Amend 2 - QAs for Posting.pdf

1 | P a g e

1. Question: Reference RFP Section J Exhibit B Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. It appears there was an error uploading this attachment to e-CC. Can the correct attachment be uploaded?

Government Response: Exhibit B Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan shall be uploaded to the E-Commerce portal. If you are unable to retrieve or open the attachment please email Omar Fraser @ omar.fraser@navy.mil and a copy will be forwarded to the specified email account.

2. Question: Reference RFP Section L-349 Submission of Electronic Proposals Part (c). The RFP says proposal must be submitted by 2:00pm Eastern time on 20 June 2017, but the e-CC portal shows the proposal as being due on 22 June 2017. Which date is correct?

Government Response: Provision L-349 was revised in Amendment 0001 issued on 26 May 2017 to correct the solicitation due date from 20 June 2017 to 22 June 2017.

3. Question: Reference Section L Clause 52.215-20 Part II (4) Subcontracted Labor. The referenced clause says “any subcontractor that is proposed without assigned labor hours, regardless if labor rates are provided, is considered an “unpriced” subcontractor and will not be included as part of the evaluation nor will they be an approved subcontractor in any resulting award.” However, the government is only requesting pricing for TO 1 and the 6 month option period. How should prime contractors price subcontractors that may not provide support for TO 1, but anticipate their support on future task orders?

Government Response: Offerors shall solely price the TO1 requirements as identified in the RFP. No additional pricing shall be submitted for future TOs or any other subcontractors other than those specifically priced and proposed for the TO1 efforts.

4. Question: Reference Section B CLINs 0002 and 1002, Attachment 4A Pricing Model, and Section L-317 Factor F Cost Proposal. Cost-type data is being requested in the Pricing Models and via Section L-317 Factor F for the referenced CLINs, including acceptance of plug numbers for ODCs and specifying an applicable Fixed Fee %. Please advise if CLINs 0002 and 1002 should be CPFF.

Government Response: CLIN 0002 (FFP) and 1002 (Option FFP) shall be deleted in Amendment 0002. All contract efforts shall solely be CPFF.

Solicitation N65236-16-R-0006

Engineering and Operational Support for Aviation and Polar Programs

Questions and Answers mailto:omar.fraser@navy.mil

2 | P a g e

5. Question: Reference Section L Instructions. Do Tables of Contents and Acronyms Lists count against the page count for each Factor response?

Government Response: The Government does not desire or require a table of contents or acronyms list. If offerors chose to submit, they would count against the page count.

6. Question: If CLINs 0002 and 1002 are fixed price, should they be Firm-Fixed-Price, Level-of-Effort Term Contract per FAR 16.207?

Government Response: See response to Question 4. CLIN 0002 (FFP) and 1002 (Option FFP) shall be deleted in Amendment 0002. All contract efforts shall solely be CPFF.

7. Question: Reference Attachment 7 TO1 PWS and Attachment 4A Prime Pricing Model. The value in table 8-2 for CAP does not match the value in the pricing model for Material/Equipment ODCs. Is this intentional?

Government Response: The correct value for CAP is the PWS value $524,780.00. Pricing Model Attachment 4a shall be corrected in Amendment 0002.

8. Question: The CDRLs Exhibit A is 20 pages of the same CDRL, A001. Section 7.0 of the PWS lists A0001 through A020. Will the Government be revising FINAL Exhibit A_CDRLs?

Government Response: Correction to the CDRLS Exhibit A shall be included in Amendment 0002. If you are unable to retrieve or open the attachment please email Omar Fraser @ omar.fraser@navy.mil and a copy will be forwarded to the specified email account.

9. Question: Section 3.11 of the PWS refers to the Recruitment, Retention, and Replacement Staffing Plan (Attachment 10) but there are only nine attachments included in the final solicitation documents. Will Attachment 10 be released?

Government Response: “Attachment 10” is a placeholder to be applied at time of award to incorporate the offerors proposed Recruitment, Retention, and Replacement Staffing Plan as reference in Provision L-317 Factor B and cited under PWS 3.11. There is not Government template or RFP attachment.

10. Question: Can the Government define/confirm which proposal elements are submitted directly from subcontractors to the Government through the SPAWAR e-commerce website?

Government Response: Please review section **L-317 VAR1 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS (VARIATION) ** in its entirety. The section details all applicable documents for submission.

mailto:omar.fraser@navy.mil

3 | P a g e

11. Question: The resume requirements for the Program Manager ask for a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering, Physical Sciences, Mathematics, Management Information Systems, or Business.

Would you consider a Bachelor of Science (BS) Degree in Aeronautics an acceptable degree for this labor category considering the experience asks for technical experience in support of Aviation Command and Control to include: Aviation Operations, Equipment Support, System Support, personnel movement and tracking, and Programmatic Support? Please advise.

Government Response: The Government will accept Resumes for Program Manager for this solicitation containing Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in a professional aeronautics engineering field (i.e. Aerospace Engineering, Aeronautical Engineering, Astronautical Engineering or similar) if it meets requirements as listed in the PWS for the accreditation requirement for the degree program. Specifically refer to Allowable Labor Categories and Key Labor Category Designation, note 2 stating that Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) accreditation is required for BS degrees in Applied Sciences and Technical degrees and also note 4 stating that Technology degrees do not qualify for Engineering or Physical Science Degrees.

12. Question: There is contradictory language regarding citizenship and security clearance requirements across the draft RFP package and the Q&A. The Base PWS requires a minimum trustworthy determination and fingerprints for ALL employees, where the TO 1 PWS and Q&A introduce more duty-specific guidance. Even a NACLC requires personnel to be U.S. Citizens.

Will the Base PWS be corrected to remove the requirement for NACLC with FBI fingerprint check for all personnel?

Government Response: This is a Pre final RFP question which has been resolved in the final issued RFP of 23 May which clarified the personnel and security clearance requirements.

13. Question: In the Statement of Work (referred to as "base PWS"), on page 54 it has labor categories for "Engineer/Scientist 5, Engineer/Scientist 4, Engineer Scientist 3". Then on page 57 it has qualifications for each of those labor categories (degree required, experience, etc). Again listed Engineer/Scientist 5/4/3.

a. On the DRAFT TO1 Estimated Labor Hours document it has zero hours for Engineer/Scientist 5. Just Engineer/Scientist 4 and 3. Is Engineer/Scientist 5 a required labor category?

a. Government Response: Eng/Scientist 5 is not a labor category applicable for TO1 requirements or pricing model for TO1. This Eng/Scientist 5 category shall be corrected in the Attachment 4a pricing model in Amendment 0002.

b. In the DRAFT EXHIBIT C_TO1 Staffing Requirements sheet, there are two positions labeled "Engineer/Scientist 4" and one position an "Engineer/Scientist 2". As noted

4 | P a g e earlier, there are no Engineer/Scientist 5 hours shown, but this shows an Engineer/Scientist 2. There is no mention of "Engineer/Scientist 2" in the PWS anywhere, nor are there any hours or a position listing for an "Engineer/Scientist 2" on the estimated labor hours document. Can you please clarify?

b. Government Response: This is an administrative error. Amendment 0002 shall correct Exhibit C to change the Engineer/Scientist 2 reference to Engineer/Scientist 3.

Engineer/Scientist 2 is not a labor category for this contract.

14. Question: Will TERPS (Terminal Instrument Procedures) be required on TO1? Exhibit C does not indicate a position for TERPS.

Government Response: [ANS] TERPS is not required for TO1 efforts and shall not be priced.

Offerors shall strictly propose to the labor categories/hours identified in the RFP.

15. Question: Exhibit C lists an Engineer/Scientist 2 Atmospheric and Space Scientist as the Staff Meteorologist-Analyst at the Contractor site, but the Pricing Model does not list that labor category. Which labor category should be used on the Pricing Model?

Government Response: See response to Question 13b above.

16. Question: The attachments are mislabeled in the documents themselves, i.e. Attachment 2 says Resume Format but when opened, the header says Attachment 5, Resume Format; Attachment 5 is the Small Business Participation Data but when the document is opened, is entitled Attachment 3. Will the Attachments be reissued with the correct Headers or will the offeror be responsible for editing the attachment?

Government Response: These are administrative errors in Attachments 2 and 5 that shall be corrected in Amendment 0002.

17. Question: TO 1 CLIN 0002 is firm fixed price. Why is submission of other than cost or pricing data required? FAR 15.403-3(b) says, “When adequate price competition exists (see 15.403- 1(c)(1)), generally no additional data are necessary to determine the reasonableness of price.

However, if there are unusual circumstances where it is concluded that additional data are necessary to determine the reasonableness of price, the contracting officer shall, to the maximum extent practicable, obtain the additional data from sources other than the offeror”.

The Government should be able to determine the reasonableness of CLIN 0002 prices based on adequate competition.

5 | P a g e

18. Question: On the Summary worksheet, there are hours included for CLIN 0001 but no labor cost calculation. Is this intentional?

Government Response: Yes, this was intentional. CLIN 0001 shall be priced solely using the Government provided plug number with all applicable indirects and fee applied.

19. Question: CLIN 0002 Prime labor hours in C9 link to the wrong cell. Should be linked to Team hours L71.

Government Response: CLIN 0002 (FFP) and 1002 (Option FFP) shall be deleted in Amendment 0002. All contract efforts shall solely be CPFF. This revision will eliminate the pricing model discrepancy.

20. Question: Total Prime labor hours in D9 are hard coded 97,409. Why is this?

Government Response: This is an error in the original RFP pricing model Attachment 4a which shall be corrected in Amendment 0002. However, the Total Prime hours referenced in the Pricing Model 4a “Summary” tab shall correctly cite and link to the aggregate Prime pricing model hours reflected in the “Team Hours” tab of 92,177.

21. Question: CLIN 0002 has fixed fee in C43 and total CPFF in C44. This is supposed to be a FFP CLIN. There is a profit factor in B60:C60 but it isn’t used in any formulas. The pricing model assumes that offerors will propose the same rate for fixed fee on the CPFF CLINs and profit on the FPP CLIN.

22. Question: The FFP proposed for CLIN 0002 is based on the Government estimates for labor hours. Please confirm that the contract type for CLIN 0002 is FPLOE.

Government Response: CLIN 0002 (FFP) and 1002 (Option FFP) shall be deleted in Amendment 0002. All contract efforts shall solely be CPFF.

23. Question: There are plug numbers for CLIN 0002 - Travel/Per Diem and Material/Equip/Trans.

These costs are included in the proposed FFP. What happens if the Government estimates are not accurate? On a FFP CLIN, the contractor absorbs the cost risk associated with the Government estimates. We believe these costs should be separate reimbursable CLINs.

6 | P a g e

24. Question: In the Labor Cost worksheet, the Hours Per Year in Columns B - C and I - J incorrectly link to the grand total hours in the Team Hours worksheet not the Prime Contractor hours. The Labor Rates in Columns E and L incorrectly link to the direct labor rates in the Loaded Rates – Charleston and Loaded Rates – Antarctica worksheets. Links should be to the fully loaded rates.

Government Response: This is formula error in the original RFP attachment 4a pricing model.

This error shall be corrected in the Amendment 0002 pricing model.

25. Question: In the Cost By Element worksheet, the Hours Per Year incorrectly link to the grand total hours in the Team Hours worksheet instead of the Prime Contractor hours. The Overhead - Charleston-Government Site calculations (Row 53) and Overhead – Antarctica (Row 76) incorrectly use the contractor site overhead rates. The total Overhead - Government Site in Row 83 also includes Overhead – Antarctica. There is not a separate breakout for Overhead – Antarctica.

26. Question: On the Summary worksheet, the label in A8 says “Prime Labor Cost”. There is nowhere for subcontractors to enter a profit rate for the FFP CLIN 0002. The same is true for the Loaded Rates worksheets. The Fee Pool concept cannot apply to FFP CLINs. How do subcontractors include a profit factor in the FFP proposed for CLIN 0002?

Government Response: CLIN 0002 (FFP) and 1002 (Option FFP) shall be deleted in Amendment 0002. All contract efforts shall solely be CPFF.

27. Question: In the Labor Cost worksheet, the Labor Rates in Columns E and L incorrectly link to the direct labor rates in the Loaded Rates – Charleston and Loaded Rates – Antarctica worksheets.

Links should be to the fully loaded rates.

This error shall be corrected in the Amendment 2 pricing model.

28. Question: In the Cost By Element worksheet, the Overhead - Charleston-Government Site calculations (Row 53) and Overhead – Antarctica (Row 76) incorrectly use the contractor site overhead rates. The total Overhead - Government Site in Row 83 also includes Overhead – Antarctica. There is not a separate breakout for Overhead – Antarctica.

7 | P a g e

29. Question: The proposal format table on page 132 and OTHER PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS on page 139 require copies of Subcontracting and/or Teaming Arrangement Agreements in the cost proposal. We have teaming agreements with potential subcontractors that will not be priced in TO 0001. Do we include these teaming agreements in the cost proposal?

Government Response: No, only propose subcontractors/teaming partners who will be priced and actually performing TO1 requirements. Any anticipated future teaming partners not priced or utilized for TO1 requirements would be handled at the individual TO level on future requirements and NOT included in the proposal response to this solicitation.

30. Question: The instructions for Factor F on page 138 require a Team Summary Chart in the cost proposal. Should we include all potential subcontractors with teaming agreements or just those subcontractors included in TO 0001 pricing?

Government Response: See response to Question 29.

31. Question: The note below appears on page 139. The number for Proposed CPFF Cost in the prime pricing model is $430,000. The pricing model does not add any Loading Factors in B52 – B60 except fixed fee.

Government Response: This was an error in the original 4a pricing model released with the RFP. It shall be corrected in Amendment 0002. The net price shall also be corrected to $434,000.

32. Question: The four month Polar Season Preparation Option CLIN 0001 under TO1 shall be a CPFF CLIN and all offerors shall solely price the CLIN 0001 effort using the government provided plug number value of $434,000 and which shall be the base for offerors to add any applicable indirect rates and fixed fee.

Government Response: This was an error in the original 4a pricing model released with the RFP. It shall be corrected in Amendment 0002.

33. Question: In Section M, under Factor F, subparagraph (b) the statement below appears. If price analysis (not cost analysis) will be used to evaluate proposals, why is submission detailed cost data required?

Government Response: The Government will evaluate proposals for cost and price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404.

34. Question: Proposals will be evaluated for the reasonableness of the offered prices using Price Analysis.

8 | P a g e

Government Response: See response to Question 33.

35. Question: Exhibit A_CDRLS provided by the government includes a CDRL list, however all pages are for the same CDRL, A001 -- Program Management Report, General. Was this a copy/paste error by the Government and if so, can offerors expect an updated Exhibit A with a complete CDRL list, with a different CDRL on each page?

Government Response: This was an administrative error in the original RFP. All CDRLs shall be corrected in Amendment 0002.

36. Question: The “Allowable Labor Categories and Key Labor Category Designation” listing on RFP pages 55 & 56 includes categories (Key and Non-key) that are not referenced in the Pricing Model (eg. Computer System Analyst III). How does the Government propose contractors provide pricing for these categories?

Government Response: The Base contract includes any and all labor categories that may be utilized throughout the contract period of performance. However, offerors shall solely price the labor categories identified in the pricing models and which are applicable to TO1.

37. Question: The “Allowable Labor Categories and Key Labor Category Designation” listing on RFP pages 55 & 56 includes the category “Engineer/Scientist 5” as “Key,” however the Pricing Model has “0” hours assigned to this category. Does the Government anticipate a future requirement for this category?

Government Response: This was an error in the pricing model. Amendment 0002 to shall correct this error. Offerors shall solely price the labor categories identified in the RFP pricing models.

38. Question: Some of the RFP labor categories have more than one Description/Education/Experience requirement. For example, the “Engineer/Scientist 4” is itemized as “4a” and “4b” however the Pricing Model only identifies one “Engineer/Scientist 4” and does not identify the hours applicable to the requirements of “4a” and/or “4b.” Even a composite rate would require identification of hours to each separate requirement. Please advise how the hours should be split between all categories with multiple requirements.

Government Response: The pricing model shall be updated in Amendment 0002 to clarify the specific labor category (i.e. a or b) to be priced. For informational purposes, Engineer/Scientist 4 hours are meteorologists and shall be priced as 4b at both Government and Contractor Sites. Engineer/Scientist 3 are meteorologist at the contractor site and shall be priced as 3a. Engineer Scientist 3 at the Govt site is a Sustaining Eng and shall be priced as 3b.

9 | P a g e

39. Question: The RFP labor category experience requirement for the “Engineer/Scientist 5 – Atmospheric and Space Scientist [Key]” is listed as “Ten (15) years of experience …” Please advise if this should be “Ten (10)” or “Fifteen (15).”

Government Response: This is an administrative error. The correct quantity of years of experience is 15. This shall be corrected in Amendment 0002.

40. Question: Section L, Factor F, (6) states that “… offerors shall solely price the CLIN 0001 effort using the government provided plug number value of $434,000 and which shall be the base for offerors to add any applicable indirect rates and fixed fee.” The Pricing Model only allows for the addition of fixed fee and does not allow for addition of indirect rates. Please advise.

Government Response: This was an error in the original pricing model. This shall be corrected in Amendment 0002.

41. Question: The Pricing Model states the, “6 month Option@ 50% of CLIN 0001 Effort …”, however the “Labor Cost” worksheet is actually 50% of one year of CLIN 0002. What is the Government’s intention?

Government Response: This was an administrative error in the original 4a Pricing Model. This shall be corrected in Amendment 0002.

42. Question: Section L, Factor F, (6) states that “… offerors shall solely price the CLIN 0001 effort using the government provided plug number value of $434,000 and which shall be the base for offerors to add any applicable indirect rates and fixed fee.” The Pricing Model actually has a plug number value of $430,000. Please advise.

Government Response: This was an administrative error. The correct value is $434,000. This shall be corrected in Amendment 0002.

43. Question: Section L, Factor F, (6) states that “… offerors shall solely price the CLIN 0001 effort using the government provided plug number value of $434,000 …” However, the “Summary” tab on the Pricing Model allotted Labor Hours of 5,232 to the Prime and has yellow highlighted cells for distribution of hours to subcontractors. Are offerors expected to allocate hours to subcontractors for CLIN 0001?

Government Response: No, offerors are expected to utilize the Government provided plug numbers and deliver the net plug labor hours of 5,232 for the CLIN 0001 effort to ensure fair and equitable evaluation for this Polar Preparation Option CLIN.

44. Question: Proposal instructions require submission of Section B, Schedule of Supplies or Services which requires the offeror to complete (fill in) the estimated cost and fixed fee for a 5

10 | P a g e year ordering period. The Pricing Model is designed to calculate costs for the initial year. Are offerors expected to calculate the remaining years using the proposed escalation in the Pricing Model?

Government Response: This was an error in the original RFP. The pricing for TO1 CLINS 0001 and 0002 shall be identified in the offerors pricing model and shall be included in Section B of TO1, if awarded. Section B of the Base contract should solely site the proposed value for the 6 month Option to Extend Services Ordering CLIN 1001.

45. Question: Does the government intend to address the following issues with the Prime Pricing Model:

-Column B on the “Labor Cost” tab is pulling from the wrong column on the “Team Hours” tab. Should be Column L instead of Column B.

-Column B on the “Cost By Element” tab is pulling from the wrong column on the “Team Hours” tab. Should be Column L instead of Column B.

-Cells G53 & N53 on the “Cost By Element” tab are pulling from the Charleston Contractor Overhead instead of the Charleston Govt. Site Overhead.

-Cells G76 & N76 on the “Cost By Element” tab are pulling from the Charleston Contractor Overhead instead of the Antarctica Govt. Site Overhead.

-Row 60 on the “Summary” tab requests a percent for “Profit” and does not seem to affect total price. Does this cell have a purpose?

Government Response: These errors shall be corrected in the Amendment 0002.

46. Question: Does the Government intend for offerors to fit all of a candidate’s education information (all degrees, majors/minors, years, institutions) in the last column of the table?

Government Response: Offers should identify only cite degree information that satisfied the requirement for the specified labor category.

47. Question: Can offerors modify the width of the columns in the table included at the top of the template, in order to increase ease of readability?

Government Response: Offerors may modify the width of the columns. Offerors shall document within the proposal the rationale behind the requested change and not exceed the stated page limits.

48. Question: Due to the limited space in the requirements table, located at the top of the template, will the government allow offerors to add an “Education & Training” section, to include specialized certifications relevant/required for the position, to the resume template, as long as the total document does not exceed the 3-page limit?

11 | P a g e

Government Response: No modification to the template is permissible. Offerors should cite only the information which satisfies the requirement

49. Question: Due to the limited space in the requirements table, located at the top of the template, is it acceptable for offerors to only include the degree information for the degree that satisfies the given requirement, instead of including information for all degrees obtained by a candidate?

Government Response: Yes, offerors should only cite degree information which satisfies the given requirement.

50. Question: Can offerors modify the style (bold/un-bold or italicize/un-italicize) of the information included in the requirements table located at the top of the template?

Government Response: Yes. The bold/italicize is only for example purposes.

51. Question: The Solicitation package released by the Government includes “Attachment 2:

Resume Template,” however, the actual Resume Template document is titled “Attachment 5.”

Are offerors allowed to make the necessary change to the title within the document to avoid confusion?

Government Response: This is an administrative error that shall be corrected in Amendment 0002.

52. Question: The Solicitation package released by the Government includes “Attachment 3: Past Performance Questionnaire” however, the heading information within the actual file states, “Attachment 1B.” Are offerors allowed to make the necessary change to the heading information within the document to avoid confusion?

53. Question: Section L, Factor D: Past Performance states that past performance questionnaires should be emailed to Daniel.vola@navy.mil. However, Attachment 3_Past Performance Questionnaire states that completed questionnaires should be emailed to omar.fraser@navy.mil. Can the government please confirm the correct email address that the completed questionnaires should be sent to?

12 | P a g e

54. Question: Section L, Factor D: Past Performance states that contractors are to provide “Attachment 3 – Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Sheet for each cited reference. Can the government confirm that the cover sheet is the first page of Attachment 3?

Government Response: Page 1 is the cover sheet for Attachment 3.

59. Question: In the Draft RFP, Section L-317, Submission of Proposals, there was a “Management Plan” as part of Factor B, Sub-factor B1. This was not included in the Final RFP. Please verify that a Management Plan is not required.

Government Response: There is no management plan evaluation factor in the Final RFP.

Please refer to the specific content of the FINAL RFP.

60. Question: In Clause 5252.228-9200 and 9201 (Liability Insurance), Comprehensive General Liability and Automobile Liability insurance are called out as requirements. Aviation liability insurance is not addressed. In the Final Attachment 7 Task Order 1 Performance Work Statement, Table 8-2, it shows “ATC Liability Insurance” as a CAP item. Will the Government require Aviation Liability coverage? If purchased by the Contractor, please verify it is a cost reimbursable item?

Government Response: RESPONSE PENDING

61. Question: Is the “ATC Liability Insurance” shown in the Final Attachment 7 Task Order 1 Performance Work Statement, Table 8-2, also intended to cover the Hold Harmless and Indemnification insurance requirements of Section 5.2.1.4 of the RFP?

Government Response: Yes.

62. Question: There is conflicting information on the Engineer/Scientist 5 position. Are we required to name a person for the Engineer/Scientist 5 labor category?

Government Response: There is not Engineer/Scientist 5 position to be proposed via named individual or resume in the RFP. Only those four specific labor categories identified under Factor C of the RFP are to be named and proposed via a resume in accordance with the RFP.

13 | P a g e

63. Question: In Section 5252.237-9601, KEY PERSONNEL, it identifies the MET Team Lead position as Engineer/Scientist 5, and shows an Engineer/Scientist 4 as also key.

Government Response: Correct. Clause 5252.237-9601 incorrectly cited Engineer/Scientist 5.

The correct category is Engineer/ Scientist 4 and shall be corrected in Amendment 0002.

64. Question: In the Attachment 4A and 4B Pricing Models, it shows the Engineer/Scientist 5 position, but allocates no hours in CLIN 1 or CLIN 2. Hours are shown to Engineer/Scientist 4.

Government Response: Pricing Model updated in Amendment 0002. CLIN 0002 (FFP) and 1002 (Option FFP) have been deleted in Amendment 0002. All contract efforts shall solely be CPFF.

65. Question: Is the Engineer/Scientist 2 labor category required?

Government Response: There was an administrative error Exhibit C. Amendment 0002 shall correct Exhibit C to change the Engineer/Scientist 2 reference to Engineer/Scientist 3.

Engineer/Scientist 2 is not a labor category for this contract.

66. Question: In the RFP, Clause 5252.237-9600, PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS, there are labor categories for “Engineer/Scientist 5, Engineer/Scientist 4, Engineer/Scientist 3”. There is no mention of Engineer/Scientist 2.

Government Response: See response to Question 67.

67. Question: The minimum personnel qualifications section does not show an Engineer/Scientist 2 position.

68. Question: In the Attachment 4A and 4B Pricing Models, there is no Engineer/Scientist 2 position shown

69. Question: In the Final Exhibit C Task Order 1 Staffing Requirements spreadsheet, it shows an Engineer/Scientist 2 position. We hypothesize this may be a typo and actually an Engineer/Scientist 3. Please clarify.

14 | P a g e

70. Question: Is the Subject Matter Expert (SME) 2 labor category required?

71. Question: In the RFP, Clause 5252.237-9600, PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS, there are labor categories for Subject Matter Expert (SME) 2.

Government Response: Correct, there are no SME 2 positions required or to be priced for TO1 requirements. The base contract includes all labor categories that “may” be utilized during the entire period of performance of the contract. The pricing model is specific to TO1 requirements only.

72. Question: In the Attachment 4A and 4B Pricing Models, there is no SME 2 position shown.

Government Response: Correct, there are no SME 2 positions required or to be priced for TO1 requirements. The base contract includes all labor categories that “may” be utilized during

73. Question: In the Final Exhibit C Task Order 1 Staffing Requirements spreadsheet, there is no SME 2 position shown. Please clarify.

Government Response: Correct, there are no SME 2 positions required or to be priced for TO1 requirements. The base contract includes all labor categories that “may” be utilized during

74. Question: Are any current contractor employees on this program covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement?

Government Response: Not to the Government’s knowledge.

75. Question: Attachment 9_Wage Determination, Pg. 1: The Wage Determination 15-4427 issued with the RFP is for the State of South Carolina. The Pricing Model assigns Service Contract Labor Standard (SCLS) Categories to work performed in Antarctica. Are offerors expected to meet the South Carolina Wage Determination for work performed in Antarctica?

Government Response: The Government used SC wage determinations to estimate labor costs as the minimum values due to location of the vast majority of CONUS work. The offeror must determine the rates to propose for “Antarctica Site” base on its own balance of proper compensation, retention, and minimum required levels based on wage determination. Note

15 | P a g e that wage determination is not a “not to exceed” value but rather a minimum level. The Government cannot provide additional guidance regarding pricing.

76. Reference: Section 3.3.2 Program Support Documentation of the basic contract has Trip Reports (15 days upon completion of travel) while Section 3.9 Technical and Managerial Support states trip reports no later than 5 working days following the trip.

Question: Could the Government clarify the delivery due date for trip reports?

Government Response: This is intentional. Section 3.3.2 is in reference to the conduct of the task orders and their management while 3.9 is technical tasking. Routine administrative management of the task orders may allow for 15 days but technical tasking requires shorter periods.

77. Reference: Section 3.3.2 Program Support Documentation states Monthly Status Reports are due by the 5th day following end of each month while Section 5.2.1.2(a) Monthly TOSR states the status reports are due on the 10th of each month.

Question: Could the Government clarify the delivery due date for Monthly Status Reports?

Government Response: These are different reports and different purpose. While the TOSR is based in values for labor and work, the monthly status report is more descriptive technical status. The contractor may submit the TOSR with the monthly status report even if it is before the 10th but it is not late if the TOSR is submitted by the 10th

78. Reference: Section 5.2.1.3 Task Order Closeout Report states will be developed and submitted no later than 15 days before the TO completion date. This would not allow for final financial accounting.

Question: Would the Government consider changing the due date for the Task Order Closeout to 60 after completion of task order?

Government Response: The timelines for submittal of Task Order Closeout Reports shall be revised in Amendment 0002.

79. Reference: Factor A requires offerors to provide a Contract Reference Rationale in cases where there is any variance between the actual company name(s) cited on the submitted contract reference(s) and the company name(s) identified in the technical and price proposals.

Question: Could the Government please update section L-317(b) to clarify where this document should be included?

16 | P a g e

Government Response: As identified in the RFP, this data shall be provided under the Contract Reference Information submittal and within the maximum 15 page limit.

80. Reference: Attachment 4A Prime Contractor Pricing Model

Question: There is no breakout of labor categories in the workbook to build costs for CLIN 0001.

Can the Government please update the workbook to provide the anticipated hours for this

CLIN?

Government Response: CLIN 0001 shall be bid solely using the Government provided plug numbers with added direct and indirect rates and fee. No labor hour pricing or cost building related to labor categories is to be provided or proposed. Exhibit C identifies the anticipated labor categories to be utilized during performance of CLIN 0001 efforts.