GMB C4ISR Questions and Answers.docx

N66001-17-R-0002 Questions and Answers Question pertaining to desired personnel qualifications. For the Technical Writer II SCA position, will a Bachelor’s Degree in English, Journalism, Communications, or a related field be accepted?

The desired personnel qualifications aren’t binding, and are utilized only during the cost analysis.

The requirements of Volume III, Section A represent a significant amount of work for a small business team to perform in a proposal. As small businesses, our engineers are all working full time on the customer's site and we do not have engineers on our overhead and proposal teams. Would the government consider allowing us to provide a sample IDP we have delivered for a similar contract?

The requirement for the sample IDP and SOVT as outlined in the solicitation instructions will remain unchanged.

On page 112, the RFP states: "Note: If Block 1 of the Reference Information Sheet (RFP Attachment 7) includes a proposed team member (i.e., proposed prime or subcontractor), this reference will be considered when evaluating organizational experience, but will not be considered when evaluating past performance."

We are providing a whole-team perspective of our Organizational Experience and including teammates. Because the government is requiring the same references to be used in the Past Performance, and will only evaluate the references of the prime offeror, this narrows the evaluation down to a single past performance. To provide a more representative past performance evaluation of the team that would be performing the work, would the government consider evaluating the past performance of our entire team and not just the prime?

Proposed subcontractor’s past performance will not be considered when evaluating past performance.

The tables on page 100 and 101 indicate a base period and 4 one-year option periods, but item (e)(7) on page 99 indicates a two year base period. Please clarify.

L-317 2.1 (e)(7) has been updated to reflect a one year base period and four one year option periods.

On page 100 of 133, in the Estimated Level of Effort table, the IA Analyst position hours for the base year are 3920, then decrease to 1960 for Option Year 1, and are then increased to 5880 in OY2, 7840 in OY3, and 7840 OY4.

Reviewing the Estimated Level of Effort table - the IA Analyst is the only labor category with a decrease in OY1.

Question: Is this an error and did the government intend to keep the IA Analyst position at 3920 hours for the base and OY 1 and then continue to increase the Level of Effort in OY2, OY3, and OY4?

The estimated level of efforts are correct.

With the 4th of July extended weekend and federal holiday immediately after the closing of questions and the release of answers with possible RFP adjustment, Question: Will the government consider an extension to the RFP deadline by 7 days?

The RFP response period has been extended. See Amendment.

Are responders able to list multiple Task Orders in a single Reference Information Sheet if they were issued under a Single Multi- Award Contract?

No. Block 3 of each Reference Information Sheet may reference multiple task/delivery order numbers under a single contract, but may not contain multiple contract numbers. The RFP L-317 has been clarified accordingly.

Is there an incumbent for this contract?

There is no incumbent for this contract.

Regarding personnel education requirements, can years of experience be utilized in lieu of degrees?

The desired personnel qualifications aren’t binding, and are utilized only during the cost analysis.

Will the government please define what is meant by “Requirements contract” (Section L-2, 52.216-1)?

The FAR defines Requirements Contracts in part 16.503.

Section L-317: 3.0 Volume III, 3.2 Section B (a) – Organizational Experience, page 105 of 113 : RFP states – “Prepare and submit one (1) Organizational Experience Matrix (attachment 6) to explain the breath, depth and relevance of your organization experience.”

Attachment 6 requires the offeror to complete the following matrix to show the breadth, depth and relevance of organizational experience.

Will the government please clarify that the offeror is to only fill out Attachment 6 matrix table (Contract Number, Name of prime or sub, and placing an “X” in applicable SOW column) and this will satisfy the RFP verbiage in 3.2 (a) “explain the breadth, depth, and relevance…” and no further text is required on Attachment 6?

The completion of the matrix on Attachment 6 is the only requirement for that submission. For each reference cited, per L-317 3.2 Section B (b), Offerors are to prepare and submit one Reference Information Sheet (Attachment 7) for each reference.

Due to the complexity of the required technical information would it be possible to extend the due date two weeks? From 7/20/2017 to 8/3/2017

What are the submission requirements for the IDPs and SOVTs for USMC NIPR and SIPR and teleconferencing? What task areas should be covered?

The required submission is a Navy Shore Install Process Handbook (SIPH) and SPAWAR System Operational Verification Test Preparation and Execution Guide (SPEG) compliant IDP and SOVT. The IDP must be fully in accordance with SIPH Development Version 4.0 Appendix Q and incorporate ALL required elements in Appendix Q. The SOVT must include ALL required elements from the SPAWAR SPEG. Discussion of the required submission is in L-317 3.1 Section A.

Will the Government provide a physical workspace for the 10% of personnel required to perform work in Hawaii?

Yes, they will be co-located with Government personnel on Oahu.

Which LCATS will be expected to perform program support in Hawaii - as the RFP identified LCATs do not equate to 10% of expected labor called out in the solicitation?

Labor categories located in Hawaii are explicitly called out in the estimated level of effort table in L-317 2.3.

How many awards does the Government anticipate awarding for this MAC?

This is not a multiple award contract. One requirements type contract awardee will be selected.

For the SCA Categories of Drafter, Technical Writer/Editor, Admin, and Admin (Government Site), are these positions categorized at level I, II, III, or some combination thereof? Does Admin in the context of the RFP equate to Administrative Assistant? Should the Scheduler, Maintenance be considered an SCA LCAT as well?

The SCA labor category levels are explicitly included in 52.222-42.

Should the SCA for locations outside of Hawaii be based on the Government-provided SCA document, or should we use a different SCA WD?

The appropriate wage determination will depend on where the personnel are sited in the proposal, except for the hours allotted to Admin Hawaii Government Site in L-317 2.3.

Can the Govt. please provide the Navy Shore Install Process Handbook and SPAWAR System Operational Verification Test Preparation and Execution Guide (SPEG) compliant Installation Design Plan (IDP) and Platform System Operational Verification Test (SOVT) documents identified in Vol III of the RFP?

These documents will be included as attachments to the solicitation. See Amendment.

Are non-Hawaii personnel going to be located at Contractor or Government Site?

Unless noted as Government Site in L-317 2.3, all categories shall be proposed as contractor site.

SOW 3.0 Technical Support - For the "Note" could you provide more details on how this comment relates to the C4ISR systems being moved from base facilities? I.e. are there other navy funded efforts that this MILCON funded effort will need to interface with?

This solicitation is not for installation or equipment procurement. This solicitation is only for the planning and design phase work.

SOW 3.1.2 meeting - For meeting held on Oahu that the contractor will host, are these on a government site or commercial location such as contractor facility?

This will be determined at the task order level.

SOW 3.2 Technical Engineering Support - Will the contractor be required to provide any system optimization/modifications prior to the movement of the designated C4ISR systems?

SOW 3.2 Technical Engineering Support - Is there a list of the existing C4ISR systems to be moved?

SOW 3.2 Technical Engineering Support - Is there an estimate on which of these systems need optimization?

SOW 3.3 Cybersecurity - Can you provide the certification disposition of the existing systems and list any outstanding security findings?

SOW 3.3 Cybersecurity - Can you provide system disposition in terms of which systems have DICAP vs RMF certification?

RFP-Section B and L.2.1.e - There appears to be a disconnect between the tables in section B and the period of performance referenced in Section L. Can the Government please confirm whether the period of performance is a one-year base with four one-year options or if it is a two-year base with three one-year options?

L-317 2.1 (e)(7) has been updated to reflect a one year base period and four one year option periods.

RFP-L.2.1.d.2 - In light of the inclusion of FAR clause 52.244-6 Subcontracts for Commercial Items, could the Government please clarify if commercial item subcontractors are not required to provide the same level of detail required of the prime contractor?

There are no commercial items that fall within FAR 52.244-6 to be proposed at the contract level.

RFP-L.2.7.b - Could the Government please confirm that FFP and T&M subcontractors do not need to provide details pertaining to accounting system adequacy?

Confirmed.

RFP-L.2.7.d - Could the Government please confirm that any indirect cost rate history available by the offeror shall suffice if an offeror has less than three years of indirect rate history available?

Offerors shall submit as many years of indirect rate history available up to three years prior, as well as a detailed explanation.

Given the level of effort required to develop the IDP and SOVT, and the fact that this proposal requirement was not identified in the draft solicitation, we kindly request a two week extension. We also request that the Government consider expediting the response to this extension request so that we can plan our extensive proposal efforts accordingly. We recognize that the Government needs time to respond thoughtfully to all questions, but knowing the answer to this question ahead of the responses to other technical questions is of benefit to all competitors in their proposal planning efforts, as some may view the current deadline as the only reason for a no-bid decision.

L-317 refers to paragraph 3.0 regarding page limitations on Volume III, but paragraph 3.0 does not mention a page limit. If there is going to be a page limitation imposed, what is the page limit on Volume III?

L-317 3.2(b) includes page limitations for the Reference Information Sheet.

Section L, 2.1.e.7 - Can the Government please clarify the language around base and option years? The current wording says “The cost breakdown shall indicate the offeror’s total proposed price for each year, the cumulative price for the two-year base period the cumulative proposed price for the three-year option period, and the cumulative proposed price for all five years.” The CLIN structure established on pages 2-6 and the Estimated Level of Effort table provided on page 100 do not align with the two-year base period or the three-year option, but rather both indicate a one-year base and four one-year options. Which is the desired structure for the purposes of our cost proposal?

L-317 2.1 (e)(7) has been updated to reflect a one year base period and four one year option periods.

Attachment 4 - Given the education requirements associated with the Tech Writer, will the Government consider removing the SCA requirement for that labor category?

No changes will be made.

Attachment 5 - Can the Government please correlate "Table 2-1 Systems by Room" locations to room numbers?

A table has been added to the BESEP (Attachment 5).

Attachment 5 - Can the Government please provide descriptions of the legends on first floor and second floor telecom plans that were provided?

The BESEP (Attachment 5) will be updated with the legends in a future Amendment.

L.3.2 and L.3.3 - Does the offeror need to write separate Past Performance Information for Section B and Section C?

L-317 details explicit instructions for submissions for both organizational experience (Section B) and past performance (Section C).

M.4 - In Section M.4 it says that the purpose of this evaluation will be “to assess the degree to which the cost/price proposal reflects the approaches and/or risk assessments made in the proposal as well as the risk that the offeror will provide the supplies or services for the offered prices/cost.” Does the government require the offeror to include risk assessments in any sections of the proposal?

No. This statement is in reference to a cost realism analysis that will be conducted during evaluation.

L.2.7.f - It mentions under Corporate Cost Information (section L.2.7), letter f that the offeror should submit:

“A summary of the offeror’s:

(1) Organization;

(2) Production control procedures;

(3) Property control system;

(4) Quality assurance programs; and

(5) Equipment and facilities relative to this effort.”

Are these summaries supposed to focus primarily on their relation to the price/cost? Or should these be general summaries?

General summaries.

What are the room numbers for all the AV and VTC area’s. Some of the areas are listed As “N6 office#2, please elaborate.

A table has been added to the BESEP (Attachment 5).

In reference to the the (3) Multi-purpose rooms 205a thru 205C … are there any other AV considerations other than VTC? For example do we need to design and install for display (AV presentations) content other than VTC? Paragraph 3.5.5.2 mentions AV and VTC but table 2-1 refers to VTC only.

All VTC systems should also have AV presentation capabilities

Is the AV/VCT contractor responsible for supplying and installing the Acoustical treatments and leak requirements in 3.2.1-b,d,e,f?

Offerors do not need to address this.

In the (3) Multi purpose rooms what is the desired screen size? This will be needed to determine the throw lenses for the projectors.

Offerors should determine a screen size adequate for the room size

In the Multi-purpose rooms it appears there are windows, do we need motorized window treatments automated into the lighting system described in 3.5.5.2?

No. Blackout curtains will be used to cover the windows

In all the VTC rooms what CODEC is needed? If the codec is being used to communicate with remote locations, please specify the other locations current systems. For example if the remote locations have Cisco SX-20 CODECS than we can specify the same type of VTC system for ease of use and simple integration of communicating with the remote facilities.

NIPR VTC should use ISDN, SIPR VTC should be IP. There is no restriction on CODEC make/model.

Is the AV contractor for rooms with lighting control integration, supplying the dimmable ballast for the Fluorescent loads?

Offerors do not need to address this.

What display sizes and types are requested the areas other than the multi-purpose rooms? Rooms that size typically get 50-60” side lit led displays. If so than are there any requirements for wall mounted inputs? For example do they require HDMI, Display port, VGA with audio? Also does customer require speakers for these AV Rooms?

Offerors should determine a display size adequate for the room size. No requirement for input requirements specifically for the screen (users should be able to connect laptop/PC to AV system). Speakers should be provided for AV rooms.

Who is developing the lighting schedule for the AV/VTC rooms that need lighting integrated. If there is an existin schedule can we get a copy to determine load type and supply voltages?

Offerors do not need to address this, per the assumptions.

In regards to question 2 is there any requirements in the AV presentations for the viewing audience to be able to input multimedia to the screens, IE Crestron Air media or hardwired inputs?

Yes, users should be able to connect a laptop/PC to the AV system (via HDMI and DVI) and display content.

IS 207B the AV headend location for the AV racks? Do the AV racks need UPS protection? Typically we provide 3000VA protection in each rack.

Headend will be located in 205B

Do all the AV/VTC rooms need scheduling software like Crestron Room View?

No

The Government has only provided SCA Wage Determinations for Hawaii. Will the Government provide specific SCA Wage Determinations for the other allowed locations / states of performance?

The appropriate wage determination will depend on where the personnel are sited in the proposal, except for the hours allotted to Admin Hawaii Government Site in L-317 2.3.

Does the Government have a preferred Cost Summary Format / Template? A preferred format was mentioned in the RFP, but was not provided.

There is no specific required format or template, but cost proposals shall adhere to all requirements of L-317 2.0, to include the Cost Proposal Format instructions in L-317 2.6.

May the Government please clarify if the cost breakdown should assume 2 base periods and 3 option years or only 1 base period and 4 option years?

L-317 2.1 (e)(7) has been updated to reflect a one year base period and four one year option periods.

Would the government please confirm the following understanding for Attachment 5 BESEP, Table 2-1 Systems by Room. The NIPR and SIPR columns are MCEN workstations only when the corresponding Systems column is blank. When the Systems column has a listed system, the NIPR and SIPR columns are only that listed system and not MCEN workstations. All Printers are NIPR.

NIPR and SIPR columns represent MCEN workstations regardless of what the Systems column has listed. For example, Multi-purpose Room #1 would have one NIPR MCEN workstation and the unclassified VTC system.

Is the government able to provide any clarifying or supplemental information to meet all SIPH Appendix Q Section 6 criteria? Drawing Type Code 020 details are not publicly available and placement of a hypothetical MILCON P-XYZ is not feasible. Similarly, the total number of racks and required heights to incorporate other elements of the MILCON across other components outside of the C4ISR/IT systems listed are not provided. Without an associated site survey, the ability to place engineered HVAC systems and vents; insert power distribution and panels with specific ampere capacity; lighting and multiple other IDP elements is also not feasible. Was it the government’s intent to focus directly on the relevant C4ISR/IT system components and their direct impacts? And subsequently, should responses incorporate assumptions on page 30 of the BESEP as a declaration that all other basic infrastructure components down to the conduits/cable trays, rack PDUs/grounding, and lighting/VTC equipment placement are not part of the evaluation process?

The Navy SIPH Appendix Q has all required information and elements for an IDP and SOVT. The assumptions state “all racks and equipment shall have sufficient power and cooling provided by the Government”. For Drawing Type Code 020, Offerors were instructed in BESEP assumptions to use hypothetical figures if actuals weren’t available. Responses should incorporate assumptions on page 30, and basic infrastructure components down to the conduits/cable trays, rack PDUs/grounding, and lighting/VTC equipment placement are not part of the evaluation process. The assumptions provided in the BESEP allow Offerors freedom to focus on producing SIPH and SPEG compliant documents which is the emphasis of this exercise.

Please confirm it is acceptable to change and add to the cost proposal/rate sheet (Excel file) in order to include the required price buildup within the Excel file to be submitted as a part of the Cost Proposal.

The Rate Sheet (Attachment 3) shall be completed in the format that was provided to Offerors and is a stand-alone document. Offerors shall respond with a cost proposal that adheres to the instructions in L-317.

With reference to the RFP, page 102-104, 2.7 Corporate Cost Information: Please confirm that 2.7 (a)-(d) is required for each team member, and (e)-(h) is required only once at the prime offeror level.

These items are required for prime and subcontractor levels.

Request clarification of the AV/VTC systems as outlined in BESEP Table 2-1, Section 2.1.2 and supporting documents.

1. How many full UNCLASS VTC systems are expected?

One, for multi-purpose room #2, but viewable from multi-purpose room #1 and #3

2. Paragraph 3.6 appears to conflict with Paragraph 2.1.3 and 3.2.1. Is 3.6.d a view only system?

2.1.3 is the correct description, 3.2.1 is incorrect. The BESEP (Attachment 5) has been updated.

3. Is there another full dux CLASSIFIED VTC required, such as in the Command Conference Room 221B? See 3.6.d below.

No, see correct 3.6.a-d. The BESEP (Attachment 5) has been updated.

2.1.3: Audiovisual/Video Teleconferencing (AV/VTC) The comm/elec facility will house three (3) multi-purpose training rooms that will be used to hold briefs and video teleconferences. There will be an AV system in each multi-purpose room and all rooms shall be able to be combined to accommodate larger audiences but also be able to be operated independently. The middle multi-purpose room, in addition to the AV system, shall also have a VTC system capable of holding VTCs at the unclassified level. The two outer rooms should also be able to view and listen to VTCs operated in the middle room but the outer rooms do not need to be able to participate in the VTCs. The Tenants also have a secure VTC conference room in the comm/elec facility that will have a classified AV/VTC system. This system will facilitate briefs and VTCs at the secret level.

3.2.1 AV/VTC Spaces (this agrees with TABLE 2-1)

The three (3) multi-purpose rooms will each contain an unclassified AV/VTC system and shall have the capability to be combined to host large briefs and VTCs, but also be able to operate independently when not combined.

3.6 Visual and Video Teleconferencing

AV rooms may be equipped with flat panel displays, video teleconferencing equipment, sound equipment, and video sources such as computers, VCRs, and DVDs. As such, the equipment will require power and connectivity to the network and other video sources. The MILCON shall be responsible for installing all dedicated empty outlets, floor boxes, pathways, and conduit systems as well as power within the AV rooms and from the AV rooms to external termination points. AV/VTC requirements have been identified for:

a. Multi-purpose room #1 (Unclassified AV/view-only VTC)

b. Multi-purpose room #2 (Unclassified AV/VTC)

c. Multi-purpose room #3 (Unclassified AV/VTC)

d. SIPR room (classified AV/view-only VTC) See Section 3.2.1 for additional architectural AV/VTC requirements.

This has been corrected in the BESEP (Attachment 5) to:

a. Multi-purpose room #1 (Unclassified AV/view-only VTC)

b. Multi-purpose room #2 (Unclassified AV/VTC)

c. Multi-purpose room #3 (Unclassified AV/ view-only VTC)

d. SIPR room (classified AV/ VTC)

Is one incumbent currently performing all of the scope associated with this RFP, or is this a consolidation of multiple contracts with different incumbents performing different segments of the total work? Can the government please identify all of the incumbent(s) and contract number(s) associated with this effort?

There is no incumbent for this work.

The FBO and SPAWAR portals both currently identify the Final RFP as a Total Small Business (SB) Set-Aside, but the actual RFP documents do not specify a Small Business Set-Aside and include FAR references regarding Small Business Utilization. Can the government please confirm if this is a Full & Open or a SB set-aside procurement?

The solicitation included FAR 52.219-6 denoting a total small business set-aside.

Since the pre-RFP indicated a Total Small Business Set-Aside, but the Final RFP appears to be a Full & Open competition now, can the government please provide the rationale for the apparent change in the acquisition strategy?

The solicitation included FAR 52.219-6 denoting a total small business set-aside.

With the designation as a Total Small Business Set-Aside in the pre-RFP, it appeared that an adequate amount of responses from Small Businesses demonstrated the ability to perform the technical requirements established in the Sources Sought. Given that one of the major changes between pre-RFP and Final RFP is the evaluation of very detailed technical knowledge of very specific systems (e.g. MCEN in Section L, Submission of Proposals, Section 3.1, and Section M, Evaluation Factors, Section 2.1), was that one of the driving forces that led to the change from a Total Small Business Set-Aside to a Full & Open procurement? Can the government please provide the rationale they used to evaluate and include new technical requirements between Pre-RFP and RFP from the responses to the Sources Sought?

There was no draft RFP for this solicitation. The solicitation included FAR 52.219-6 denoting a total small business set-aside.

Section L, Submission of Proposals, Section 3.1 and Section M, Evaluation Factors, Section 2.1, Step Two require very detailed technical knowledge of very specific systems (the MCEN). Is it the government's intent to only target a certain segment of industry who possess that knowledge rather than businesses at-large that have the general expertise and past performance to perform the technical requirements in the PWS?

The technical requirements require specific knowledge of Navy Shore Installation Process Handbook compliant C4ISR planning and design.

Will the government please provide a template containing all of the "evaluated required elements" for the IDP and SOVT noted in Section M, Evaluation Factors, Section 2.1, Step Two, so that offerors are clear on precisely what is needed to meet the 96% threshold for acceptability?

Per the solicitation L-319, the IDP and SOVT need to be fully compliant with all required elements for these documents outlined in the Navy Shore Installation Process Handbook Appendix Q and SPAWAR System Operational Verification Test Preparation and Execution Guide (SPEG) pertinent to a NIPR, SIPR and Audio-Visual/Video Teleconferencing systems. Providing a template containing all of the “evaluated required elements” would render this exercise meaningless for evaluation purposes.

Can the Government please confirm the anticipated award date or timeframe?

Per the solicitation in L-335, estimated effective award date is 1 October 2017.

Can the Government please confirm the period of performance?

The period of performance is a one year base period, and four one year option periods.

Due to the requirements of providing an IDP and SOVT as a part of the proposal, would the government please consider allowing a 30-day extension to the current proposal deadline to ensure contractors are provided adequate time to finalize a design?

The RFP response period has been extended. See Amendment. It is the Government’s intent not to extend the solicitation further.

Section L.1.g states “Statement asserting that the offeror’s facilities utilized as a place of performance shall be physically located in Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, Marianas Islands, or American Samoa.” If the Contractor has a headquarters facility in one of the RFP-stipulated locations that it intends to use in performance of the contract, could the Contractor utilize some personnel in a non-listed location in addition to the headquarters facility?

All performers on this contract shall be located in Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, Marianas Islands, or American Samoa. Non-listed locations are not acceptable as a place of performance on this contract.

Will the Government be willing to allow for telework of contractor personnel at facilities and locations outside of those listed, if necessary accommodations can be made for the Hawaii time zone difference?

All performers on this contract shall be located in Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, Marianas Islands, or American Samoa. Non-listed locations are not acceptable as a place of performance on this contract, to include telework.

Section L.2.4.a states “…these [ODC] amounts do not include any provision for G&A expense or other loading factors. Offerors shall not propose fee on ODCs or on any indirect costs that are applied to ODCs.”

These statements seem to simultaneously imply that indirect rate loading factors are not allowable and that indirect rate loading factors are allowable (just without fee applied). Please confirm that the application of indirect rate loading factors (a.k.a., burdens) to ODCs is allowable.

Indirect loading factors for ODCs is allowable. Offerors shall not propose fee on ODCs, nor on any of the indirect cost factors applied to the ODCS.

Section L.2.4.b states “For the ODC CLINs, offerors shall propose amounts that are the sum of the Government stated amount and any indirect cost applied to the Government stated amount.” Using the Base Period “Total” amount of $165,000 as the example, if the Offeror estimates $15,000 of respective indirect burdens (e.g., a combination of MH+G&A), then the proposed amount for the Base Period should be $180,000 (i.e., $160,000 Travel + $5,000 Material +$15,000 MH+G&A = $180,000)? Is this the correct interpretation?

Yes.

Section L.3.1.a states “Offerors shall submit a Navy Shore Install Process Handbook and SPAWAR System Operational Verification Test Preparation and Execution Guide (SPEG) compliant Installation Design Plan (IDP) and Platform System Operational Verification Test (SOVT).”In order to ensure offeror’s are providing a compliant design, can the government please indicate where the SPAWAR System Operational Verification Test Preparation and Execution Guide (SPEG) can be located, or provide a copy of this document?

The Navy Shore Installation Process Handbook and SPAWAR System Operational Verification Test Preparation and Execution Guide is being provided as an attachment to the solicitation.

Please confirm that as this solicitation is set-aside for Small Business, that a Small Business Plan is not required for submission and will not be part of the evaluation criteria.

The solicitation included FAR 52.219-6 denoting a total small business set-aside. A Small Business Plan is not required for submission.

Can the Government please make available the CAD files for any drawings and diagrams provided in this Attachment?

CAD files are not available. The Government believes the IDP and SOVT can be completed with all Materials provided with the solicitation.

Can the Government clarify whether the "necessary test equipment, fixtures, materials, spare parts, and related equipment required to perform all tasks under this contract as stated in an individual delivery/task order" and "commercial-off-the-shelf items, as specified in individual task/delivery orders" which the contractor may be required to procure are reimbursable items?

Can the Government clarify whether this clause is to provide preferential treatment to local hires?

If so, does this apply to all potential work locations, or only specific ones (e.g., OCONUS)?

There was no intent other than to include a required clause.

Will the Government allow subcontractors to submit sealed rates separately to the Government?

Yes.