QA (11-15-17).pdf

CMS N6523616R0036 Questions # Question Answer 1 In accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS sheet within Attachment

3A- Prime Pricing Model, the contractor is to ignore any hidden columns or rows. However, Attachment 3A provides hours and pricing for only one year of the base period. Are we supposed to propose for one year only? Respectfully request the Government to clarify.

Yes. Propose for the hours specified in Attachment 3A. The hours provided are for evaluation purposes only and do not directly correlate to one year, the 60 month base ordering period, or the Option Period.

2 Section B pages 3 through 7 of 192 states the following FFP CLINs are 0001, 0003, 1001, and 1003; CPFF CLINs are 0002, 0004, 1002, and 1004; & Travel and ODC CLINs are 0005 and 1005. With CLINs 0001 through 0005 as base year CLINs and 1001 through 1005 as option year CLINs. There seems to be no correlation between Section B and Attachment 3A. If the contractor is to complete and submit Section B, can the Government clarify the FFP and CPFF portions in the Attachment 3A- Prime Pricing Model? At this time, the pricing model only shows a twelve-month base year and CPFF.

Attachment 3A is used for evaluation purposes only and utilizes a CPFF services environment, as indicated in Section M of the RFP.

3 Section F page 81 of 192, states 0001 – 0006 is sixty months after award and 1001 – 1005 is twenty-four months commencing from the expiration of the previous performance period. Are the hours provided on the RATES sheet in columns I and J on Attachment 3A- Prime Pricing Model for twelve months (1 year) or are those the total hours for 60 months? In addition, if it is for twelve months, will these be the same number of hours for each of the remaining 12-month periods in the remaining 96 months (48 months base and 24 months option)?

The Rates sheet should be used for the hours specified in Attachment 3A. The hours provided are for evaluation purposes only and do not directly correlate to 60 month base ordering period.

4 There appears to be a discrepancy between Section B, Section F, and Attachment 3A Prime Pricing Model. Section B has two FFP and two CPFF CLINs each in the base and option years. Section F states the period of performance for the base period is 60 months with one twenty four month option period. Attachment 3A only has pricing for the base period for one year. Respectfully request the Government to clarify as to which is correct.

Offerors should provide pricing for the hours provided in the Attachment 3A pricing model.

Sections B & F are correct as posted. The Attachment 3A pricing model will be utilized for evaluation purposes only and will not be used to determine the overall ceiling of the contract. Additionally, offerors are not required to fill in the prices for Section B.

5 Respectfully request the Government explain why Attachment 3A Prime Pricing Model does not include any FFP provisions and why is the spreadsheet only addresses a single period of performance.

Attachment 3B utilizes a FFP environment and will be used in a price analysis for evaluation purposes only, as indicated in Section M of the

RFP.

6 On row 14 of the instructions worksheet, the government states that offerors are to ignore any hidden columns or rows.

Question – Are offerors only required to provide labor costs for the base year and not the hidden option years as the base year is the only performance year with hours populated in Column “I” of Attachment 3A?

Yes. Propose for the hours specified in Attachment 3A. The hours provided are for evaluation purposes only and do not directly correlate to one year or the 60 month base ordering period.

7 The Government provided labor categories (LCATs) i.e. Technical writer/editors 1-4 that can be classified as a service contract act (SCA) labor category.

Question – Does the Government anticipate any of the proposed labor categories shown (not hidden) on the Rates worksheet in Attachment 3A as service contract act (SCA) positions, or “professional” as

Attachment 3A does not include service contract labor standards categories.

represented in column B of the rates worksheet? If so, will the Government please provide the applicable wage determination number for offeror’s to pull from the wage determinations online website www.wdol.gov/sca <http://www.wdol.gov/sca>

8 RFP – L-317, Proposal Format

p. 175 Will the Government please confirm that the criteria for Factor A:

SMO, ISO, and CMMI; is to be submitted as three separate pdf files IAW the “Electronic File Name” column?

Confirmed.

9 RFP – L-317, Proposal Format

p. 176 Will the Government please confirm that the information for Factor D: “SoftDev D1” and “SoftDev D2” are to be submitted as separate files IAW with the “Electronic File Name” column?

Confirmed.

10 RFP – L-317, Proposal Format

p. 176 Will the Government please confirm that offerors only need to include page 1 of the PPQ for Factor E (and not pages 1 and 2 with the top portion of page 2 completed)?

Confirmed.

11 Please confirm whether the model contract is required to be filled out by offerors.

Offerors are not required to populate Section B by CLIN. The contract ceiling has been provided by the Government. Offerors are to provide the proposed fixed fee and profit ceilings for CLINs 0002, 0003, 0004, 1002, 1003 & 1004. Additionally for CLINs 0002, 0004, 1002 & 1004 offerors shall provide the application base as outlined in Section B.

12 Regarding Attachment 3B - Per the OEM, Thinklogical, part number CHS-000001 was incorrectly provided as the Modular Surface Mount Chassis to hold part number VQM-0HV003-LCRX. Per Thinklogical, CHS-000001 will not hold the VQM-0HV003-LCRX.

Thinklogical stated that part number CHS-000002 is the correct Modular Surface Mount Chassis for the VQM-0HV003-LCRX.

Please advise.

CHS-000002 is the correct part number and an amendment will be issued to correct the part number in Attachment 3B.

13 Does the technical approach require the use of the new BOM provided in Attachment 3B?

No.

14 If the TSCS Task Order is no longer priced, does that change the scope of the Technical Approach for manufacturing 10 TSCS cases?

No.

15 What are the instructions for completing this tab?

Attachment 3A, Rate Differences tab

The Rate Differences tab should be used in the following instances from the RFP: “If the offeror's education and experience requirements do not exactly align with the requirements outlined in clause 5252.237-9600 and the offeror submits a FPRA, FPRR, PBRs, or other supporting documentation, the offeror shall include the calculation used to establish the labor category rate to reconcile any differences in the FPRA, FPRR, PBR, or supporting documentation provided due to differences in education or experience. In the development of proposed rates for this requirement, offerors shall not include rate data for personnel who do not meet the minimum qualifications outlined in clause 5252.237- 9600. This additional information shall be provided in Attachment 3A, Pricing Model.”

16 What should be included in SecB.pdf? Offerors are not required to populate values in Section B by CLIN. The contract ceiling has been provided by the Government. Offerors are to provide the proposed fixed fee and profit ceilings for CLINs 0002, 0003, 0004, 1002, 1003 & 1004. Additionally for CLINs 0002, 0004, 1002 & 1004 offerors shall provide the application base as outlined in Section B.

17 Is the offeror required to include DCAA and/or DCMA correspondence for Team Members, specifically evidence of a adequate accounting system?

See, page 182 Factor F

This information is not required.

18 Attachment 1A - Factor B - Is the reference to "significant subcontractors" at the top of Attachment 1A meant to be "major subcontractors"?

The reference to significant subcontractor should read team member. Please see revised Attachment 1A.

19 Section L and Attachment 1A - Factor B - Does the Government require a one page Attachment 1A for each of the up to two subcontractors in addition to the Attachment 1A for the Prime (for a total of up to three Attachment 1As on a total of three pages)?

Yes.

20 Attachment 3A, Other Labor Data tab - Please confirm that no data is required/expected in rows 111 - 117, as no SCA categories were identified in the final Excel file.

Confirmed. Please see revised Attachment 3A.

21 Attachment 3A, Salary Data tab - Please confirm that it is acceptable to reference the CostData.PDF file which contains all of the Supporting Salary Data and Survey Date columns.

Prime offerors shall complete the "Benefit Summary" and "Salary Data" charts contained in the Pricing Model to provide information for Sections I and II Professional Employee Compensation Plan requirements.

22 What is the requested validity period for submitted proposals? 365 days 23 FAR 52.244-2, paragraph (e)(1) (i-vii) -

Is it the Government's intent to levy these requirements at the task order level rather than at the umbrella contract level?

Prime offerors are required to submit the information required under FAR 52.244-2 for any company they wish to be an approved subcontractor on the basic contract at time of award.

24 FAR 52.244-2, paragraph (e)(1) (i-vii) - Please clarify where the Government would like the information used to address this section of the RFP to be presented. Does it go into CostData.PDF?

This data is to be submitted in the file entitled FARSubData as delineated in provision L-317

VAR1.

25 Attachment 3A, Summary tab - Should cell B57 be populated from Attachment 3B?

No

26 Attachment 3B - Please confirm that the Government is seeking unit price and not raw cost in the completion of the cells.

Confirmed.

27 Section L, p182 #(6) - Please clarify where the Government would This information may be provided in the like supporting price documentation for Attachment 3B to be delivered. Does it go into CostData.PDF?

CostData file.

28 Section L-335 is not included in the RFP. Please confirm that Section L-335 (which was included in the draft RFP released 29-September) should be included in the Final RFP.

This clause has been added to the RFP.

29 Factor F, Other proposal requirements page 183 (7), 52.244-2 (e)(1)(iv) - On page 172 there is a note, "Only Prime labor hours and rates shall be proposed. Do not include any subcontractor labor hours or rates", however, FAR 52.244-2 (e)(1)(iv) requires the submission of the proposed subcontract price. Can the government clarify that subcontractor rates are not to be submitted under Attachment 3A.

Proposed subcontractor rates are not to be provided in response to Attachment 3A.

Proposed subcontractor cost information shall be provided in the file entitled FARSubData as delineated in provision L-317 VAR1.

30 Factor F, Other proposal requirements page 183 (7), 52.244-2 (e)(1)(v) - On page 170 under 52.215-20 the RFP states that "Submission of certified cost or pricing data is not required,", however, FAR 52.244-2 (e)(1)(v) states that the following information should be included, " The subcontractor’s current, complete, and accurate certified cost or pricing data and Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data." Can the Government clarify that subcontractor certified cost or pricing data and Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data are not to be submitted under Other Proposal Requirements (7).

In accordance with 52.244-2 certified cost or pricing data and Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data should be provided, if required by other contract provisions. This information is not required.

31 Factor F, Other proposal requirements page 183 (7), 52.244-2 (e)(1)(vi) - Can the Government clarify that subcontractor's Disclosure Statement or Certificate relating to Cost Accounting Standards are not required to be submitted under Other Proposal Requirements (7).

Confirmed.

32 RESERVED

33 Factor F, Other proposal requirements page 183 (7), 52.244-2

(e)(1)(vii) - Can the Government please clarify that the information required under FAR 52.244-2 (e)(1)(vii a-g) is not required.

Prime offerors are required to submit the information required under FAR 52.244-2 for any company they wish to be an approved subcontractor on the basic contract at time of award.

34 The most recent gateway criteria announcement, coupled with further adjustments contained in the RFP release, has introduced criteria which has caused disruption in the industrial base that has been pursuing this opportunity, namely in the area of established teaming agreements. Respectfully request an extension to the closing date so that industry has the requisite time to make these adjustments.

See Amendment 0001.

35 RFP – L-317, (c) Proposal Content / Factor B pp. 177-8 Will the Government please clarify the requirement in Factor B which states, “Offerors are reminded that in accordance with the requirements for the proposal content, written teaming agreements covering other proposed companies, divisions, subsidiaries, etc. of the prime contractor or team member(s) must be provided.” – Is this in reference to the Prime Team Member Teaming Disclosure, described in RFP L-317 (c) Proposal Content, requiring offerors to disclose if they are proposing in response to this solicitation on more than one team (as a prime and as subcontractor on another team)?

This refers to the team member teaming agreement that the Prime must provide for each proposed team member. This is in addition to the Prime Team Member Teaming Disclosure.

36 RFP – L-317, Proposal Format p. 177 With respect to the schedule required as part of the response to Factor C – Technical Approach, For the purposes of the schedule required in Factor C – Technical Approach, a 11x17 size is will the Government please exclude the schedule from the page-size, margin, and font limitations (to enable creation of the schedule on an 11x17 or appropriately sized page) – keeping the legibility requirement as with the other documents excluded from the page-size, margin, and font limitations?

acceptable.

37 RFP – L-317, Proposal Format p. 176 Will the Government please confirm that with respect to Factor C – Technical Approach, offerors are instructed to submit only one pdf file “TechApp” inclusive of both C1 (Technical) and C2 (Schedule)?

Confirmed.

38 RFP – L-317, Proposal Format p. 177 - Will the Government please exclude the following from the page count: cover page, table of contents, glossary?

It is not required to provide a cover page, table of contents, acronym list, or glossary; however, including this information will not count against the page count and will be used for reference purposes only and not considered in the evaluation.

39 RFP – L-317, Proposal Format p. 175 - Will the Government please clarify which document is required to supply proof of CMMI Maturity Lvl III – a copy of the appraisal or a copy of the certification?

Offerors shall provide a certificate of appraisal as stated in the RFP.

40 RFP – L-317, Proposal Format p. 175 - If the Government requires a copy of the CMMI ML III appraisal, and not just the certificate, will the Government please extend the page limit for this document to two pages – as while the certificate is one page, the appraisal which overviews the model scope spans two pages.

A submission to include the certificate and appraisal is acceptable. See Amendment 0001.

41 RFP – L-317, Factor A – Gate Criteria p. 177 - Will the Government please confirm that the letter from the Defense Security Service notifying an offeror of its security status complete with CAGE code fulfills the requirement to provide an active SMO code at SECRET or above, or if the Government prefers data pulled from

IFSD?

Either submission will satisfy this requirement.

42 RFP – L-317, Factor F – Professional Employee Compensation Plan

p. 182 - Will the Government please clarify the type of documentation to be provided by the offeror to satisfy the Section III

– Supporting Documentation requirement with relation to the Professional Employee Compensation Plan? Will salary survey data from ERI satisfy?

As stated in the RFP, “This documentation/information includes data such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public, and private organizations, used in establishing the proposed total compensation structure.”

43 RFP – L-52.215-20 (B) p. 170 - The Government states that, “The Pricing Model (Attachment 3A) contains the Professional labor categories and hours are to be used for proposal purposes at the Charleston, SC location” but the government states in Section C, 1.2 Scope, page 10, as a Note “Work will be performed in hazardous duty areas”. Is it the Government’s intent that any OCONUS related labor costs will be billed at the task order level only?

Specific requirements and taskings will be delineated at the task order level.

44 Attachment 4B – PWS TSCS - Will the Government please clarify if Attachment 4B- PWS TSCS includes any required pricing action as a pricing model was not provided. Is the sample task order solution oriented rather than pricing oriented?

No pricing information is required in response to Factor C – Technical Approach

45 RFP – L-317, (c) Proposal Content / Factor B p. 178 Will the Government please clarify the instruction contained in Section L, Offerors may submit multiple orders under a single Indefinite Delivery contract in order to

Factor B with reference to task orders under an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract? The Government states, “Additionally, within the contract reference submission limitations as stated above, offerors may submit multiple orders under a single Indefinite Delivery contract in order to meet the relevancy threshold.”

Is this language properly understood to mean if an offeror has an IDIQ program with both F&O and SBSA task orders, the offeror may reference performance on all task orders under both the F&O and SB to meet the $10 million threshold?

meet the relevancy threshold.

46 RFP – L-317, (c) Proposal Content / Factor D.1 p. 181 The Government requests the previously submitted SDP be in accordance with the requirements of the Software Process Improvement Initiative (SPII) of 13 July 2007. These processes are somewhat dated. Will the Government please accept a SDP that is developed in accordance with equivalent processes and/or agile development?

Software Process Improvement Initiative (SPII) of 13 July 2007 is the minimum requirement. A Scrum or Agile development is acceptable.

47 RFP – L-317, Proposal Format / Other Proposal Requirements pp.176, 183 - Will the Government please confirm that the FAR 52.244-2 Subcontractor Data requested in the proposal format table and again in “Other Proposal Requirements” is not applicable, as no pricing data from subcontractors is to be supplied with the initial proposal?

Proposed subcontractor rates are not to be provided in response to Attachment 3A.

However, in accordance with the requirements of FAR clause 52.244-2 proposed subcontractor cost information shall be provided in the file entitled FARSubData as delineated in provision L-317 VAR1.

48 RFP – L-317, Proposal Format / Other Proposal Requirements pp.176, 183 - If the Government will still require the FAR 52.244-2 Subcontractor Data, will the Government please clarify what Offeror’s are to provide in response to the line items directly related to subcontractor pricing (e.g., proposed subcontract price, subcontractors’ certified cost data)?

Offeror’s may choose to solicit cost/price proposals for any anticipated subcontractors they project may be utilized during performance of the contract and perform the required evaluation identified in 52.244-2, or offerors may choose to obtain labor rates for anticipated subcontractors and perform the required evaluation identified in 52.244-2. The Government will evaluate the 52.244-2 responses and determine if sufficient data is provided to enable inclusion of the subcontractors in the final contractor award as identified in Section L of the RFP.

49 Attachment 3B – Product List Pricing Model - In the government provided Attachment 3B – Product List Pricing Model, the instructions state that the prime offeror is to only complete cells that are highlighted in yellow. Based on the Prime Offeror’s disclosure practices, we need to add in columns to appropriately account for our applicable indirect rates when estimating the other direct costs (ODC). May the prime offeror modify Attachment 3B to reflect the prime offeror’s disclosure practices when estimating the required ODCs?

The unit price proposed should include all loading factors. Offerors may delineate on the spreadsheet the loading factors used to develop the unit prices proposed.

50 Section L-328 LOE - Section L-328 Estimated Level of Effort states that the labor categories and quantities of labor hours will be specified in the Pricing Model (Attachment 3A) and are to be used by the offeror for computing total costs. However, the pricing model, Attachment 3A, only list the quantities of hours for the base period.

It does not contain the quantities of labor hours for the Option Period.

See response to question #1 above.

Can the Government provide a revised pricing model to show the quantities of hours for the Option period?

51 Section L-329(a), Attachment 3A - Section L-329(a) states that the Government best estimate of ODC items will be set forth in Attachment 3A. The Pricing Model, Attachment 3A does not contain an ODC plug amount. Can the Government provide a revised pricing model, to include the ODC plug number?

A plug number has been provided for travel in Attachment 3A.

52 Attachment 3A, Section B - Section B indicates there will be a Base Period plus one Option Period. The Base Period has six Clins (0001

– 0006). Clin 0006 Is listed for CDRLs. The Option Period only has five Clins (1001 – 1005). Is it the government intention to omit the 6th Clin for CDRLs in the Option period? If the Government intends to have six Clins in both the Base and the Option Period, can the Government provide a revised Section B?

CLIN 1006 has been added. See Amendment 0001.

53 Attachment 3A, Section B - The Summary Tab of Attachment 3A does not reconcile with the Section B Clin Structure. Can the Government provide a revised pricing model that correlates to Section B Clin structure? OR can the government provide additional instruction of how to segregate costs into each Clin?

Offerors are not required to populate Section B by CLIN. The contract ceiling has been provided by the Government. Offerors are to provide the proposed fixed fee and profit ceilings for CLINs 0002, 0003, 0004, 1002, 1003 & 1004. Additionally for CLINs 0002, 0004, 1002 & 1004 offerors shall provide the application base as outlined in Section B.

54 Attachment 3B - Attachment 3B instructs the offeror to provide the Unit Price of each materials. Is the Government looking for raw cost for each item without contractor burdens? Or is it the Government’s intent for the offeror to include material and handling burdens in the Unit Price?

See response to question #49 above.

55 Attachment 3A, Part I – Cost and Labor Information - The narrative to the Cost/Price Proposal must include supporting rational for the escalation rate proposed. Can the Government provide a mechanism in the pricing model which will apply escalation to Option Year Costs?

Providing the rationale as required in the RFP is sufficient to satisfy this requirement. The Attachment 3A will not be revised.

56 Section L, Other Proposal Requirements (7)/page 183 of 192 - Section L 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.”

e(1) contains 14 items, many of which are impossible to provide for unpriced subs since the RFP does not allow subcontractor pricing.

Please clarify this requirement and allow the prime contractor to only submit applicable items from this clause.

See response to questions #47 and #48 above.

57 Would the Government please provide a one-week extension to allow contractors adequate time to make changes based on the Government’s answers to the questions?

See response to question #34 above.

58 Would the Government please allow for an extension due to the changes in requirements from the latest draft to the final RFP?

See response to question #34 above.

59 In the Solicitation, Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices includes CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, 0006, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, and 1005 – including references to Option Periods – but

See response to questions #1 and #53 above.

Attachment 3A- Prime Pricing Model.xlsx only includes data for the Base Period; can the Government clarify which data cells in Attachment 3A map to the CLINs for Section B and how Option CLINs should be handled for Section B, or revise Section B to only include Base Period information requirements?

60 Reference: L-317, “Other Proposal Requirements” Number 7, page 183 of 192, the text reads “The Government will evaluate the FAR 52-244-2 submitted data”. Would the Government please confirm that the reference to “submitted data” does not include subcontractor rate submissions to the prime as per the instruction on page 172 of 192 stating “Only Prime labor hours and rates shall be proposed. Do not include any subcontractor labor hours or rates.”?

See response to question #47 above.

61 Section L element B1, requires the demonstration of one mission assurance category (MAC) I system in accordance with ICD 705-1.

ICD 705-1 is specifically for SCIF facilities, while the majority of the DoD operations centers are not SCI Facilities, further the scope of this contract is not limited to SCI facilities. Invoking ICD 705-1 appears to severely limit competition and offerors ability to demonstrate their ability in requirements development, integration, security and validation. Recommend removal of ICD 705-1.

The Government will not remove the ICD 705- 1 requirement.

62 Attachment 3A is formatted to allow entry of rates for one company. For Joint Venture offerors, comprised of more than one partner, are bidders allowed to tailor the pricing attachment to show both company’s rate build-up, while still resulting in one combined summary to represent the total JV proposed price?

Yes.

63 The Government answered the following CMS DRFP question #36, #131, #132 during the past 2 rounds of Q&A, confirming that if the small business joint venture (JV) partner(s) individually held the required SMO code and certifications, that would meet the Gate criteria requirement: answer provided “in order to meet the gate criteria, the small business within the Joint Venture must meet the requirements as identified in the RFP.” Would the government consider adding language in the RFP to explicitly state this? If not, would the Government please re-confirm in the case where the Prime submitting a bid is an unpopulated Joint Venture, that it is acceptable/permitted for the SMO code, and the ISO/CMMI certifications to be held/submitted at the JV Partners/Owners level, specifically the Small Business JV Partner/Owner?

Background: SBA Mentor-Protégé joint ventures are by policy unpopulated and thus cannot hold certifications that heavily depend upon employees following certain approved processes/procedures.

Also, the JVs—essentially newly incorporated companies—require the opportunity to complete foundational actions, such as receiving a facility clearance, in the first year of their existence. Section L states “To demonstrate compliance with gate criteria one and two above, Prime offerors shall provide their active SMO code at SECRET or above and a copy of their independently certified ISO Certification….

To demonstrate compliance with the CMMI Maturity Level III requirement, Prime offerors shall provide a Certificate of appraisal. “

Confirmed, the small business member of the joint venture must hold all the requirements of the RFP.

It is currently not clear in the FRFP how an unpopulated joint venture would meet this gate criteria.

64 Section L states “Offerors shall submit contract reference data for current and relevant contracts performed by the Prime and each proposed team member…. Contract reference data (i.e. Attachments 1A and 1B) is limited solely and exclusively to the Prime contractor and up to two (2) proposed team members (i.e. Attachment 1C).”

The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides details on the past performance evaluation for small business joint ventures in 13 CFR 125.8(e), which reads, when evaluating the past performance and experience of an entity submitting an offer for a contract set aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. Will the Government please confirm for SBA Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, past performance/contracts referenced by either joint venture partners will be considered Prime contract references, per CRF 125.8(e)?

Confirmed.

65 The Government states that the Cost/Price Proposal will be a “prime only” proposal (Section L and M). In the case of a SBA Mentor- Protégé unpopulated Joint Venture, will the Government accept the price/cost proposal comprised of rates and information from both joint ventures partners/owners as a prime submission?

Yes.

66 Would the government please confirm that bidders are to populate CLIN 0001 with the total FFP price from the Product List (Attachment 3B)? If so, is that price for just for one year (10 kits), or should that one year price be multiplied by 5 to arrive at a total price for CLIN 0001 (assuming the POP for that CLIN is 5 years), and by 2 (years) to arrive at a total price for CLIN 1001? If not, please clarify how offerors should derive the cost to populate CLINs 0001 and 1001.

See response to question #53 above.

67 Would the government please confirm that CLIN 0002 is for CPFF Supplies, and that bidders are only required to provide the fee percentage that will be added to supplies on future CPFF Task Orders, and that no entry is required for the price?

See response to question #53 above.

68 Would the government please confirm that CLIN 0004 is for CPFF Services (labor) and should be populated with the total labor cost and estimated fee for Year 1 only from the Attachment 3A template?

If so, please advise if bidders are required to provide any pricing for Years 2-7, and instructions on where that information is to be provided.

See response to question #53 above.

69 Would the government please confirm that CLIN 0003 is for FFP Services (labor) on future FFP task orders and that no entry is required for the price in Section B?

See response to question #53 above.

70 Was inclusion of the fill-in line for profit % in CLIN 0003 intentional? Since this is FFP, it is unclear why offerors would be required to provide a profit % for that CLIN.

The offeror’s proposed profit percentage will be utilized in pricing task orders. The profit for task orders shall not exceed this percentage and shall be applied to labor costs only.

71 CLIN 0005 is labeled as Travel and Other Direct Costs in Section B, however Attachment 3A indicates the plug estimate is for Travel only. Can the government please confirm that a CLIN will be provided for both Travel and ODCs at the Task Order level?

This CLIN will be utilized for travel as well as other direct costs associated with applicable task orders.

72 Is the Government-provided estimate of $96,250 for Travel/ODCs for a period of 1 year only? If so, are bidders to multiply that amount by 5 to arrive at a total Cost for CLIN 0005 (assuming the POP for that CLIN is 5 years), and by 2 (years) to arrive at the total Cost for CLIN 1005?

The Attachment 3A pricing model will be utilized for evaluation purposes only and will not be used to determine the overall ceiling of the contract. Additionally, offerors are not required to fill in the prices for Section B.

73 CLINs 1001/1002/1003/1004 appear to be for the 2-year Option period (Years 6 & 7). Since the Attachment 3A pricing template is for Year 1 only, are bidders to leave the prices for Option CLINs blank?

See response to question #53 above.

74 The Labor Rate Limitation Notification section requires notification to the COR when the average actual burdened labor rates exceeds the average proposed/negotiated rate by 15%. However, per SPAWARNOTE 4200 dated 11 July 2017, the Service Contracting Performance Metric for Negotiated vs. Actual average rate variance reporting requirement was increased to 20%. Will the government change this section in the RFP to reflect 20% variance as the threshold?

PWS paragraph 5.2.1.6 has been revised. See Amendment 0001.

75 “Sec M-307 states, “While evaluation factors (other than cost) are more important than cost, the importance of cost as an evaluation factor increases with the degree of technical equality of the proposals.

Accordingly, when offerors are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, cost may become the determining factor for award. The Government reserves the right to award to a lower cost offeror when the offers are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability...” Later in Sec M / Cost Realism, it 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 included in the cost proposal accurately represent the work efforts included in the proposal…”

The current evaluation method provides no reasonable basis for evaluating or comparing the relative costs of proposals so as to establish whether one proposal would be more or less costly than another. The government has prescribed a cost model that offerors may not deviate from and that does not allow for planned subcontractor costs or other factors (as discussed immediately below) that would impact cost in execution. A prime offeror is either unable or not incentivized to propose the most likely or accurate costs that represent the work efforts in the proposal within the bounds of these

The government will not remove cost/price as an evaluation criterion or change the evaluation to a "pass/fail" basis. The cost realism evaluation is designed to ensure that proposed prices for the labor categories in the pricing model are not too low. Based on the results of the cost realism analysis, an offeror's proposal may be deemed unrealistic and unacceptable for award. The Government intends to issue an amendment which clarifies the purpose of the cost realism evaluation.

RFP requirements because offerors are not permitted to deviate from the cost model, nor can they demonstrate the impact of planned subcontractor costs, use of SCA labor categories, premiums for clearances, geographic differentials, escalation, etc. Fundamentally, 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. Since offerors will not be held to LCATs/rates they propose at the IDIQ level during subsequent task order competitions, offerors are incentivized to “game” this IDIQ competition and bid low rates that they never intend to deliver in order to guard against losing based on total evaluated price in a case where technical evaluations are equal. As the chosen evaluation method is likely to generate misleading results and is therefore susceptible to protests, will the government either remove cost/price as a criterion or change the cost evaluation to a “Pass/Fail” approach, either of which would be consistent with applicable FAR requirements (e.g. 16.504(a)(4) and 16.505(b)(1)(ii)(E))? An example of how the latter could be done would be to simply evaluate whether an offeror’s total evaluated price falls within an independent government cost estimate range (rather than attempting to evaluate whether costs reflect the PWS requirements or conduct a comparative assessment across offerors.)

76 In Section L under Technical Capability, the RFP states, “Offerors shall identify and specifically relate the scope of the proposed contractor references to the Factor B elements (i.e. B1-B4) in the narrative response to Question 13 on Attachment 1B. Offerors cumulative contract references shall address all Factor B elements (i.e. B1-B4).” Section M states, “The Factor B rating will be an overall assessment of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks. The Government will evaluate the work performed for each contract reference for relevance to the Factor B elements (i.e. B1-B4).”

How will the government aggregate its adjectival scoring? Will each contract reference be assigned an aggregate adjectival score, or will each element be assigned an aggregate adjectival score? Assuming the latter, as an example, if an offeror submitted four contract references and each reference addressed one of the four elements with an Outstanding rating, would the overall rating be Outstanding (i.e., no penalty for the references not addressing multiple elements)? Alternatively, if 2 contract references address a single element and one is rated Outstanding and one is rated Acceptable, would the government average them and assign an aggregate rating of “Good” for that element?

Factor B will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating. Neither the elements nor the contract references will be rated separately.

As stated offeror’s cumulative contract references shall address all Factor B elements.

77 Attachment 1B of the Draft RFP states, “NOTE: If submitting multiple orders under a single GSA, GWAC, DoD-wide contract or BPA in order to meet the relevancy threshold for a contract reference, offerors shall clearly identify the dates of performance and dollar amounts for each order.” Items 3 through 7 of Attachment 1B allow only for input of a single item. When referencing multiple task

Yes.

orders on a single IDIQ contract, would the government allow offerors to provide a table of information in section 1B to identify dates and dollar amounts for each order as well as the overarching IDIQ? In this case, would the Government allow the offeror to include the table as an extension to Attachment 1B without counting against the 20 page limit?

78 Section L of the RFP requires offerors to provide “Prices and any information required by Section B”. Please provide additional guidance on how offerors are to complete the prices in Section B for all CLINs, as we are only required by the RFP to price representative CPFF labor in Attachment 3A for the base period and the Equipment List Attachment 3B.

See response to question #53 above.

79 Section L requires offerors to “Identify the proposed fixed fee and profit rates, total amount proposed, and the cost elements on which the fee and profit are applied.” Please provide guidance on how offerors are to calculate the total amount proposed in profit, which applies to FFP CLINs, which are not being priced at this time.

See response to question #53 above.

80 Can the Software Development Plan submitted in response to Factor D1 be submitted in its native font and size similar to the guidance provided for eSRS reports, CPARS/PPIRS reports and DCAA Forward Pricing Rate Agreements?

The submitted SDP must follow the requirements as outlined in Section L of the

RFP.

81 May an acronym list be included where necessary, and if so, will it be included in page count?

See response to question #38 above.

82 Are cover pages and table of contents included in page count? See response to question #38 above.

83 Section L of the RFP requires that “all labor categories shall be escalated, as applicable, for rates crossing the offeror’s calendar year during the period of performance identified in Attachment 3A, Pricing Model”. Attachment 3A does not include a period of performance, and the hours dictated for pricing purposes appear to be for a one year period. Please provide additional clarification on the period of performance for Attachment 3A hours.

Offerors are not required to provide a proposed escalation. The RFP has been revised accordingly. Please see Amendment 0001.

84 How does the Government intend to evaluate the proposed profit percentage for FFP CLINs?

See response to question #70 above.

85 Thinklogical Part Number CHS-000001 (Modular Surface Mount Chassis, Up to 1 Video Extender Module) will not be able to hold the VQM-0HV003-LCRX (Velocity Q-Series DVI, Single Link DVI, Dual Video Paths, DDC, HDCP, RX, LC). Thinklogical has provided the alternate part number CHS-000002 (Modular Surface Mount Chassis, Up to 2 Video Extender Module or 1 KVM Module) in order to meet this requirement. Will the Government please confirm whether this alternate part number is acceptable, and if so, update Attachment 3B accordingly?

This part number has been updated to CHS- 000002. See revised Attachment 3B.

86 Extron Part Number: 60-1043-13 (XTP R HDMI, XTP Received for HDMI) is no longer available. Extron has provided alternate part number 60-1524-13 (XTP R HD 4K). Will the Government please confirm whether this alternate part number is acceptable, and if so, update Attachment 3B accordingly?

This part number has been updated to 60- 1524-13 (XTP R HD 4K). See revised Attachment 3B.

87 Section L, Factor E states “For those offerors whose past performance information is not located on the automated system, offerors shall contact their references and request that each reference complete Attachment 2 - Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the completed survey form NOT LATER THAN THE CLOSING

DATE AND TIME FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS UNDER THIS

SOLICITATION to giancarlo.dumenigo@navy.mil reference N65236-16-R-0036 in the Subject line. Offerors (prime and team members identified in Attachment 1C) shall provide Attachment 2 - Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Sheet for each cited contract (as applicable).” Further in this section it states that "Offerors are cautioned that past performance records located in PPIRS are archived (and irretrievable) after 3 years. In such cases, offerors shall provide a copy of the CPAR record (including a Government and Contracting Point of Contact)." Please confirm that if an offeror has an archived CPAR record that is no longer in the automated system, this CPAR record may be provided in the proposal and a Questionnaire is NOT required.

88 The CDRL numbers listed in paragraph 12.1.1 of the TSCS Integration Support Performance Work Statement do not agree with the CDRL numbers listed in paragraph 5.2 of the N65236-16-R-0036 Solicitation. Would the Government please clarify?

The CDRLs outlined in the TSCS PWS are not applicable.

89 Paragraph 6.2.1 (Modular Case Integration) of Attachment 4B (TSCS Integration Support PWS) states, “The contractor shall build Modular Cases in accordance with the required military standards/specifications and reference listed in the 3.1 References section of the PWS. See attachment (3) Technical Data Package.”

There is more than one “case” included in the Technical Data Package provided as part of the Solicitation. Request the Government confirm that the “TSCS Integration Support” Task Order is applicable only to the end item described in Drawing # 09014A0000 and the configuration items associated with that end item?

The TDP provided is applicable to the end items defined in Drawing # 09014A0000 only.

Some references to other TSCS transit case based systems within the lower level drawings exist due to commonality across the systems.

90 Will the government confirm a Period of Performance for the Factor C, TSCS Integration Support Performance Work Statement (Element C1) and Schedule (Element C2)?

The period of performance for the Technical Approach is twelve months.

91 Will the government allow a Technical Introduction for Factor B and increase the page count to 25 total pages for contract specific and technical capabilities data?

A technical introduction is not required; the government will not increase the page limit for the technical capability submission.

92 Paragraph 16.0 (List of Attachments) of Attachment 4B (TSCS Integration Support PWS) references Attachment 3 – TDP. Is this the same reference as Attachment 4A Technical Approach Drawings from Factor C in the RFP?

Yes.

93 Does SPAWAR want to see all of the Teaming Agreements for all potential Subcontractors or only the Team Members per Attachment 1C?

A teaming agreement shall be provided for all subcontractors the Prime offeror wishes to be approved at time of contract award.

94 Per the RFP on page 183 of 192 Other Proposal Requirements (7) “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, This requirement will not be removed.

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. This information will not be utilized for evaluation of the basic contract award”. Will the Government consider removing this requirement from Section L-317 VARI SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS (VARIATION) and SECTION M COST FACTOR, Factor F Cost/Price, since this requirement would be at the Task Order level and not at the Prime contract Level?

95 Per the RFP on page 180 of 192, FACTOR C: TECHNICAL APPROACH Element C2: Schedule requires the submission of a 1-page Schedule. Will the Government allow the Element C2: Schedule 1-page submission to be on ledger-size paper (11x17) in order to allow a more easily-readable presentation?

See response to question #36 above.

96 Section L-317b table - Factor A Gate Criteria - states that there is a 3 page limitation per submission. In our experience, each of the certification/appraisal documents tend to be multiple pages. For example, the CMMI Certificate of Appraisal for our company is 7 pages long. Will the Government consider removing the page limitation in this section, so companies can include a copy of the full certifications and/or appraisals, as appropriate?

See response to question #40 above.

97 Section L states “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. The font style and size requirements are not applicable to eSRS reports, CPARS/PPIRS reports and DCAA Forward Pricing Rate Agreements; however, these documents must be legible.” Since the ISO 9001 certification, CMMI appraisal and SMO documents are prescribed by a certifying organization/agency other than the Prime Offeror, will the Government consider adding “…SMO documentation, ISO 9001 certification and CMMI Level III appraisal document” to the list of documents where the font style and size requirements are not applicable? Each of the gate criteria documents are developed by outside organizations/agencies, and the Prime Offeror often cannot make changes to the format.

Revised. See Amendment 0001.

98 Attachment 4B – 3.0 Applicable Documents - Will the Government please clarify the reference to the “basic contract” included in the sample task order (STO)? What applicable documents should offerors reference when responding to the STO?

Offerors can disregard references to the basic contract.

99 Attachment 4B – 6.2.1 Modular Case Integration - Will the Government please clarify the reference to “Attachment (3) Technical Data Package (TDP)?” Is this a reference to Attachment 4A – Technical Drawings?

Offerors should reference Attachment 4A for the Technical Drawings related to the Technical Approach PWS.

100 Please confirm that the original solicitation pages 55 - 87, to include delivery/task order procedures, liability insurance, personnel qualifications, and key personnel clauses, have not been deleted and remain relevant to this solicitation.

The amendment only outlines sections of the solicitation which were changed. A conformed copy will be posted on e-Commerce.

101 Please confirm the following interpretation: Factor F(1) = Please follow the instructions and format

CostNar.pdf. Factor F(2) = CostData.pdf. Factor F(3) = SecB.pdf, which is the model contract. Factor F(4) = Attachments 3A & 3B.

Factor F(5) = ProfEmpl.pdf. Factor F(6) = CostData.PDF.

Professional Employee Compensation Plan (a) & (b) = Attachment 3A. Professional Employee Compensation Plan (c) & (d) = ProfEmpl.pdf.

outlined in Section L, provision L-317 of the solicitation.

102 Please clarify whether the formula in row 108 was intended to only capture a subset of the data as a total or whether offerors must expand the sum formula to include rows 3 - 103.

See updated Attachment 3Awill be updated to include all rows.

103 Please clarify what the one page write up should be submitted as (name, format) in order to address Factor A. "For offerors who do not currently meet any of the performance qualifications, submit a one page document describing how you will satisfy the performance qualification..."

See Amendment 0002. Provision L-317, Factor A requirements have been updated.

104 Q&A has clarified that part # CHS-000001 should be replaced with part # CHS-000002, and part # 60-1043-13 should be replaced with part # 60-1524-13.