR III; Code: 30063

Drafter/CAD Operator 5760 5760 5760 5760 5760 KTR Drafter/CAD Operator OT 570 570 570 570 570 KTR eCRAFT: DRAFTER/CAD OPERATOR IV; Code: 30064

Electrical/Electronics Engineer 5760 5760 5760 5760 5760 KTR Electrical/Electronics Engineer OT 570 570 570 570 570 KTR eCRAFT: ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONICS III;

Code: EE3

Electrical/Electronics Engineer 5760 5760 5760 5760 5760 KTR Electrical/Electronics Engineer OT 570 570 570 570 570 KTR eCRAFT: ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONICS II;

Code: EE2

Mechanical Engineer 5760 5760 5760 5760 5760 KTR Mechanical Engineer OT 570 570 570 570 570 KTR eCRAFT: ENGINEER, MECHANICAL III; Code: EM3

Mechanical Engineer 5760 5760 5760 5760 5760 GOV Mechanical Engineer OT 570 570 570 570 570 GOV eCRAFT: ENGINEER, MECHANICAL II; Code: EM2

Structural Engineer 5760 5760 5760 5760 5760 KTR Structural Engineer OT 570 570 570 570 570 KTR eCRAFT: ENGINEER, STRUCTURAL III; Code: EST3

Logistician 2880 2880 2880 2880 2880 KTR Logistician OT 288 288 288 288 288 eCRAFT: LOGISTICIAN II;

Code: LGT2

Total Straight-Time Hours 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 Total Overtime Hours 7,128 7,128 7,128 7,128 7,128 Straight Time +_Overtime TOTAL 79,128 79,128 79,128 79,128 79,128 Grand Total 395,640

The Contractor shall not be obligated to continue performance beyond the Estimated Total Hours, nor shall the Government be obligated to pay fee on any hours expended in excess of the Estimated Total Hours, provided, however, the Contracting Officer may at his election, require the Contractor to continue to perform work in excess of the Estimated Total Hours until the estimated cost has been expended. Any hours expended in excess of the Estimated Total Hours (hereinafter “excess hours”) shall be excluded from all fee computations and adjustments.

It is understood and agreed that the rate of man hour use may fluctuate throughout the term of the contract provided such fluctuation does not result in the utilization of the total man hours of effort prior to expiration of the term thereof, and it is further understood and agreed that the number of hours of effort for any classification may be utilized by the Contractor in any other direct labor classification, if necessary in the performance of the work. If at any time during the performance of this contract, the number of direct hours utilized under this contract exceeds 85% of the total estimated hours, the Contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer of such circumstances.

Nothing herein shall be construed to alter or waive any of the rights of obligations of either party pursuant to the clause hereof entitled ‘Limitation of Cost” and/or “Limitation of Funds”.

It is understood and agreed that the number of hours and the total dollar amount for each labor category specified in any Level of Effort (LOE) Task Order issued under this contract are estimates only and shall not limit the use of hours or dollar amounts in any labor category which may be required and provided for under an individual Task Order. Accordingly, in the performance of any LOE Task Order, the Contractor shall be allowed to adjust the quantity of labor hours provided for within labor categories specified in the Task Order provided that in so performing the Contractor shall not in any event exceed the ceiling price restrictions or any Task Order, including modifications thereof.

STATEMENT OF WORK

Statement of Work (SOW) for

ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR HULL, MECHANICAL AND

ELECTRICAL (HM&E) LAND BASED TEST SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0.1 The Naval Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD) is a Department of Defense entity responsible for research and development, test and evaluation, engineering and fleet support organization for the Navy’s ships, submarines, military watercraft and unmanned vehicles. This requirement is for NSWCPD Code 21, which is responsible for Major Programs, DDG 51 Land Based Engineering Site (LBES) and current and future test sites.

1.0.2 This contract is for non-personal services. It does not create employment rights with the U.S. Government whether actual, inherent, or implied

1.0.3 Government/Contractor Relationship

1.0.3.1 The services to be delivered under this Contract are non-personal services and the parties recognize and agree that no employer-employee relationship exists or will exist under the Contract between the Government and the Contractor's personnel. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the Government to provide both parties a full understanding of their respective obligations.

1.0.3.2 The Contractor employees shall identify themselves as Contractor personnel by introducing themselves or being introduced as Contractor personnel and displaying distinguishable badges or other visible identification for meetings with Government personnel. In addition, Contractor personnel shall appropriately identify themselves as Contractor employees in telephone conversations and in formal and informal written correspondence.

1.0.3.3 Contractor personnel under this Contract shall not engage in any of the inherently Governmental functions listed at FAR Subpart 7.5 or DFARS Subpart 207.5.

1.0.4 Employee Relationship:

1.0.4.1 The services to be performed under this Contract do not require the Contractor or its personnel to exercise personal judgment and discretion on behalf of the Government. Rather the Contractor's personnel will act and exercise personal judgment and discretion on behalf of the Contractor.

1.0.4.2 Rules, regulations, directives, and requirements that are issued by the U. S. Navy and NSWCPD under its responsibility for good order, administration, and security are applicable to all personnel who enter a Government installation or who travel on Government transportation. This is not to be construed or interpreted to establish any degree of Government control that is inconsistent with a non-personal services contract.

1.0.4.3 Inapplicability of Employee Benefits: This Contract does not create an employer-employee relationship.

Accordingly, entitlements and benefits applicable to such relationships do not apply.

1.0.4.4 It is the Contractor's, as well as the Government's, responsibility to monitor Contract activities and notify the Contracting Officer if the Contractor believes that the intent of this Section has been or may be violated.

1.0.4.4.1 The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer in writing via letter or email within three (3) calendar days from the date of any incident that the Contractor considers to constitute a violation of this Section. The notice should include the date, nature, and circumstances of the conduct; the name, function, and activity of each Government employee or Contractor official or employee involved or knowledgeable about such conduct; identify any documents or substance of any oral communication involved in the conduct; and the Contractor's estimated date when, absent a response, cost, schedule or performance will be impacted.

1.0.4.4.2 The Contracting Officer will, within five (5) calendar days after receipt of notice, respond to the notice in writing. In responding, the Contracting Officer will either:

(i) Confirm the conduct is in violation and when necessary direct the mode of further performance,

(ii) Countermand any communication regarded as a violation,

(iii) Deny that the conduct constitutes a violation and when necessary direct the mode of further performance, or

(iv) In the event the notice is inadequate to make a decision, advise the Contractor what additional information is required, and establish the date by which it should be furnished by the Contractor.

1.1 BACKGROUND

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD) is the Navy’s center for excellence for ships and ship systems. NSWCPD provides full-spectrum research and development, testing, evaluation, in-service engineering, and fleet support organization for the Navy’s surface and under-sea vehicles. NSWCPD’s expertise spans across more than forty (40) disciplines, from electrical and mechanical engineering to computer engineering and physics. NSWCPD test sites and facilities are responsible for conducting tests, diagnostics and evaluations of new, emerging, production-representative, and in-service systems. The NSWCPD Surface Ship Test & Program Division, provide services for the planning and coordination of the NSWCPD Test Sites in various existing buildings including DDG 51 LBES.

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

This requirement is for the design of test and engineering of small to large scale test sites at NSWCPD. This includes all existing and proposed Hull, Machinery Electrical (HM&E) systems and equipment. The required design support may range in scope from design of small test stands to full scale land based test and engineering sites, replicating actual shipboard systems and ancillary equipment to be installed at NSWCPD. The contractor shall provide conceptual, removal, preliminary and detailed design drawing packages, as well as prepare graphic material and develop orientation/presentation materials in support of NSWCPD test site and ship system designs. The design support shall address various issues of concern such as floor loading, support systems capacities, and available power. These designs may be applicable to either new or existing test site installations, and designs for multiple sites may be required concurrently. The level of design will depend upon the project scope and complexity for each project, as approved by the respective NSWCPD test site or facility Program Manager. Contractor support of the proposed designs shall be required for NSWCPD Mission Readiness Panel (MRP) Assessments, Preliminary and Critical Design Reviews, Integrated Test Readiness reviews, as well as Integrated Schedule Reviews.

Examples of systems/equipment that are to be supported are as follows:

• Electrical Power Systems: Switchboards, motor-generator sets, transformers, distribution equipment, power converters and cabling for systems up to 50MW and 13.8 KV.

• Diesel Engines and Generators

• Shipboard Propulsion Motors, and similarly rated load generators and load banks

• Control Networks with Cabling: Including control consoles, control interface units, system instrumentation, networking switches, fiber optic cable systems, video camera systems,…