Pre-Solicitation QAs_PNT_posted 12 April 2019.pdf

12 April 2019

PNT – N65236-17-R-0008

Pre-Solicitation Q&As

QUESTION ANSWER

1 The complex technical and engineering services required by the

PWS necessitate expert personnel, and the potential contract resulting from this solicitation will be high value and volume, yet the proposal requirements in Section L&M do not include a Transition Plan, a Management Approach, or a Risk Plan. In light of the mission critical nature of the work scope (Navy Navigation), a smooth transition is paramount to ensuring the Fleet is properly supported with no lapse in essential services.

In addition, tailored management is essential to performance, as is identification, mitigation, and contingency planning for the high-stakes risks. Given those facts, will the Government add proposal requirements for a Transition Plan, a Management Approach, and a Risk Plan, as is typical for this level of procurement?

The Government will not be including additional evaluation criteria.

2 L-TXT-04 (b) Proposal Format notes that the 10 pt. Times New Roman Font requirements "also apply to Information Summaries and to graphics, art, figures, imported charts, charts, and any other graphical representation that includes text." In light of the limited page counts and complex subject matter, this style/size restriction will significantly impact the use of graphics, art, etc. Would consideration be made to ease this restriction to allow a smaller font, say 8pt, for graphics, art, etc.?

No, the font size will not be changed.

3 Does the government recognize the use of digital certificates/digital signatures wherever required in the proposal (e.g., SF-33, cover letter, costing)?

Yes, a signature meeting the FAR Part 2 definition of a signature, to include the use of digital signatures, will be accepted.

4 “Offerors shall provide copies of correspondence from DCAA or Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) regarding the most recent approval of rates and/or systems, such as Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs), Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRRs), Provisional Billing Rates (PBRs), and Accounting System Approval (if applicable). If available, provide any updated forward pricing rate information submitted to DCAA/DCMA for review. The correspondence and all attachments (FPRAs, FPRRs, etc.) should be provided in the Cost/Price Proposal submission.”

The language will be revised to state, “Offerors shall provide copies of correspondence from DCAA or DCMA regarding the approval of rates and/or systems, such as Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs), Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRRs), Provisional Billing Rates (PBRs), agreed-upon final annual indirect cost rates, and Accounting System Approval/Audit (if applicable).”

Can the Government please include “and/or adequate” in front of the word “approval” to the above sentence as not all systems are “approved” or qualify same by system?

5 “(C) Offerors should utilize the 50th percentile at a minimum, and include the specific rationale utilized by the offeror in selecting the applicable percentile(s).”

This assumes that salary surveys used by an Offeror would include a 50th percentile. Furthermore, certain labor categories, depending on the requirements, and other factors may not be suitable for the 50th percentile. Supporting rationale is required for all salary survey data.

Can the Government please remove "Offerors should utilize the 50th percentile at a minimum" as this is placing a minimum on every labor category where salary survey data is utilized even if the overall tasking specified in the solicitation would not require same? This could result in overestimating the cost for such requirements. If the government estimates the 50th percentile to be the minimum as it's basis, then a set rate (plus contractor's indirects and fee) should be included for those labor categories.

If the Government continues to have the 50th percentile be the minimum for salary survey data, then can rationale only be required if not utilizing the 50th percentile? Meaning, if an offeror utilizes the 75th percentile, same would need to be rationalized. Otherwise, no rationalization is required.

This section of the RFP will be updated. Offerors will still be requested to use the 50th percentile at a minimum but rationale will only be required if anything below the 50th percentile is utilized.

The Government is not going to utilize a set rate.

6 “(1) For rates not based on proposed individuals, if the offeror’s education and experience requirements of its labor categories do not exactly align with the requirements outlined in the solicitation, offerors should describe how the proposed labor rates were calculated, to include an explanation of how the offeror ensured that only rates reflective of qualified personnel or labor categories were utilized in formulating the proposed rates.”

It would be difficult to “exactly” match the requirements outlined in the solicitation. The example provided is a minimum.

Based on the above statement, did the Government intend to state “…do not align with the minimum requirements outlined…”?

Can the word "exactly" be removed and include the word "minimum" between "the" and "requirements"?

Yes, the language will be revised as suggested.

7 “If the offeror's education and experience requirements of its labor categories do not exactly align with the requirements outlined in the solicitation, offerors shall describe how the proposed labor rates were calculated; to include an explanation of how the offeror ensured that only rates reflective of qualified personnel were utilized in formulating the proposed rates.”

How will a description of how the rates were calculated if minimum or exact requirements aren’t met, provide the Government with information to ascertain reasonableness and realism based on same?

The intent of this provision is to allow offerors to describe how they have ensured that their proposed rates are based on personnel or labor categories that meet the requirements of the Government’s labor categories. For example, offerors may choose to blend internal bid rates, re-calculate company-wide labor category averages, etc.

8 If a page limit is not stated within the areas described within Section L, does this mean there is no page limit for same? For example, there is no page limit stated for Prime Submission of substantiating subcontractor data within Section L.

Correct.

9 For both the Cost Proposal Narrative and the Subcontractor Cost Narrative, the Government is limiting the number of pages that can be submitted for same. Based on the requirements and what each Offeror and their subcontractor will need to include, limiting the page count, may not allow compliance to the requirements.

Can the Government please remove a page limit so there is no page limit for these two areas?

Page limitations will be removed for Cost Narratives.

10 For the type of work and anticipated value of the contract, can the Government please provide the rationale as to how this award would be considered a best value if past performance of Offerors is based on “a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort” with an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" rating? Furthermore, if an Offeror has neutral or unknown past performance of relevance, how would same qualify an Offeror to compete for a contract with the solicitation requirements and anticipated value?

Specifically, with this variable being included, respectfully, it would seem an adjectival rating system similarly provided in Factors A&B would be more applicable for best value so that Offerors with known past performance are fairly represented, favorably or unfavorably. Furthermore, with the type of Contract proposed, it would also lower the risk to the government with said revised ratings. Can the Government please change past performance from acceptable/unacceptable to Relevancy and Confidence adjectival ratings similarly provided in Factor A & B; several levels of relevancy and

Past Performance evaluation criteria will remain the same (evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis).

confidence assessment based on quality, recency, and relevance (i.e. several levels of relevancy)?

11 Section L requirements for Factor A (Technical Capability) include identification of experience supporting 59 different systems /equipment (listed in PWS paragraph 3.1.1), as well as writing to experience in three complex subfactors and their elements. Section M notes that Factor A will be rated as "significantly more important" than other Factors. Yet, the page count for this highly rated, highly complex Factor is limited to 30 pages. Would the Government consider raising the page count for Factor A to 60 pages to allow for adequate space to provide all of the data required?

Factor A is under review and will be revised. Based on revisions, the Government may increase the page count to 40 pages if deemed necessary. See final RFP for updates.

12 The RFP states that offerors shall “Identify the labor categories for which subcontracting is being proposed and include the subcontractor’s direct labor rates, number of hours proposed for each labor category, fringe benefits, overhead, G&A, fee, etc....” It appears the statement from the previous draft Section L stating that the subcontractors may provide that proprietary information directly to the Contracting Officer has been deleted in this updated Section L. Can the government either replace the deleted statement or provide alternate instructions on how Prime Offerors can provide the required information while still protecting the subcontractor’s proprietary information?

This language will be added into Section L.

13 The RFP states that unless otherwise stated, the formatting requirements outlined apply, but does not exempt SoftDev C1 from the formatting criteria. As the solicitation requests a “previously developed SDP” that was “developed and finalized within five years of the date of this solicitation,” will the government amend the exemption sentence to read “The font style and size requirements are not applicable to Factor C1 (SoftDev C1), eSRS reports, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports and supporting cost data (e.g. DCMA or DCMA correspondence); however, these documents must be legible.”?

Yes, the Government will include previously developed SDPs in the exemption list for formatting requirements.

14 Will the government provide Attachment 2A in advance of the final RFP to allow offerors to adequately prepare for the Technical Approach portion of the proposal?

The SOO has been released with this Q&A document.

15 Sections L and M include changes to solicitation language that narrowly defines relevant prior experience. If left unchanged, this language could significantly restrict competition. The previous draft allowed an “explanation as to why the

The Government is currently reviewing the Factor A requirements, and will potentially change/remove some specific experience experience is relevant as it relates to Navigation systems” and stated, “Offerors shall demonstrate ability and experience with work of similar nature, scope, complexity, and difficulty to that which must be performed under the prospective contract.” The updated draft language requires offerors to “describe the systems and equipment in detail, such that the Government can determine whether the cited experience is similar. For purposes of this evaluation, navigation systems/equipment for United States Navy, United States Coast Guard, Military Sea Lift ship, or comparable foreign military ship are considered similar.” When coupled with sections M’s language that states “Specific only to Subfactors A1 and A2 below, contract references that demonstrate experience with the systems and equipment identified in PWS paragraph 3.1.1, are the most valuable to the Government,” and “The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrates experience with the following subfactors and elements,” the evaluation criteria now unfairly advantage the incumbent.

Many of the listed systems are government-owned afloat navigation systems, and the incumbent is the only offeror who has the in-depth prior experience with these systems that is called for in the revised language. By limiting the evaluation of prior experience to these specific systems, the language denies other offerors the opportunity to demonstrate relevant experience and creates an unlevel playing field. The previous draft language allowed for experience with systems that are similar to Navigation systems. This language facilitated competition because it allowed offerors to provide examples of experience beyond the narrow set of systems to which only the incumbent has had access.

Accordingly, to increase competition, we recommend that the Government consider the following changes:

1) Change the sentence in Section L that states, “For purposes of this evaluation, navigation systems/equipment for United States Navy, United States Coast Guard, Military Sea Lift ship, or comparable foreign military ship are considered similar” to “For purposes of this evaluation, navigation or related electronic or C4ISR systems/equipment for United States Navy, United States Coast Guard, Military Sea Lift ship, or comparable foreign military ship are considered similar.”

2) Remove the sentence from Section M that states “Specific only to Subfactors A1 and A2 below, contract references that demonstrate experience with the systems and equipment identified in PWS paragraph 3.1.1, are the most valuable to the Government,”

3) Change Subfactor A1.1 to allow demonstrated experience on Navigation Suites “or Similar/Equivalent Systems” and A1.3 to requirements. See final RFP for updated language.

allow functionality of geospatial data within Safety of Navigation “or Similar/Equivalent functional complexity?”

4) Since the adjectival ratings for Factor A consider an offeror’s “approach and understanding of the requirements,” allow a 3-5 page Technical Capability introduction that is not tied to specific contract references, but provides an evaluated section where non-incumbent offerors can provide evidence of their understanding of the specific Navigation systems, even if their five contract references do not address all of them.

16 All Labor Category descriptions include language in the Security Clearance section that states, “Has or is able to obtain” either a Secret or Top Secret clearance, except the Program Manager, which states, “Has a TS/SCI clearance.” The SCI requirement is unduly restrictive as it requires the individual to be currently performing on an active contract with SCI requirements. Would the government consider changing the PM requirement to state, “Has a TS clearance and is able to obtain SCI?”

The language will be revised to allow PMs with a TS Clearance who have had SCI eligibility within the last five years to meet requirements.

17 Labor Rate Limitation Notification – please confirm that the fully burdened labor rate per individual of $200/hr. is correct, even though it exceeds the tripwire rate in the latest SPAWAR NOTE 4200, dated 11 July 2017; Service Contracting Performance Metrics.

There is an updated SPAWARNOTE 4200 dated 8 November 2018 that increased the tripwire threshold for fully-burdened labor rates from $182 to $200 per hour.

18 The language in this section was changed to indicate that contractor reporting is only required if the cumulative total cost of ODCs exceeds the awarded total cost of ODCs by 110% of the original ODC. Can the government confirm that percentage is accurate (i.e., the total ODC costs would be more than double the awarded cost before triggering a reporting / justification requirement)?

This will be updated to reflect 10% instead of 110%.

19 Within NIWC LANT, access to Navy ERP is typically limited and restricted to work performed on the Management and Business Analytics Services contract, given the sensitive nature of the information in that system. Please confirm that this contract will require contractors to have access to N-ERP.

Yes, access to specific functionality within N-ERP is required.

20 Regarding the statement in section 8.1.1 - Security Classification, " the contractor shall have a TOP SECRET with Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access facility clearance (FCL)." Is this sentence intended to read as “TS FCL with personnel being able to obtain SCI access” or is this stating that the offeror’s site is required to have a SCIF on site for SCI processing?

This sentence will be revised to state the contractor shall have a TS FCL.

21 In reference to (5) FEE - In the Attachment 6A Prime Pricing Model, the offeror shall identify the proposed fixed fee rate, amount proposed for fixed fee, and the cost elements on which the fixed fee rate is applied. In Section B of the solicitation (specifically CLINs 0001 and 0004), the offeror shall identify this same proposed fixed fee rate and the same cost elements on which the fixed fee rate is applied.”

Given the significant value of ODCs, particularly Materials, per year, would the Government consider allowing the inclusion of Materials in CLINs 0001 and 0004?

No.