15-R-0010 Pre Solicitation QA_23June.pdf

INDUSTRY DAY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

RFP N65236‐15‐R‐0010

1. Can you provide OCI guidance regarding other contract vehicles: i.e. global install, NPES, Future Command MACs?

ANSWER: The Government does not anticipate any OCI issues, however, if you are aware of any

OCI concerns or have additional OCI questions; please submit your question to the Government in writing.

2. For Factor B, does a proposer have to submit 3 recent and relevant past performances? Can they submit 1 or 2?

ANSWER: The evaluation factor is still under development, but as it is written, three recent and relevant contract references are required.

3. We realize CAEI is an extremely process driven program. Can we get access to your process library prior to RFP? Otherwise this is a significant advantage to the incumbent.

ANSWER: Yes, the Government intends to share the necessary processes to ensure a fair competition. Currently, CAEI Quality Management System documentation has been posted in draft form to the E‐Commerce website. The Government will assess the need for further documentation prior to RFP release.

The Government would also like to stress that we are looking for offerors to propose innovative processes that meet or exceed the current processes established.

4. Is NAICS Code 335999 correct? Standard size standard 500 employees?

ANSWER: YES

5. Where is place of performance? Are you looking for the contractor to work in your space or can the work be done at the contractor’s facility?

ANSWER: The primary place of performance is Government facilities in the Charleston, SC area.

These facilities will be Government Managed and Contractor Operated. In addition, the

Government anticipates surges in production demand that will exceed the production capacity of Government facilities. As specified in each delivery order, the contractor shall have facilities

(i.e., office space, laboratory space, staging and storage areas, with or without classified storage) in order to accomplish production requirements (including large kitting and integration efforts) for which the Government does not have sufficient production capacity.

6. By having the contractor propose the material and material cost, with no input from the

Government, doesn’t that significantly favor the incumbent who knows exactly what materials are used and consumed.

ANSWER: There will be sufficient information provided in the technical data package to develop a comprehensive Bill of Materials.

7. What will happen to the kitting part of this when the Small Business Cyber Kitting MAC is awarded? Do you still expect to be kitting throughout the life of this contract?

ANSWER: The kitting requirement will remain a part of this contract. Kitting in the Cyber

Mission Systems requirement is focused on end item delivery that does not require fabrication, integration or cable assembly.

8. We intend to bid a RFP at Hansom AFB that also included the initial Task Order at time of award. However, while the base contract RFP was broad, the first task order RFP was so narrow that it excluded most bidders. How will yours ensure this doesn’t happen with CAEI

RFP?

ANSWER: The CSRR delivery order that will be competed as a part of the source selection is representative of the types of work that will be accomplished under this contract.

9. The draft RFP did not include designation of a significant subcontractor. Will the government consider adding significant subcontractor definition to include allowing one past performance to come from a significant subcontractor?

ANSWER: No, the Government desires the Prime to be the single point of accountability. It is the intent of the Government that most of the work on the contract will be performed by the

Prime. Under the current contract, the number of employees has ranged from 250‐400 FTEs, depending on the workload.

10. For work happening at Building 1603, is parking provided by the Government? Inside or outside the fence? If contractor has to provide outside the fence, my company’s recent evaluation of available parking shows that the incumbent has a lease for all available parking for multiple projects occurring in the compound. How does the government reasonably expect anyone besides the incumbent to provide parking if that is the approach?

ANSWER: The Government will take this issue to the SPAWAR Atlantic Facilities department to adjudicate. We will provide additional details on the outcome.

11. Will the Government explain the driver behind the changes to the solicitation documents that were released on 4/18 and updated 4/19?

ANSWER: Changes included additional info in the Government/Contractor Facilities Section as well as a change to the facility security clearance required from Top Secret to Secret.

12. Why was there only one redlined change to the PWS when there were significant changes to the document? Will future changes be redlined?

ANSWER: As introduced in this conference, it is incumbent upon the contractor to read and understand changes to the posted documents whether or not changes are annotated.

QUESTIONS RECEIVED AFTER PRE‐SOLICITATION CONFERECE (INDUSTRY DAY)

13. Reference section L317B, Table, Factor A Technical Approach. This Factor requires offerors to outline execution plan and detail processes and procedures to satisfy the First CSRR Task

Order using the government provided Project Management Plan template. Although CSRR is a very important program under CAEI, the scope of this solicitation requires a production contractor with the capabilities of building a highly diverse range of systems concurrently.

Request the Government consider adding a Program Management Sub‐Factor to this section to allow the offerors to describe their execution plan and capabilities to manage and execute this diverse range of systems simultaneously. Suggest an additional 10 pgs for this requirement.

ANSWER: The Government is exploring the possibility of an additional factor or subfactor to allow offerors to describe their management plan. Any changes to Sections L/M of the RFP will be posted to E‐commerce in either draft format or as a part of the final solicitation.

14. Reference section L317B, Table, Factor A Technical Approach. The Project Management

Plan (PMP) template provided contains appendices A through G which includes the baseline project schedule.

‐ Since historically the completed PMP documents are in the range of 50 pages, excluding appendices, request the government omit appendices from page count limitations.

‐ Additionally, in order to permit offerors to provide a detailed baseline project schedule to show thorough knowledge of the TO requirements and to ease evaluation of the same, request that use of 11 x 17’s be permitted.

‐ Appendices A‐G do not contain a requirement to provide the TO BOM. In order to permit offerors to show knowledge of the TO Material requirements, suggest the Government consider adding a consolidated BOM appendix.

ANSWER: In future postings of RFP Section L/M, the Government intends to increase the page limitation associated with the Technical Approach factor. The requirement for the submission a consolidated BOM will be clarified and will not be a part of the page limitation. Appendices will remain a part of the page limitation. Also, the Government will allow 11x17’s for a detailed baseline schedule.

15. Reference section L317B, Table, Factor A Technical Approach. Does the government intend to provide minimum qualifications for primary positions (e.g. Program Manager, Project

Managers, etc.)

ANSWER: Yes, the draft minimum personnel qualifications that will be included in the solicitation are now posted on the SPAWAR ecommerce website.

16. In the Industry Day slides 1 kit is required in Section L 2 kits required. Please clarify.

ANSWER: The first delivery order requirement will be include one CSRR Pre‐Cabling Kit, one

CSRR Equipment Kit, and one CSRR Material Kit. The requirements of Section L and M will be revised in future postings.

17. In Industry Day slides BOM required – not required in Section L. Please clarify.

ANSWER: A consolidated BOM will be required as a part of the Technical Approach factor. This requirement will be clarified in future postings of Section L/M.

18. Will the Government allow 11 X 17 for legibility of WBS (write in rationale)? Please clarify.

ANSWER: Yes. This will be clarified in future postings of Sections L/M.

19. Draft section L, page 8 directs offerors to provide past performance citations for efforts with invoiced amounts equal to or exceeding $75M. The passage goes on to say "at least one (1) previous contract reference shall have been performed as the prime; the remaining two (2) contract references may have been performed as a prime or subcontractor." If a bidder cites work as a subcontractor, is it the Government's expectation that the bidder’s revenue as a subcontractor on that effort exceeded $75M? In the case of a Joint Venture, does each member of the JV need to cite at least one past performance where they were a prime and revenue exceeded $75M?

ANSWER: Yes, it is the Government’s expectations that work cited as a subcontractor exceed

$75M. No, there is not a requirement for each member of the joint venture to cite at least one reference as prime with revenue exceeding $75M.

20. Draft section M, pages 4 and 5 address uncompensated time. The Government explains that, "based upon our assessment of the technical services required herein, it is unrealistic to expect long term employees to continually work in excess of the industry norm of 40 hours per week. Therefore, the use of uncompensated overtime in this acquisition represents risk to the Government". The Government also explains that uncompensated overtime in bidders' pricing is discouraged. What would be the impact to a bidder's evaluated price and technical rating if they proposed uncompensated overtime? Would they be eliminated from consideration? Would their pricing be adjusted upward to eliminate the impact of uncompensated overtime?

ANSWER: The Government cannot provide an assumption on exactly how an offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on a theoretical scenario. The Government does however acknowledge that the use of uncompensated overtime represents risk to the Government.

21. How does the Government intend to calculate total evaluated price (TEP)? Does it include the price for the awardable task order and, if so, how will it be weighed in the TEP?

ANSWER: The Government ONLY intends to conduct a cost/price evaluation (including establishment of a total evaluated price) on the awardable delivery order.

22. RE: “large kitting and integration efforts”, would the Government please provide at least minimal quantifiable requirements (e.g., high‐bay doors; minimum 10,000 sq. ft. of integration space; minimum 10,000 sq. ft. of warehouse space; etc.)?

ANSWER: At this point, the Government does not intend to quantify the requirements for a contractor facility at the base contract level. Specific contractor facility requirements will be identified at the delivery order level.

23. RE: “local production facility”, would the Government consider quantifying “local” as within

20 ground transportation miles or 15 mile radius from either 1 Innovation Drive or the

Charleston Naval Complex.

ANSWER: At this point, the Government does not intend to quantify the requirements for a contractor facility at the base contract level. Specific contractor facility requirements will be identified at the delivery order level.

24. Would the Government please specify which portions of the Management Plan are excluded from the 50 page limit (e.g., Title Page, Record of Changes, Appendix D – Acronyms and

Abbreviations, Appendix F – Glossary, etc.)?

ANSWER: The Government will attempt to clarify the page limitations; including exclusions in future postings of the Sections L/M.

25. Because a track record of successful past performance is essential to the execution of this contract, would the Government consider changing the evaluation criteria adjectival ratings from “Acceptable/Unacceptable” to adjectival ratings of exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory, as allowed in FAR Subpart 42.1503 (b) (4)?

ANSWER: The Government intends to evaluate Past Performance on an

Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

26. Request that offerors be allowed 5 pages per contract reference in addition to the first page of Attachment 2A.

ANSWER: Yes, the requirement will be 5 pages per contract reference (exclusive of Relevant

Experience form.)

27. Section L requires the offerors to outline an execution plan using the CAEI Project

Management Plan (PMP) for the first Delivery Order under the contract. The PMP does not afford any room to describe a company’s overall approach to managing the contract. Since the overall management of a procurement effort as large as CIKC is very important also, would the government consider adding additional pages for all offerors to describe their tools, approach and innovative processes for the overall management approach for Delivery

Orders?

ANSWER: The Government is exploring the possibility of an additional factor or subfactor to allow offerors to describe their management plan. Any changes to Sections L/M of the RFP will be posted to E‐commerce in either draft format or as a part of the final solicitation.

28. The draft documents did not include any key personnel or standard position descriptions. It is recommended that at a minimum, standard position descriptions which include education, and years of experience be included to ensure offerors are aware of what the

Government expects their personnel to meet as minimum qualifications.

ANSWER: Yes, the draft minimum personnel qualifications that will be included in the solicitation are now posted on the SPAWAR ecommerce website.

29. The Gov't did not specify the CSRR ECS block, increment or version (e.g. ‐ block 3, Incr 1, version 2, etc.) of the CSRR VA new construction to be assumed in Section L or first Delivery

Order requirements. Will the Gov't provide specific block, increment and version to be used?

ANSWER: The Government does not intend to provide this information. Offerors have all of the necessary information to provide a proposal in accordance with the RFP requirements.

30. Draft TDP provided is missing several lower level drawings associated with top level assembly / parent drawings. Attached is a representative list only of early identified missing drawings within the TDP. Request Gov't to provide this list of drawings and re‐verify all sub‐ level/child drawings have been provided associated with the top‐level assembly and/or kit drawings.

ANSWER: Additional drawings provided by the project sponsor will be provided in the TDP issued with the final RFP.

31. Draft TDP contains a number of approved PLARs. Can the Gov't confirm if these approved changes have already been incorporated into the existing drawings / revisions provided within the TDP?

ANSWER: Approved PLARs contained on the TDP have been incorporated into drawings/revisions with the exception of any approved PLARs written against Version

Description Documents (VDDs) and/or System Overview Documents (SODs).

32. The provided CSRR project information, TDP and Delivery Order Scope of Work did not provide specific guidance as to what is expected for the "Consolidated BOM". Section L, Subfactor B1 lists three (3) "kits" (e.g. ‐ pre‐cabling, equipment, and material) as deliverables. Does the Gov't wish to see three separate kit BOMs or one overall CSRR VA

New Construction BOM submitted with the Proposal?

ANSWER: The contractor shall provide a single consolidated BOM for the entire project.

33. Will the Gov't confirm if, for the WBS and IMS sections of the Project Management Plan

(Subfactor B1), using a page size larger than 8.5x11 will count as 1 page in the overall Factor

B page limit?

ANSWER: Yes, larger page sizes will still count as 1 page towards the overall page limitation for

Factor B.

34. Does the Section L, Factor B's total consolidated page count limit of 90 pages include any supplemental information noted in "Attachment 2 – Project Management Plan Template"?

ANSWER: Yes, the supplemental information is included in the page limitation for Factor B.

35. Reference PWS: (Para 9): All Contractor personnel with supplied government facilities shall be located at SPAWARSYSCEN Atlantic in Charleston, SC or Norfolk, Va. Subsequently, in the same paragraph four locations are listed. "Is the space for Norfolk one of the four locations"?

ANSWER: This reference comes from the basic contract PWS. All of the existing facilities listed are located in Charleston, SC.

36. Will the Government consider providing the TDP in the native file format (e.g. ‐ AutoCAD dwg/dxf files)?

ANSWER: The Government does not intend to provide the native files for the TDP.

37. There are a number of circuit card assembly (CCA) drawings, will the Government be providing the supporting Gerber files?

ANSWER: The CAEI IPT is consulting with the project sponsor and will provide any necessary additional files as soon as possible.

38. In going through the Metal Fab items in the CSRR TDP, we are unable to locate any of the

Paint Spec drawings. Please clarify, as Offerors will need the specifications to obtain supplier quotes.

ANSWER: Additional drawings provided by the project sponsor will be provided in the TDP issued with the final RFP.

39. The draft RFP Section L‐317(c) instructions for Factor B Past Performance, page L‐9, states that "offerors may submit multiple orders under a single Indefinite Delivery contract in order to meet the relevancy threshold." The offeror understands these instructions will allow the offeror to use multiple orders bundled together from a single Indefinite Delivery contract as a single past performance reference in response to Factor B. Please confirm or clarify.

ANSWER: This is correct. Although this now applies to Factor A, Gate Criteria, offerors may use multiple orders under a single IDIQ to meet the relevancy threshold. Please also note that each order shall meet the recency requirements and be similar in scope to the requirements of the solicitation.

40. Section L requires the delivery of Consolidated BOM. Since this is a build to print contract, does the Gov't desire a fully indented BOM down to the lowest level component parts as if this were a "Design BOM" deliverable?

ANSWER: Consolidated BOM does not need to be a fully‐indented BOM down to the lowest level component parts.

41. Section L requires the delivery of three (3) kits (Pre‐Cabling, Equipment and Material). For each of the kits called out, will the Government provide the kit packing list to define the required PHS&T configurations needed to support the downstream installation activities?

This level of specification from the Government will ensure comparable bids from all offerors and will ensure their desired level of sub assembled parts to be contained in each kit aligns to their expected installation activities.

ANSWER: The Government will provide a representative pack out plan as soon as possible or as part of the final RFP release.

42. In the LABOR CATEGORY QUALS 12MAY17 Document, should the years of experience required for the Logistics Manager be Fifteen or Ten, since it states "Fifteen (10)"?

ANSWER: Ten years of experience are required. This clause will be updated in the final RFP release.

43. Serco assumes that the answer to Question 39 refers to GSA/GWAC type contracts and that

IDIQ contracts like the SAIC incumbent contract would meet the relevancy and recency threshold at the contract level and not be required to use multiple orders bundled together to meet relevancy and recency.”

ANSWER: The draft RFP states offerors may submit multiple orders under a single Indefinite

Delivery contract in order to meet the relevancy threshold. The RFP does not specify that these orders would come from a GSA/GWAC contract. It is possible that an offeror would have multiple orders under a single IDIQ contract (non GSA/GWAC) that could be combined to meet the relevancy threshold.

44. As we were searching for P/N: 70001978 Digi Serial Port Server, TS 16 MEI. We called Digi

International and were told the part is obsolete. Digi International gave us the replacement

P/N: 70002534. Please confirm that we should proceed with pricing this replacement part.

This part is not on the Alternate Part Number Drawing (06894285 D) either.

ANSWER: Offerors should include the original part number in the BOM; however do not include a price for it. Please insert “Obsolete Part” in the cost/price proposal.

45. Do any subcontractors need secret facility clearance?

ANSWER: Currently, only the prime contractor is required to have a secret facility clearance.

46. Personnel Quals: Education (Project Manager) – does a Computer Science degree or other

4‐year IT degrees meet this requirement? Does the 4 year degree have to be a B.S.? For example, would a B.A. in Business meet the requirement?

ANSWER: There is a typo in the personnel qualifications. The final RFP will be updated to state

“Bachelor’s Degree” in …... A B.S. or a B.A. degree in any of the identified areas will meet the requirement.

47. Personnel Quals (Project Manager): If PMP and other certifications have lapsed, will the government allow candidates to show a path to re‐certification if complete before contract award?

ANSWER: Personnel will be required to possess the PMP certification before they begin performance under the contract.

48. Will the Government agree to a relevant advanced degree(s) representing additional years of experience? If so, please provide the degree (e.g., Masters) and the number of equivalent years of experience.

ANSWER: Note (3) in Clause 5252.237‐9600 states: “When not specified, higher education above a labor category’s minimum can be credited as years of experience as long as the higher degree is within the same required field of study as the minimum degree required. The following Educational credit applies: a MS degree equals four (4) years of experience and a PhD degree equals five (5) years of experience.”

49. Will the first awardable task be FFP or CP?

ANSWER: CPFF, Completion

50. While reviewing the '06983610 VA Class CSRR Block IV Mechanical Installation drawing' provided in the draft TDP, it was noticed that some RFDACS units were listed as Program of

Record, but not all of them. We would like to request clarification on whether or not items

394 and 395 on sheet 4D should be proposed as new or POR.

ANSWER: Items 394 and 395 are Program of Record. The source column should be marked POR vice NEW for both items.

51. The Themis servers (RES‐12XR3) noted below are end of life. The supplier told us that the government has done a lifetime buy. Should these part numbers be listed on the PWS as

GFE?

06902901‐1

06902901‐2

06902901‐3

06902901‐4

06902901‐10

Updated

Response

06902901‐8

06902901‐9

06902901‐5

06902901‐11

06902901‐12

ANSWER: Offerors should include the original part number in the Consolidated BOM; however do not include a price for it. Please insert “Obsolete Part” in the cost/price proposal.

52. A Management Plan template was provided to Industry for Subfactor B1, Project

Management Plan – the CAEI Project Management Plan template (Attachment 2) which is formatted with 12 pt. font for ‘normal’ text. We request that the Government consider this template not to be a “form that the Government has provided as an Attachment”, and will allow a minimum of 10 point Times New Roman font for the Project Management Plan for

‘normal’ text.

ANSWER: The Government will allow 10 point Times New Roman for Attachment 2, Project

Management Plan template.

53. The PWS and CDRLs identify "CSRR SSN‐XXX" as the applicable hull number. Will the

Government please supply the hull number for the first Delivery Order, or clarify whether it is a "TI‐16" or "Non TI‐16" Platform?

ANSWER: The Government does not intend to provide this information. Offerors have all of the necessary information to provide a proposal in accordance with the RFP requirements.

New

Question

New

Question