CME QAs 41-115 as of 8 Dec 17 pdf.pdf

Q&As – CYBER MISSION ENGINEERING – N65236-16-R-0026 NOTE: This is the second Q&A response to questions submitted on N65236-16-R-0026. Amendment 0003 is tentatively scheduled to be posted the week of 12/11/2017. The content of the FINAL RFP and its Amendments will take precedence over any and all previously submitted responses to questions.

Some of the questions below address the pricing model. The pricing model for this solicitation shall only include the prime’s pricing information for the professional labor categories identified in the pricing model for a period of one year (1 Jan 2018 – 31 Dec 2018). The pricing model shall not include any subcontractor/team members’ pricing data.

However, if an offeror chooses to submit a subcontractor for approval in accordance with FAR 52.244-2, the Government will evaluate the FAR 52.244-2 submitted data to determine the viability for inclusion of these subcontractors in the contract award under FAR clause 52.244-2 only for offerors selected for award. This information will not be utilized for evaluation of the basic contract award.

41 Please confirm that the evaluation hours and price is based on a Period of Performance of January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2018 (one year). Please confirm that Offerors shall not complete pricing for years beyond December 31, 2018.

Correct.

42 We could not locate Section D in the RFP. Please Clarify

Section D was not generated in the RFP, as there currently are not packing/marking requirements to identify on the base contract level.

43 If Offerors choose to submit proposed subcontractor proposals and/or labor rates and perform the required evaluation (IAW FAR 52.244-2), should Offerors submit this information as part of Factor G, and if so, under which file?

If not, please clarify how the Government would like this information.

If the offeror chooses to submit subcontractor proposals and the required prime evaluation of these proposals IAW FAR 52.244-2 to obtain approval for use of the subcontractors in the base contract award, they shall NOT submit this data as part of Factor G.

Please submit any subcontractor evaluation data in accordance with Section L-317 which outlines the necessary file name – FARSubData - as identified in L-317.

The information provided under FAR 52.244-2 will not be utilized as part of the evaluation for the basic contract award. It will be used to make a determination if those subcontractors are approved for use when proposing under task order requirements.

44 FY17 goals as follows (based on subcontracted dollars): 34% to Small, 3% to HubZone, 3% to Service Disabled Veteran Owned (SDVOSB); 5% to Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), and 5% to Women Owned Small (WOSB). Please confirm if these are the subcontracting goal requirements.

Please see the answer to questions 12 and 13.

45 Will the Government please clarify that CLIN 2003 relates solely to Travel and

ODC?

Please see Amendment 0001.

46 In reference to Key Personnel, will the Government please confirm that no Key labor categories or personnel will be required for this IDIQ response?

As identified in the RFP, Clause 5252.237- 9601 KEY PERSONNEL (DEC 1999), Key Personnel will be determined at the task order level as applicable.

47 Will the Government please exclude the title page and Table of Contents from the CostNar 15 page limit?

This has been addressed in Amendment 0001. Please see Amendment 0001 for further details.

48 Attachment 2 - Column C requests “Labor Category for Employee” with a generic labor categories identified (e.g., Engineer/Scientist). Does the Government want those labor categories to remain as-is or to be tailored to the Labor Categories (Engineer Scientist 4) provided in 5252.237-9600

PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

(MINIMUM) of the RFP?

Yes. Labor categories shall remain unchanged (i.e., as is) in Attachment 2, Column C. Offeror shall use the labor categories as identified in Attachment 2 and in Section L-317, Factor C, Element C2 ( Program/Project Managers, Engineers/Scientists, Logisticians, Analysts, Specialists, Subject Matter Experts, & 40 Technicians). For example, use Engineers/Scientist, not Engineer Scientist 4..”

49 Factor A, Gate A1 file name, the format column shows two (2) pdf but only 1 file name--is it correct to assume that all the items required for GateA1 should be in one file as opposed to two?

Please see Amendment 0001.

50 The Management and Program Technicians (levels 1, 2, and 3) are not listed as SCA. These positions do not meet one of the exemptions defined in the Fair Labor Standard Act and therefore should be subject to the SCA regulations as indicated in this RFP.

Could you please provide the SCA code for these positions?

Management and Program Technicians levels 1, 2 and 3 are not SCA labor categories as they are not identified by the DOL or contained in the Wage Determinations. SPAWAR identifies these as professional labor categories.

51 Please confirm that the supporting documents (i.e. Salary Survey Screen Shot, Labor Description, and Compensation plan are not counted in the 15-page limit?

Salary Survey Screen Shots, belong in the COSTDATA file. Labor Description and Compensation Plan belong in the COSTDATA file and/or the Attachment 5.

The COSTDATA file is independent of the 15 page limitation for COSTNAR.

52 Per the form instructions, the 6 month option is not included in the Total Contract Ceiling of $898,000,000.

Please confirm the 6 month option period is one half of the option period two amount.

As stated in Section M, Clause 52.217-5, The Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services clause (FAR 52.217-8) by adding one half of the offeror's evaluated cost to the offeror's evaluated cost for the one year base period. Offeror's shall not separately price the 6 month option to extend services.

53 Will the government specify the amounts to be used on these lines for ODCs? How is the Government breaking out the ODC amounts to reflect the way the CLINs are structured. For instance, the Base Year is 60 months, Option 1 is 24 months, and Option 2 is 6 months.

Offerors shall only complete Profit and Fee rates in Section B. ODCs will be identified at the task order level as applicable.

54 The CLINs in Section B for the Base Offerors are only to price the one year

Year indicates the PoP is 60 months or 5 years. But the Summary tab is showing Base Year in 3 columns but the PoP for Base Year is 60 months or 5 years. How is the offeror to reflect escalation for the multiple years in the Base Year and Option 1?

period of performance identified in the Attachment 5 pricing model. There should be no escalation across multiple years. For evaluation purposes only, please fill out Attachment 5 and populate Section B CLINS with the profit/fee rates as directed by the RFP.

55 Will the government issue a new spreadsheet or does it want the contractor to complete?

Please see amendment 0001 for the updated Attachment 5. All offerors are to complete Attachment 5 and submit with their Solicitation response.

56 The subcontracting plan requires the offeror to indicate dollar amounts for large and the small socio-economic subcontractors. However, the Government has asked the prime to price the LoE with only its own rates.

How is the offeror to substantiate its dollar break outs?

The proposed dollar amounts in subcontracting plans are based on the offerors projected allocation of subcontracted costs over the contract period of performance. It is not based upon the priced values in the offerors Attachment 5 pricing model.

57 The link does not work or connect to the appropriate webpage for obtaining the goals. The site states that DoD has a 34% for primes subbing to small businesses, but does not break out the socio-economic categories. It goes on to say that the subordinate commands create their own goals. It shows Navy at 16%. An SBIOI briefing earlier this year contained statistics for SPAWAR Command at 28%. Will the Government provide the percentages it want the offeror to use?

Please see the answer to questions 12 and 13 from the Q&As posted on 11/29/2017 with amendment 0001.

58 Attachment 6: Cell R 7 seems to be a cell created for the Government to compare the total amount subcontracted out to the total IGE ceiling of $898,000,000. However, R7 does not include the options which are part of the total ceiling. Will the government be adding in the options?

Please see amendment 0001

59 In cases where companies are acting as a Prime and a Subcontractor with a signed Prime/Team Member Teaming Disclosure statement, will the Government allow the same employee names to appear on Subfactor C2 (Capability Matrix Attachment 2) in both their own prime proposal as well as other proposals in which they are a subcontractor? If so, will having the

Yes, Proposing as a prime and sub on the Capability matrix is permissible with the signed prime/team member disclosure statement. The Government cannot predict the impact of any tentatively proposed content. Offerors shall comply with the solicitation requirements and be evaluated as specified in the solicitation. The presence of the same name alone would not negatively impact the combined same names appear negatively impact the Combined Technical/Risk Ratings for Factor C in either proposal?

technical/risk ratings.

60 In the Government’s previous response to Question 10 of the Q&A states that the rationale for only evaluating Prime pricing is that it “specifically resolves the ability to game the IDIQ competition” and will “prevent any potential distribution of the pricing model hours among numerous, lower tiered, lower priced subcontractors who may never perform at the task order level and whose inclusion in the basic contract pricing would result in an unrealistic overall cost.” The response further acknowledges, “the discrete work efforts and staffing requirements are unknown at the IDIQ level, and therefore, true competition would take place at the task order level.” The implication from this response is that the Government cannot perform a best value analysis based upon pricing at the IDIQ level and will review offerors’ IDIQ Prime Pricing models only to ensure their rates are defensible and realistic rather than conducting a meaningful comparative analysis between them for the work to be performed on this contract. Please confirm.

The Government previously answered this question. See Question 10 of the Q&A dated Oct 17, 2017.

61 As the Government is evaluating Pricing Model, Attachment 5 for Factor G Cost/Price, please confirm that Schedule B Schedule of Supplies or Services to be submitted with the proposal is not to be populated with the offeror's cost and pricing data.

Please see the answer to question 24 from the Q&A posted on 11/29/2017 with amendment 0001.

62 Please confirm that offerors are only to price a one-year period of performance in Attachment 5

Correct.

63 Please confirm that Factor G Cost/Price and cost realism will be evaluated using Attachment 5 PRIME Pricing Model v2.0 dated 4 NOV 2017.

The pricing model is being updated as identified in question 105 and will be provided in the next amendment.

64 Please confirm that offerors only have to price Attachment 5 PRIME Pricing

Correct. However, the applicable pricing model is Attachment 5 provided in

Model v2.0 dated 4 NOV 2017 and do not have to price anything additional as part of the evaluation of Factor G Cost/Price

Amendment 0001 to the solicitation dated 29 Nov 2017.

65 Due to the Thanksgiving holiday, anticipated release of Q&A and revised RFP documents, and in the interest of full and fair competition, would the Government kindly extend the submission due date to Tuesday, 19 December?

The Government has extended the RFP due date. See Amendment 0002.

66 DD Form 254 files for SCI access contracts are For Official Use Only (FOUO). Please provide detailed instructions regarding FOUO submission for DD254 and Technical Capability, Factor 2.

Please see Section L, L-339 SUBMISSION

OF ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS.

67 Please confirm that Factor D “Software Development Plan” is to be submitted in two separate files: 1) SoftDev D1 and 2) SoftDev D2.

Confirmed.

68 “Recruitment and Retention” is to be submitted in two separate files: one Word file for StaffPlan (7-page limit) and one Excel file for the Capability Matrix, Attachment 2 (no page limit).

Does the file name for the Capability Matrix need to be “CapMatrix”?

Please see Amendment 0001.

69 What is the requested validity period for submitted proposals?

Please see the answer to Question 28 from the Q&A’s posted on 11/29/2017.

Requested validity period is 365 days.

70 RFP L-317, Section L, Element B4 and Section M, Element B4, page 190, 191, 203, 204. Section L, Element B4 is titled “Innovation Support for Electromagnetic Maneuver Warfare (EMW) or Cyber Exploitation.” Section M, Element B4 is titled “Innovation Support for Electromagnetic Maneuver Warfare (EMW) and Cyber Exploitation.” Please confirm that the RFP Section M should read “Innovation Support for Electromagnetic Maneuver Warfare (EMW) or Cyber Exploitation.”

Please see Amendment 0001. “Innovation Support Electromagnetic Maneuver Warfare (EMW) and Cyber Exploitation”

71 Will the Government consider excluding the following from page count: cover page, table of contents, list of acronyms?

Yes. Please see Amendment 0001.

72 Please confirm that the completed

Attachment 1C (1-page limit) is not counted in the cumulative maximum page count of 20 total pages. The Government template for Attachment 1C is an entire page (and one is required per citation).

Please see Page Limitations in Factor B of the Solicitation.

73 RFP L-317, Proposal Format and Attachment 1C. Attachment 1C, question 12 requests a copy of the most recently submitted eSRS Subcontracting Report. The eSRS Subcontracting Report is multiple pages. Would the Government permit an Appendix to the TechCap.pdf submission file to include eSRS files? And, therefore this would be excluded from the 20-page requirements?

Yes.

74 Computer Network Defense (CND) Analysis: “Providing CND Analysis on one or more TS/SCI access level contracts for one or more DoD enterprise enclaves utilizing defensive measures and information collection to identify, analyze, and report events to protect information, information systems, and networks from threats.”

* The statement “Demonstrated experience with an enterprise enclave >15,000 combined servers, workstations, and appliances is of more value to the Government” limits competition by unfairly favoring very large businesses” would the government consider revising this “is of more value” statement down to <7,500

No, this is the Government requirement, as this is based on current Government efforts.

The Government requires this experience at this level of magnitude.

75 RFP L-317, Factor B, page 189. The requirements of Factor B (requiring unclassified past performance contracts with TS/SCI access DD-254s) are narrow in scope to the point the Government will be missing critical capabilities. It is both excluding competition but also prohibiting the Government from receiving proposals

Please see the answer to question 20 posted on 11/29/2017.

that properly satisfy requirements of CME (specifically Cyber and EMW innovation). Many industry innovators with exceptional past performance directly relevant to the CME PWS are only available as classified submissions.

Many of whom invest significant amounts of internal dollars to RDT&E and Innovation the primary focus of the CME solicitation. Will the Government consider accepting classified past performance to allow fair competition and to receive the most capable submissions from all industry partners?

76 RFP L-317 (C), Proposal Content, page

188. Subsection (C) states “The proposal shall be sufficient to enable evaluators to make a thorough and complete evaluation….” complete, and factual data in the areas set forth in the solicitation….” “Organization, clarity, accuracy of information, relevance, and completeness are of prime importance”.

However in direct contrast, Page 189 FACTOR B: Technical Capability, submitters are instructed to: submit Attachment 1D, Team Summary, which identifies the Prime contractor and up to two (2) team members” and “In order to evaluate the proposed team’s technical capability to perform the Factor B requirements, offerors shall submit a maximum of five (5) current and relevant contract references for contract efforts.

* Would the government consider adding to the CME solicitation the opportunity to submit a full team technical capability narrative that would be reviewed by the TEB, to provide sufficient data for evaluators to make a through and complete evaluation of the team capability, that it is factually supported and accurately identifies the organization of the proposed team as stated on Page 188, section L-317, Subsection (C)?

There is no contrast in the proposal requirements. RFP L-317 paragraph (c) Proposal Content relates to the offerors entire proposal submission and makes no reference to the organization of the offerors proposed team. Factor B evaluation elements are specific to Factor B and evaluated as identified in Section M.

77 In order to estimate the most probable Please follow instructions in 52.215-20 as cost to the Government, respectfully request permission to blend multiple rates in accordance with our estimating methodology.

stated in the Solicitation.

78 Instructions state “Do not submit composite rates encompassing more than one labor category.” By including this guidance, is the Government emphasizing that only the Prime proposed rates should be included for each SPAWAR CME labor category? If prime contractor pricing for a single SPAWAR CME labor category is derived by using actual rates using multiple contractor labor categories, will this be acceptable with appropriate explanation in the Cost/Price narrative?

Rates proposed should be those only from the PRIME contractor and from the same labor category, not a combination of labor categories or subcontractor and prime rates combined.

79 Are offerors permitted to list all proposed subcontractors on Attachment 1D, Team Summary to include small business partners who are contributing to the Small Business Participation Plan but who are not providing contract reference data for Attachments 1B and 1C?

No, as stated in Factor B, TECHNICAL CAPABILITY, Offerors shall submit Attachment 1D, Team Summary, which identifies the Prime contractor and up to two (2) team member proposed to perform the Factor B elements.

Team members whom are not providing contract references, but are part of the Small Business Participation Plan will only be listed in Factor E, Small Business Participation Plan, (and if the offeror is a large business) Factor G, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

80 Are offerors permitted to only submit the signature pages of the teaming agreements instead of the entire document?

The entire Teaming Agreement must be provided.

81 The government states, “The offeror shall submit a previously developed SDP that is, or can be directly correlated to, an equivalent C4ISR systems software development effort as identified in this solicitation.” Are offerors permitted to submit a SDP that was developed as a part of a previous RFP response? Or does the SDP need to have been developed and implemented as part of an awarded contract?

The SDP needs to be a previously executed to be considered relevant ISR/IO effort.

82 Would the government consider a Software Development Project Management Plan (PMP) acceptable to

A Software Development Project Management (PMP) would not be considered acceptable to meet the meet the requirements for the Software Development Plan per Element D1?

requirements of the SDP in Element D1.

83 Would the government consider expanding the requirement for the SDP to be aligned with the Agile Methodology in order to meet the requirements for the Software Development Plan per Element D1?

The RFP does not currently restrict you from proposing a SDP which may be aligned with Agile Methodology. However this is not a requirement of the Solicitation.

84 The Pricing Model contains 50 Labor Categories, all professional. The RFP contains 129 Labor Categories, with a mixture of professional and SCA.

Should the Offeror price only the Labor Categories listed in the Pricing Model?

Correct.

85 In Factor C, Element C2, Capability Matrix, the requirement asks the Offeror to provide 15 Specialists. Since the Labor Categories include various different types of Specialists, can the Government advise which type of Specialist is referred to in Factor C, Element C2?

The Government will not advise which type of Specialists for offerors to propose. The greater extent to which the Capability Matrix identifies current TS/SCI employees and/or LOIs for the aforementioned quantity of 200 FTE TS/SCI cleared personnel, the greater value the plan is the Government.

86 Regarding the Prime/Team Member Teaming Disclosure, is the Prime Offeror required to provide evidence in its proposal for its role as Prime and as sub, in addition to the Prime Offeror’s subs who are also priming this contract?

Yes, any offeror which proposes as a Prime Contractor and a Subcontractor in another organization’s proposal must provide evidence that all parties are aware of this fact.

87 Which PWS elements should the Offeror answer in relation to each Factor B element?

Offerors will be evaluated as stated in Section M.

88 Will the Government provide a Wage Determination (WD) for the SCA positions?

Yes, please see Amendment 0001

89 Should cell R7 include cells M7 and O7 as well since Ordering Option Periods 1 and 2 are included in the Total Contract Ceiling of $898,000,000?

Yes, please see the updated Attachment 6 Subcontracting Plan Matrix, posted on 11/29/2017.

90 Please provide clarification on the location of performance as there is a variability from Section 1.2 Scope and Section 11.1 Travel Locations. In the section 1.2 Scope, the location Afghanistan was specifically referenced but was not included in the Section 11.1 Travel Locations.

As identified in the NOTE: under PWS para 1.2 Scope, “Work may be performed at locations worldwide including Afghanistan.” Section 11.1 Travel locations is correct as written based on known locations.

91 Please confirm that Systems System Engineering and Technical

Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) work is not within the scope of this contract.

Assistance (SETA) work is not within scope of this Solicitation.

92 Section H. (Special Contract Requirements), 5252.209-9201

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF

INTEREST (SYSTEMS

ENGINEERING) (DEC 1999),

paragraph (d), Page 103 of the RFP.

Please confirm that it is not the Government’s intent to disallow a company to provide technical support on a product(s) or systems developed by said company outside of this contract.

All potential offerors with concerns about a possible OCI is required to contact the PCO with the specific concern and supporting facts.

93 Section H. (Special Contract Requirements), 5252.209-9201

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF

INTEREST (SYSTEMS

ENGINEERING) (DEC 1999),

paragraph (d), Page 103 of the RFP.

Question: Please confirm that this requirement in paragraph (d) is only during the term of this contract.

All potential offerors with concerns about a possible OCI is required to contact the PCO with the specific concern and supporting facts.

94 On page 189 of the RFP under Factor B:

Technical Capability, the government states that the offeror shall submit Attachment 1D which identifies the Prime and up to two team members to perform Factor B Elements with a total of three team members including the Prime” Question, can the offeror have more than two sub-contractors (team members) and if so, where should the offeror identify additional team members not identified in Attachment 1D in their response?

No, Offerors are limited to the Prime and up to two additional team members for Factor B.

95 On the government’s Attachment 1D, the header text for the last column, “Factor B Element(s) Team Member is proposed to perform” suggests that only the Prime and the two listed subs will perform task work. This column only shows which Factor B elements the cited contract reference addresses. Would the government consider re-wording the table column header text to read, "Factor B Element(s) to which the cited contract reference is relevant?"

The Government will consider revising the title. However, the intent is for the offerors to specifically identify which Factor B elements the proposed contract references are proposed to be similar in scope and in accordance with the RFP recent and relevant criteria.

96 In response to the requirement on the government’s Attachment 1C form, paragraph 12, can the government provide guidance on how they want either the eSRS or the Summary Subcontract Reports provided in the overall contents of the proposal and if they are included or not included in the Factor B page count?

As stated in Section L317, Factor B Page Limitations, The Reference Information Sheet – Contract Specific Reference Data Attachment 1C, offerors must describe their experience under each contract reference, using a separate Attachment 1C for each reference (Attachment 1C is not included in the overall page limit stated below). For each contract reference, clearly describe how the corporate experience under the reference relates to the Factor B evaluation criteria (i.e. B1-B5). While there is no page limit per contract reference (except the overall page limit for all references), offerors must separately describe their experience under each reference so that the agency can evaluate the relevance of the technical experience performed under each contract reference. Offerors are free to allocate pages to references within the overall page limit of 20 pages. Offerors shall not provide a single narrative that describes experience under multiple references.

97 Attachment 1C, paragraph 12 requires offerors to submit Summary Subcontract Reports if they check No. These reports are only associated with GSA contracts.

Can the government clarify what is required if the Attachment 1C is not for a GSA contract?

Attachment 1C Question 12 – states, “ Did this contract require a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (FAR 52.219-9)?

Yes No

If "Yes”, attach a copy of your most recently submitted eSRS Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts, for the contract reference or, if no subcontracting plan required, provide a copy of your company’s Summary Subcontract Reports.”

These reports applicable to all Government Contracts, as prescribed in FAR 19.708(b).

This is not limited to GSA contracts.

It is dependent on the offeror to determine what is required for submission of its references in response to the solicitation.

98 On page 198, paragraph h, the RFP appears to ask prime offerers to evaluate

It is the expectation of FAR 52.244-2 that the Prime would review subcontractor their sub's proprietary indirect costs. Is this the expectation? If so, this is not feasible given this is proprietary information. As an alternative, is it satisfactory for the prime to evaluate the sub's fully-burdened rates?

costs, and go through a process to determine these prices fair and reasonable.

It is satisfactory for the prime to evaluate the subcontractor’s fully burdened rates.

99 What is the Government’s intention by limiting Attachment 1C, Reference Information Sheet Contract Specific Data, and Attachment 2, Capability Matrix, to the Prime and only two teammates?

Please note: The draft RFP for this effort has been out since 11 May 2017 and Primes have developed their teams based on the Technical Capability 5 Factor B Elements. Companies were chosen based on their abilities to satisfy specific Factor B Elements. There was never any mention of limiting team mates in earlier versions or Industry Day discussions. With the new instructions, it seems as if the Government’s intention is for every team to be made of just three companies? Not only does that effect each Prime’s technical proposal, and Capability Matrix, but would also severely limit Small Business Goals attainment.

Suggestion: We suggest the Government go back to the Draft RFP, dated June 6, 2017.

For evaluation purposes, the Government is only evaluating the Attachment 1D Team members which includes the Prime and up to two team members. The Government’s requirement as stated in the final Solicitation will remain unchanged.

100 Question: Is it the Government’s intention regarding Small Business requirements, that Small Businesses can be listed in Attachment 3, without being listed in the other Attachments 1B, 1C, and 1D?

Suggestion: We suggest the Government allow all team members to be listed in Attachment 3, Small Business Participation; Attachment 1D, Team Summary; and Attachment 2, Capability Matrix.

Correct. Attachment 1D is solely representing the offerors proposed Team in response to Factor B Technical capability.

Attachment 1D may include small business entities as part team does not exceed a total of three members including the Prime.

101 We would request and extension of 2 The RFP closing date has been extended in weeks in order to adjust for the changes in the Final RFP from the Draft RFP and to adjust our Teammate Roles as well as gathering names for TS/SCI cleared names for the Prime and Teammates, as well as to adjust for staff being off due to the Holidays.

Amendment 0002 to 4 Jan 2018.

102 If an offeror is using multiple indirect pools, is it acceptable to blend indirect rates and provide a single Fringe, OH, M&H, and G&A allocation for evaluation purposes? Supporting detail would be included in the price

Offerors shall adhere to the instructions in the RFP and provide detailed explanation of their proposed costs and rates as identified in FAR 52.215-20. .

103 Referencing Section L, Proposal Format, Factor A – Gate Criteria, Item A2:

TS/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) Access Contract Reference Verification (Attachment 1A). The proposal format table identifies a one page limit for the Attachment 1A response. The RFP also states under Factor A, “To verify compliance with Subfactor A2 requirement, offerors shall submit the TS/SCI Access Contract Reference Verification Form (Attachment 1A) for each contract reference proposed under Factor B.”

Are both primes and team members providing contract references to use a single form for each contract reference, or should each team member complete a single attachment 1A that incorporates each of the references provided by a team member? If the latter, can the Government revise Section L to state that the page limit is 1 page per team member?

Please see Amendment 0001 which identifies Attachment 1A response – 1 page limit per team member

104 Referencing Section L, Proposal Format, Factor B – Technical Approach, Attachments 1B and 1C. The proposal format table identifies a one page limit for Attachment 1B and also for Attachment 1C. If the prime may have up to two team members submitting up to five references, should the page limit for Attachment 1B increase to 3, and the page limit for Attachment 1C increase to 5?

As identified in Provision L-317, Attachment 1B and Attachment 1C is not included in the overall page limit.

paragraph (b), Attachment 1A response is 1 page limit per team member. Attachment 1C is 1 page limit

105 Referencing Attachment 5 Pricing Model (V1) and RFP Section C – 5252.237-9600, Personnel Qualifications. The following positions are listed in the Personnel Qualifications but not in the pricing model: #19:

Management Consultant; #28 Safety Specialist 1; #29: Safety Specialist 2.

Are offerors required to price these positions for the Contractor and/or Government sites and, if so, will a revised pricing model be provided?

Amendment 0001 included #28 Safety Specialist 1; #29: Safety Specialist 2 in the pricing model but inadvertently excluded #19 Management Consultant. This will be corrected in the next amendment to the

RFP.

106 Referencing Section L, Proposal Format, Factor A – Gate Criteria, Items A1 and A2. Can the Government please confirm that the Facilities Summary and DDFORM441/-1 should be submitted as one file in GateA1; and that the Attachments 1A and DD254s should be submitted as one file in Gate A2, for a total of 2 files submitted as Factor A?

Please see Amendment 0001 which has revised the instructions for the Gate criteria under provision L-317.

107 Referencing Attachment 1C, Item 12.

Team members may consider providing an eSRS Subcontracting Report or Summary Subcontractor Report as proprietary and prefer to submit this form directly to the Government. Should team members submit this form through email directly to the Contract Specialist on the solicitation at lacey.flint@navy.mil <mailto:lacey.flint@navy.mil> ?

Yes. Also note, Amendment 0001 for additional contact on the Solicitation, Elizabeth.norris@navy.mil.

108 Offeror is providing actual names of hundreds of prime contractor employees and possibly subcontractor employees in the staffing plan with the appropriate Top Secret/SCI clearances specified in the solicitation. Is it the Government’s requirement that Offerors include these named individuals with their actual salaries in Attachment 5 or is it acceptable that the Offeror provide pricing in accordance with its DCMA approved Direct Labor Forward Pricing

The contractor is advised to follow the guidance of 52.215-20 in the Solicitation.

Rate Recommendation (FPRR) letter?

109 Regarding paragraph 5.3.1.5(b), the RFP indicates that, “If the average actual burdened labor rates exceeds the average proposed/negotiated rate by 15%, the contractor shall send notice and rational (CDRL A014) for the rate variance to the COR who will then send appropriate notification to the Contracting/Ordering Officer.” Does “negotiated rate” in this context apply to the rates proposed at the master agreement/IDIQ level or to the rates proposed for individual task orders?

This will apply at the Task Order level.

110 Since the Government did not provide wage determinations, is it correct that for the RFP response SCA is not applicable to the proposed labor rates?

Please see the answer to question 88.

111 The RFP does not indicate if the rates proposed are ceiling rates ceiling rates for use in future task orders? Will the Government please clarify if the rates are ceiling rates for future task orders?

Rates proposed on this solicitation are not ceiling rates.

112 Section L, Element D1: SDP states that the “offeror shall present a previously developed SDP in accordance with the requirements of the Software Process Improvement Initiative (SPII) of 13 July 2007.” Will the Government please provide the SPII so offerors can ensure their previously developed SDP submission is compliant with the SPII of 13 July 2007?

The requirement is that any software development contract must contain a draft or example SDP as a deliverable within the source selection criteria and the solicitation must require it to be in accordance with IEEE 12207 standards, not that the SDP is developed in accordance with an SPII policy standard.

113 In Section B, Item No. 0002 and 1002 are FFP and states that these CLINs are for Completion orders. For FFP Completion orders, profit would be applied to all costs. Would the Government remove the following language, “and shall be applied to labor costs only,” as this does not apply to FFP completion task orders?

This will be updated in Amendment 0003 of the solicitation tentatively scheduled for release the week of 12/11/2017.

114 Can subcontractors/teammates who are submitting past performance submit

See answer to question 107.

eSRS Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts and/or Summary Subcontract Reports directly to the Government, as these reports contain proprietary data?

115 ISSUE: 1. "(e) In those subcontracting plans which specifically identify small businesses, the Contractor shall notify the Administrative Contracting Officer of any substitutions of firms that are not small business firms, for the small business firms specifically identified in the subcontracting plan." Of FAR

252.219-7003 SMALL BUSINESS

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (DOD

CONTRACTS)--BASIC (MAR 2016)

Current Small Business Subcontracting Requirements may be a disservice to small businesses subcontracting to large businesses as written. I clearly understand the Government intention;

however, please keep in mind that the Large business interpretation of this requirement is to bring on small businesses that are CMMI ML3, ISO 9001, and DCAA certification to help win the work and provide NO level of workshare guarantee at IDIQ or TO contract award because the government did not specifically state that small business bid at the IDIQ level as a part of the large business team are required to support the program / awarded contract TO. This oversight allows large businesses to use the capabilities of small businesses like my company to WIN and then bring on other contractors (non-small business) to execute TOs. I would like to request at least the Government should require large businesses propose a subcontracting plans that that at least match the requirements of the SPAWAR SB objectives for the various socio-economic classes identified in FACTOR E - Small Business Participation.

As identified in the solicitation provision L- 317, paragraph (c), Factor B Technical Capability, written teaming agreements covering other proposed companies, divisions, subsidiaries, etc. of the prime contractor or team member(s) must be provided. The terms and conditions of those teaming agreements would dictate the business relationship between the team members for task order execution. The Government cannot dictate the business strategy amongst proposed team members.