QAs_16R0026_12Oct17_ECC Posting 17Oct17.pdf

Q&As – CYBER MISSION ENGINEERING – N65236-16-R-0026

NOTE: All questions submitted prior to the Final RFP release shall be sent to the Industry Feedback mailbox, IndustryFeedback.fct@navy.mil. All Government responses provided to Industry questions are based upon the information known to date at this time. However, the content of the Final RFP will take precedence over any and all previously submitted responses to Industry questions on DRAFT versions of the RFP.

1 “Relevant is defined as no more than 5 contract references in total with a cumulative invoiced value equal to or exceeding $50.0M”

- Is the Government indicating that the total of the up to 5 contract references invoiced value collectively together are a value of over $50M

Yes. The cumulative invoiced total of references (up to 5) must be over $50.0M.

2 Are elements B1-B5 going to be weighted equally in the technical response? If not, can the government provide clarification?

Elements B1-B5 are rolled into one overall rating for Factor B. These are not individual weighted subfactors.

3 What is the justification for Requiring 200 LOI and staffing capability matrix without applying those individuals to an awardable task order? Companies will spend a considerable amount of resources (e.g. Time, B&P, Administrative & Recruiting Personnel) pulling together data/LOIs for something that is not awardable, nor may not match the first few awardable RFPs under this new IDIQ.

200 seems excessive, would the government consider reducing that requirement?

Based on recent SSO Navy/DoNCAF guidance, we believe that a potential OPSEC issue may exist by providing consolidated lists of individuals on the various teams that possess this type of clearance and access

Recommendation: That the number of required LOIs be reduced to 100 individuals.

100 fully cleared individuals should be adequate for a sampling of that team’s ability to staff future Task Orders. It is also requested that the 100 labor categories map as closely as possible labor categories that would be potentially associated with the first three RFPs released under this IDIQ. This would benefit both the government and industry on focusing the requirement on near term awardable billets and demonstrate that the team could staff those Task Orders within

The Government does not anticipate revising this requirement. For the data protection question, please provide additional details for consideration.

the 4-month requirement.

Additionally, that the requirement for LOI submission include the requirement that the document(s) are password protected and encrypted and that the password be provided via separate correspondence. This would adhere the submission to the government’s new DFARS 800-171 data protection requirements.

4 Are any of the 3.13 task area examples going to be included in the RFP for response?

PWS Para 3.13 are simply task order examples of possible task order PWS tasks. RFP requirements are identified in Section L&M of the RFP.

5 Much of the work being performed in electronic Warfare (EW), EMW and offensive cyber are TS/SCI with Poly classified programs where sponsors are unwilling to allow for any unclassified summaries to be produced on those programs/capabilities. How does the government plan to mitigate this issue when you are requesting unclassified proposals?

Recommendation: Industry provide contract number to government along with invoiced amount minus any narrative of work being performed.

The Government does not intend to change the requirements as identified in the draft RFP.

6 In L-317, Subcontractors/Teaming, It is not clear whether the Prime Contractor is to cite ‘all’ Team Members / Subcontractors or just those Team Members / Subcontractors being cited for current & relevant contract references. Please clarify.

Insufficient information in the question to address this. Please resubmit with specific area of the RFP.

7 Will the Government provide a template for the Prime/Team Member Teaming Disclosure Information?

No. Please provide the required information in accordance with the RFP.

8 Please clarify whether Prime Contractors are to include Subcontractors pricing in the Prime Pricing Template. If so, is this for ‘all’ priced Subcontractors or just those cited for current & relevant contract references?

No subcontractor pricing is to be included in the Prime Pricing Model.

9 Are there Collective Bargaining Agreements associated with this IDIQ?

No

10 In order to obtain the proper LOI, will the Govt provide labor category descriptions for the labor categories identified on page 180 of 195?

The descriptions for Element C2 are included in the Minimum Personnel Quals clause, 5252.237- 9600, as stated in the RFP.

11 Are there any important dates to keep in RFP release date is scheduled for 1st Qtr 2018.

mind? Such as additional industry days or expected RFP release dates?

12 “If the contract reference is an Indefinite Delivery contract for which CPAR records were not completed at the contract level but were completed on individual task orders, the offeror is required to identify the task orders used to satisfy the requirements of Factor B in Attachment 1B, and provide past performance information for each task order as described above.” In execution of an SSC IDIQ contract, some projects did not perform CPAR evaluations for tasks which had follow-on orders. For example, a single project may have 3 task order awards to the same contractor and only perform one evaluation.

If all three of the task orders in the above example are necessary to attain the >$10M threshold for a Past Performance submission, does the Government desire the client to submit Questionnaires for the two tasks NOT having a CPAR on file?

Yes

13 The Draft RFP States, “NOTE: The Government does not desire or will not accept “classified” contract references. All data submitted shall be at the Unclassified Level.”

Would the Government please advise if For Official Use Only (FOUO) responses with appropriate markings will be accepted?

Yes, this is acceptable.

14 The reference states “If the prime contractor is planning to utilize subcontractor(s) on this contract, the applicable subcontractors shall be specified at contract or task order award, if applicable. Per FAR clause 52.244-2, if a subcontractor (includes tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, etc.) is proposed by a prime and is not approved on the basic contract, formal justification is required and subject to Government approval. ” QUESTION: Historically SPAWAR would approve subcontractor teammates with the IDIQ award if they were priced. Given that no pricing for subcontractors will be submitted, how will SPAWAR recognize teammates as approved on the IDIQ?

Para (8) under “Other Proposal Requirements” provides additional information. Offerors that would like to have additional approved subcontractors must submit the information required in accordance with FAR clause 52.244-2.

15 In Section L, item (8) under Other Proposal Please review FAR 52.244-2 requirements and see

Requirements (Page 183 of 195) states that Offerors shall provide the data required under FAR 52.244-2 par. e (1) for all subcontractors the offeror intends to utilize for performance on awarded task orders. As no subcontractor pricing is required for this proposal, and there will be no proposed subcontract price, please confirm what information from par. (e) (1) is required. In addition, will consent be required at the IDIQ level for these identified subcontractors or will they be consented on the base contract?

answer above.

16 The answer to Question 43 of the Q&As issued 29 Sep 17 states that if the proposed contract reference work is active and the contract is ongoing, it would meet the limitations. Please confirm that active/ongoing contracts are not necessary in order to be “current” and still meet the requirements in Section L, Factor B. For example, if a contract was awarded in 2015 and had a 12 month period of performance, would this contract still be considered “current” and meet the requirements in Section L as it was performed within the last 3 years?

Current is defined as a contract performed within the last three years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. Based on the example provided in the question, the reference would be considered current.

17 The answer to Question 51 implies that a DRAFT Attachment 2 (Capability Matrix) was provided with the 29 Sep 17 revised draft RFP; however, a revised DRAFT Attachment 2 was not provided. Will the Government please provide the DRAFT Attachment 2 to allow offers time to review the requirements for ensuing eligibility?

Attachment 2 is provided with this update.

18 Section L-317(b), page 176 of 195, states that “All excel files shall be a functional spreadsheet with formulas, NOT a read-only spreadsheet. Original PDF files shall be searchable.” Will the Government please define “Original PDF files”? Do original PDF files pertain to completed proposal files in response to this solicitation? And/or do original PDF files pertain to supporting documentation such as DCAA letters, teaming agreements, etc.?

All PDF attachments required to be submitted by the Prime shall be original PDF files and searchable. For supporting documentation, such as DCAA letters, the original/searchable PDFs shall be submitted unless a scanned copy is all that the contractor has for their files.

19 Section L-317(b), page 176 of 195, states that “All excel files shall be a functional spreadsheet with formulas, NOT a read-only

See answer given above. All graphics and figures on original PDFs must be searchable.

spreadsheet. Original PDF files shall be searchable.” Will the Government please clarify if graphics/figures in original PDF files must also be searchable or does this requirement only apply to text?

20 Section L on page 176 of 195 states that “Formatting requirements do not apply to documents or Attachments provided by the Government. Any form that the Government has provided as an Attachment to be filled out by the offeror shall follow the format of the form.” Will the Government confirm that offerors are permitted to add disclosure statements IAW FAR 52.215-1(e) (incorporated by reference on page 170 of

195) to footers of Government provided attachments?

Yes

21 Attachment 2, SB Participation Data, (3) states “to what extent have you, as the offeror, involved SB in various aspects of contract performance?”, which implies past involvement. However, the table template to follow implies a response for future work performance (i.e., “Description of Work to be Performed”). Will the Government please clarify if the information provided by offers in table (3) is to be for past involvement or future work performance?

This section has been updated in the attachment 2.

22 In the 29 Sep update of this solicitation, the archive file included a “Compare” and a “clean” version of the RFP, yet the Compare version did not show any redline edits or other features highlighting what changed between the two versions. To aid industry in determining the full extent of the changes, would the government consider updating the solicitation package for the DRFP with a version of the RFP showing the markups?

The correct “Compare” file has been uploaded to

ECC.

23 Pg 31 – "Labor category IA designator and level/positions will be identified at the task order level."

Q: Since position-based certification requirements can significantly affect the market price for a given Labor Category, can the Government specify the IAT level for each LC to be used for the Pricing Model?

This will be provided on the task order level. The Government is unable to provide this information on the basic contract level as this is an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

24 Attachment 2 has two different titles in the Attachment 2 is the Capability Matrix and is

Draft RFP, and the actual document was not included with the Draft RFP attachments released 9/29/17. Attachment 2, Relevant Contract Experience Matrix, was released with the prior Draft RFP in June 2017, but had a third title.

(a) Are these the same documents with the same content but with different titles?

(b) If they are the same, where is the "Table 1" located that is referenced in item 10 of the prior draft Attachment 2, Relevant Contract Experience Matrix?

provided with the latest draft update.

25 Pg 180 - Since SCI access is assigned on a per contract basis, can the Government please confirm that offerors are to submit personnel that have TS clearances only and are thus able to be granted SCI access upon award of a TS/SCI task order on the Mission Engineering Contract?

Yes, personnel can be submitted that have TS clearances; however, if the personnel is only cleared at the TS level, indicate such on Attachment 2 (Capability Matrix) as those in process (TS/SCI eligible).

26 In regards to the September 29, 2017 DRFP Factor A Gate Criteria requirements, to ensure bidders [prime and their team member(s)] provide better alignment and compliance to the stated quality/QMS requirements including 6.0 Quality/6.2.2 Navy Shipboard/Submarine Work, we recommend that the L-317.(c).Factor A Gate Criteria for item "2)... ISO 9001 independently certified certification" be modified as follows:

"Prime Offerors shall demonstrate compliance with...

2) NAVSEA Technical Specification 9090-310 certified QA system, and at least one team member(s) performing critical work be independently certified as ISO 9001.

To demonstrate compliance with the gate criteria above, Prime offerors shall provide their active SMO code at SECRET or above; a copy of their NAVSEA Technical Specification 9090-310 certification, and the Team Member(s) ISO Certification(s); ..."

This question is applicable to CMS (Cyber Mission Systems, Kitting, and Supplies).

27 In the Draft RFP dated Sep. 29, 2017, under paragraph 6.2.2 Navy Shipboard/Submarine work, the requirement states:

This question is applicable to CMS (Cyber Mission Systems, Kitting, and Supplies).

"The contractor shall ensure the quality of all services provided under this contract shall conform to high standards, such as ISO 9001- 2015 in the relevant profession, trade or field of endeavor. Upon award, the Prime contractor shall have in place; an existing Government approved Quality Management System (QMS) by the NAVSEA Quality Programs and Certification Office (04XQ office) for shipboard and submarine work pursuant to NAVSEA Technical Specification 9090-310."

We respectfully request that given the intent of the stated quality management system requirements that satisfies the 04XQ office, the following changes in bold to L- 317.(c).Factor A Gate Criteria 2 be incorporated in the final RFP:

"2) International Organization for Standards (ISO) 9001 independently certified certification OR NAVSEA 9090-310 certified QA system by NAVSEA 04XQ "

28 For Section L, Factor C, Element C2, is there a format determined for the referenced Attachment 2 (Capability Matrix), or will contractor format be acceptable?

Attachment 2 is an excel file that must be completed by the contractor and is provided with the latest draft update.

29 Does the $50M threshold for the EVM requirement apply at the task order level since this is an IDIQ contact?

See PWS Para 5.5.

30 Are contractors to assume that the OCI will be determined and OCI clauses are effective at the task order level since this is an IDIQ contract?

If applicable, an offeror must comply with the appropriate OCI clauses.

31 Page 174 of the RFP L-303 (b) (1), what types of alternate specifications and standards is the government willing to consider?

There is not a specific requirement that the Government has identified for this clause at this time.

32 Page 176 of the RFP ( C ) proposal content, the government highly discourages individual contractors submitting as a prime and/or team member more than one proposal….is this true for a contractor priming in one area and teaming in the other, i.e. priming in the SB reserve and being team member on a Large Business team OR does it apply to only

Please provide additional clarification to address this question.

priming and teaming within a single area, i.e.

priming and teaming within the SB reserve

33 Given the anticipated nature of the procurement, a Full and Open competition with Small Business reserve, will a winning small business be awarded a Full and Open contract?

If a task order is being competed as full and open (i.e. not reserved specifically for SB MAC holders), small businesses under the MAC can propose at the task order level.

34 The answer to Question 51 of the 9-29-17 Q&A references “as identified in the DRAFT Attachment 2”, yet a draft of the Capability Matrix has not been provided for reference.

Would the Government please provide a draft version of Attachment 2 (Capability Matrix)?

Attachment 2 has been provided with the latest update.

35 The RFP requests “Subcontractor Data” pursuant to “FAR 52.244-2”, although the referenced provision seeks very specific data such as “A description of the supplies or services to be subcontracted” and “The proposed subcontract price” (see 48CFR§52.244-2(e)(1)) that can only be determined with certainty in response to the specific requirements of individual task order(s). Would the Government please confirm that the requirement to furnish the data set forth in 52.244-2 will apply at the task order level as opposed to the master contract level?

No. If an offeror requests additional subcontractors approved at the time of award of the basic contract, the offeror must submit the additional requirements in accordance with FAR 52.244-2. See Other Proposal Requirements under Section L-317.

36 The Q&A for Question #25 states that “Prime/Sub disclosure forms IAW the RFP requirements…” must be filled out, but we do not immediately see an official form in the group of attachments included with this latest draft. Would the Government please confirm that an offeror may satisfy this requirement by obtaining signatures on a form containing its own letterhead?

Yes; see the answer to #7. The format is at the discretion of the Prime who is submitting more than one proposal.

37 The implication under Factor C, Element C2 (Capability Matrix) is that bidders are to submit the names of TS/SCI-cleared employees (at least 200), or contingent LOIs, yet the Factor G (Cost/Price) instructions indicate only pricing labor categories. Given this is a MAC-level solicitation, it is unclear what purpose naming employees (or providing LOIs) serves the government in their evaluation. Under Section M evaluation

No.

instructions, the government intends to use Attachment 2, which is assumed to be a self-certification by the bidder that they currently have at least 200 TS/SCI cleared personnel on their team. It seems just providing the number would still meet the government’s intent under this Factor. Would the government consider removing the by-name employee requirement under Element C2?

38 In section L factor B contract the RFP states “reference data for any company, division, subsidiary etc that is not the prime contractor or team member identified on attachment 1D will not be considered”. If a company is one entity but has multiple cage codes will it require attachment 1D for the past performance reference for each cage code or can the company use the past performance for each cage code without submitting a 1D for each cage code? Which is limited to 2 subcontractor teammates.

Multiple Cage codes does not make it clear whether an organization is single legal entity with multiple locations/facilities or whether they are affiliated but legally distinct separate entities.

Unless proof is provided that multiple cage codes are for one single entity, the company must submit 1D for each cage code.

39 Section J p. 156, Section L p. 175, and Section L p.180 all reference a Capability Matrix/Staffing Plan as Attachment 2. The Attachment 2 that is included with the documents appears to be for contract experience and not personnel. Will the government provide a specific format for the Capability Matrix/Staffing Plan or should we create an excel file for the information?

Attachment 2 is provided with the latest update.

40 Attachment 5A -Prime Pricing Model -- Rate Tab – there are errors in Row 398 total calculations for the Fringe, OH and G&A.

The Prime Pricing Model has been updated due to the cost analysis revisions in the Sept 29 RFP update, but was not available for re-posting at that time. The Pricing Model has been included with the latest draft update.

41 Attachment 5B Subcontractor Pricing Model -

- does not have the above issue, but the text Reads "Prime" for Labor cost on the Summary Tab.

The Subcontractor Pricing Model requirement was deleted in its entirety with the Sept 29 update.

42 Section M Cost Realism states, “Cost Realism pertains to the offeror’s ability to project costs which are realistic. The purpose of this evaluation shall be: (1) to assess the degree to which the cost reflects the requirements of the PWS and/or the risk that the offeror will provide the services for the offered cost; and

(2) to assess the degree to which the costs

The Government does not anticipate revising the cost analysis for this requirement.

included in the cost proposal accurately represent the work efforts included in the proposal…” However, the Pricing Model only requires submission of prime offerors’ costs, only for Charleston, and only for Professional LCATs, which would not reflect accurate costs for the requirements of the PWS. Since offerors are not permitted to include pricing from teammates (even those included in Attachment 1C), the Pricing Model would not allow the government to assess the degree to which the costs included in the cost proposal accurately represent the work efforts included in the proposal. Furthermore, the government acknowledges in the FAR 52.244-2 Subcontractor Data section that “the specific, discrete proposal costs are not known at the basic contract level.” Analysis of prime contractor rates are unlikely to provide the government with an accurate idea of actual costs of delivery by an offeror and its team for an order placed under the IDIQ.

Therefore, it is unclear how the government could accurately evaluate cost realism at the IDIQ level, and the government’s stated evaluation method for cost is likely to produce a misleading result. Would the government consider eliminating the Pricing Model and total evaluated price evaluation at the IDIQ level and deferring price evaluations to the task order level? Alternatively, given the limited pricing information required, will the government simply conduct an analysis to ensure labor rates are fair and reasonable for prime contractors and teammates included in Attachment 1C?

43 The updated DRFP states, “Offerors shall provide the data required under FAR 52.244- 2, paragraph (e)(1) for all Subcontractors the offeror intends to identify as an Approved Subcontractor to utilize for performance under issued task or delivery orders under this contract. Offerors submitted analysis shall be based on their evaluation of their proposed subcontractor’s labor rates as specific, discrete proposal costs are not known at the basic contract level.” Will the

See response for question #35.

please government remove all references to prime contractors conducting and submitting analysis of subcontractor pricing as required by FAR 52.244-2 and confirm that any price analysis of subcontractor labor rates will be conducted at the task order level?

44 Reference Section L-317 - Would the government please provide a template for the TeamDiscl document required by Section L-317 (b) Proposal Format?

No. See answer for #7

45 Please clarify the expected CME contract award date. Under Element C2, page 180 it shows 4th Qtr FY18. Under L-335, page 185 it shows December, 2018.

L-335 identifies the period of the offeror’s proposal validity date. It does not identify the estimated award date.

46 In the June 6, 2017 Section L and M update Factor E (Small Business Participation) had a minimum acceptable small business participation requirement. In the September 29, 2017 DRFP, this requirement was eliminated. Factor E will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Offerors failing to demonstrate an acceptable fostering of small businesses will receive an Unacceptable rating and the offeror will be ineligible for contract award. Will the Government please provide the percentage of small business participation that will be deemed unacceptable if not met?

Factor E was revised to remove the percentage based on total acquisition value (TAV).

47 In accordance with OCI Clause 5252.209-9201

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(SYSTEMS ENGINEERING) (DEC 1999), "(c) During the term of this contract and for a period of three years after completion of this contract, the Contractor agrees that it will not supply (whether as a prime contractor, subcontractor at any tier, or consultant to a supplier) to the Department of Defense, any product, item or major component of an item or product, which was the subject of the systems engineering and/or technical direction in support of Cyber Mission Engineering performed under this contract."

Will the Government please specify the products, items or major component of an item of product that would fall under and be subject to this clause?

Product, items and etc., will be identified at the Task Order level. The basic contract includes this clause to be utilized at the task order level as applicable. However if an offeror believes that an OCI exists at the basic contract level they must provide he appropriate information regarding its ability to mitigate the OCI.

48 In accordance with OCI Clause 5252.209-9202 Please see answer to question 47.

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(SPECIFICATION PREPARATION) (DEC 1999),

(b) During the term of this contract and for a period of three years after completion of this contract, the Contractor agrees that it will not supply as a prime contractor, subcontractor at any tier, or consultant to a supplier to the Department of Defense, any product, item or major component of an item or product, which was the subject of the specifications and/or work statements furnished under this contract." Will the Government please specify the products, item or major component of an item or product" that would fall under and be subject to this clause?

49 In accordance with OCI Clauses OCI Clause

5252.209-9201 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

OF INTEREST (SYSTEMS ENGINEERING) (DEC

1999), (c); 5252.209-9202 ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (SPECIFICATION

PREPARATION) (DEC 1999) (b), "Any subcontractor that performs any work relative to this contract shall be subject to this clause." If a subcontractor does not have OCI issues relating to the contract can the Government please revise this statement such that restrictions are not placed on subcontractors with no real or apparent OCI issues?

Contractor must be in compliance with this clause as applicable.

50 In accordance with OCI Clause 5252.209-9204

EXISTING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF

INTEREST (FEB 1999), "(b) Warranty Against Existing Conflict of Interest. The contractor warrants that neither it nor its affiliates have any contracts with, or any material or substantial interests in the hardware or software suppliers." Can the Government please further define this statement:

"material or substantial interests in the hardware or software suppliers." If an affiliate of the prime contractor has a "material or substantial interests in the hardware or software suppliers", will the Government allow the prime contractor to address these interests in an OCI Mitigation Plan?

Please see L-339 in the RFP.

51 OCI Clause 5252.209-9205 ORGANIZATIONAL This will be determined at the Task Order Level as

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (DEC 2004) currently includes blank items for clause (d). In order to mitigate potential OCI issues can the Government please provide this information now?

applicable.

52 If an offeror is submitting an OCI Mitigation Plan, which Volume should this be included in?

Please see “Other Proposal Requirements”.

53 Section L, page 179 and Section M, page M-5;

Element B5: CND Analysis - The evaluation factor notes “performing and providing CND Analysis on one or more TS/SCI access level contracts for one or more DoD enterprise enclaves”, however there are other TS/SCI contracts for IC and federal enclaves performing similar CND and threat analysis that is relevant and useful to the CME Mission. We recommend modifying the factor in both Section L and Section M to “performing and providing CND Analysis on one or more TS/SCI access level contracts for one or more DoD, IC or federal enterprise enclaves” to allow for the inclusion of this relevant CND analysis capability.

Element B5 remains unchanged.

54 Section L, page 178 and Section M, page M-4;

Element B1: Software Engineering - “The offeror will be evaluated based on their demonstrated technical capability through their experience performing software engineering to include the analysis, design, integration, installation, testing, and life-cycle support for one or more ISR/IO software applications for DoD ACAT level programs which provides information warfare capabilities for one or more contracts requiring TS/SCI level access ”. There are many IC and federal ISR/IO software engineering programs that are relevant in scope and at the scale required by CME. We recommend modifying the evaluation factor in both Section L and Section M to “one or more ISR/IO software applications for DoD ACAT level (or other equivalent IC and federal scale) programs which provide information warfare capabilities for one or more contracts requiring TS/SCI level access”.

Element B1 remains unchanged.

55 Element B2: ISEA - The 29 September RFP removed the requirement of “The higher the

No.

level of ACAT program experience, the more valuable the experience is to the Government” from evaluation Element B1:

Software Engineering, but neglected to remove that same requirement from Evaluation Element B2: ISEA. We recommend removing that requirement from B2 in both Section L and Section M so that B1 and B2 would be consistent in their evaluation.

56 Section L-317(b), page 175 - Should offerors include their company name in the electronic file name?

Files should be named in accordance with chart in L-317

57 Section L-317(c) Proposal Content, Page 176 - Please confirm that offerors can have a coverpage at the front of each document, which is excluded from page count. This coverpage is required for offerors to display the restriction on disclosure and use of data per FAR 52.215-1(e)

See the answer to question #20. Please use proper disclosures per FAR 52.215-1(e) using headers/footers when applicable. Any cover page disclosure will not be counted in the page count set forth in the RFP.

58 Section L-317(c) Proposal Content, Page 176 - Will the Government accept Tables of Contents and Acronym Lists for each file, or Factor, or as appropriate? If so, will those artifacts be excluded from page count?

Tables of Contents and Acronym Lists are acceptable. However, they will be included in the page count.

59 Subfactor A2, page 177 and 29September Q&A, question 61 - The solicitation requires a copy of the signed DD254 for each submitted past performance as proof that the contract required TS/SCI access. Some of the relevant contract references DD254 are classified, and therefore cannot be provided. General information on the program scope and execution can be released as unclassified.

These programs are very relevant since they are Navy and Marine Corps projects denoted in the RFP PWS, Section 1.2.1. In addition the Intelligence Community typically does not use the DD 254 for programs requiring TS/SCI access, and again general information on the program(s) scope and relevance can be released.

We have identified programs (including Navy programs) that are very relevant to the CME mission where past performance can be provided as unclassified, but the entire DD254 is classified and cannot be submitted.

Subfactor A2 has been revised to include alternate documentation in the event of a classified DD254.

We request that alternative TS/SCI access validation other than providing a copy of the DD 254 be authorized that would include the reference contract number, contractor certification that the contract requires TS/SCI access, and contact information for both the contractor and government security officers associated with that contract. Without allowing for this alternative approach where required, the Government is either restricting competition or minimizing the strength of certain offerors since applicable DD 254s are themselves classified documents.

60 Section L, page 172, (1) DIRECT LABOR, para.

2 - “If providing LOIs, the offeror and/or its subcontractor(s) shall include the direct hourly labor rate for the proposed employee, identify the position,…”

Section L, page 172, (3) OVERHEAD - “Note:

Only Prime labor hours and rates shall be proposed. Do not include any subcontractor labor hours or rates.”

Section L, page 176, FAR 52.244-2 Subcontractor Data - “Prime submission of substantiating subcontractor data”

Section L, page 183, OTHER PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, FAR 52.244-2 Subcontractor Data - “Offerors shall provide the data required under FAR 52.244-2, paragraph (e)(1) for all Subcontractors the offeror intends to identify as an Approved Subcontractor to utilize for performance under issued task or delivery orders under this contract. Offerors submitted analysis shall be based on their evaluation of their proposed subcontractor’s labor rates as specific, discrete proposal costs are not known at the basic contract level. 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.”

Section M, page M-9, COST FACTOR, FACTOR G: COST/ PRICE, Prime Submission of FAR 52- 244-2 Subcontracts Supporting Data - Section

The requirements of the Prime are noted in FAR 52.244-2. See the answer for question #35 above.

The following questions were received but will not be addressed individually by SPAWAR LANT.

Information regarding the requirements, evaluation factors, and other relevant information will be available in the final RFP. A draft RFP has been provided based on the most current information available.

62 What was the process used to create this

RFP?

63 Were any whitepapers used to develop this

If so, can the Government provide those whitepapers?

64 Who will influence the source selection?

65 Can the government provide greater detail on the makeup of the technical evaluation board, such as which codes will be represented on the TEB?

66 What does the program plan need to achieve?

67 Are there specific program objectives for the

68 What is the most meaningful in terms of

M, page M-9, COST FACTOR, FACTOR G:

COST/ PRICE, Prime Submission of FAR 52- 244-2 Subcontracts Supporting Data

As Offerors are proposing only Prime rates in Charleston, SC for this effort, please clarify the pricing data, if any, Prime Offerors are to provide for Subcontractors? Or will the above requirements be removed from the final solicitation?

61 "Offerors shall identify their current employees and prospective employees (identified by the signature date of signed letters of intent (LOI)) with TS/SCI clearances in order . . . "

Since SCI access is assigned on a per contract basis, can the Government please confirm that offerors are to submit personnel that have TS clearances only and are thus able to be granted SCI access upon award of a TS/SCI task order on the Mission Engineering Contract?

Yes, see answer for question #25.

value to SSC-LANT for this solicitation?

69 What are SSC-LANT’s “must haves”?

70 What is the most meaningful in terms of value to SSC-LANT for this solicitation?

71 What are the crucial deal breakers for this

72 Are there any specific tools that should be included in proposal responses?

73 How will any tie between contractors be decided?