N66001-17-R-0128 Q and A.docx

N66001-17-R-0128 Questions & Answers

1. The current RFP shows as Draft. May we assume this was an admin error and that this is the final RFP?

Administrative error that has been corrected to remove ‘DRAFT’ watermark.

2. May we add a table of contents and acronym list that will not be a part of the page count of tech volume and SDP? We believe this will make it easier for the government to read our organizational approach.

Yes.

3. Is there a minimum or maximum Font or required Font Style?

See L-317, second paragraph.

4. Section 5252.216-9218 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES (JUL 1989) states “The combined/overall ceiling for all awardees under this Multiple Award Contract is $***DETERMINED AT TIME OF AWARD***; however, no MAC awardee can exceed the value of its contract maximum quantity.

And Section L 52.216-27 SINGLE OR MULTIPLE AWARDS States:

“The Government may elect to award a single delivery order contract or task order contract or to award multiple delivery order contracts or task order contracts for the same or similar supplies or services to two or more sources under this solicitation”

Can the government confirm that it is their intent to award multiple contracts under this solicitation?

The decision to award multiple awards or a single award will depend on the evaluation of submitted proposals.

5. REF SECTION L, PARA 3.0 VOLUME III, 3.1 SECTION A – PAST PERFORMANCE -

RFP states that “references submitted under 3.5 will be evaluated” regarding Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, Utilization of Small Business and Regulatory Compliance. These data are normally identified in CPARs/PPIRs or a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). Based on these instructions, it appears there is no required additional information required to respond to Section A – rather, it will be reviewed as part of 3.5 Organizational Experience. Can the government confirm that there is no additional material required to respond to section A beyond CPARs/PPIRs or PPQs?

As stated in the paragraph referenced above:” If Block 1of the Reference Information Sheet 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.”

Furthermore, “The Government will evaluate your performance data since 1 March 2012 provided by offerors, and obtained from other sources….” And as stated in part (d) of the above referenced section, “The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the offeror.”

6. Request an extension on the proposal submission for the subject solicitation. We would like to request a two week extension to May 11, 2017.

Granted and reflected in amendment 0001.

7. L-317, Section 2.0, Volume II, Para 2.1.(d), page 96 of 113

This para states that subcontractors are to submit the same detailed cost information as the prime. In Para 2.1 (a), it is stated that individual names (if known) are to be identified and that average or composite rates are not to be submitted for named individuals. If a subcontractor is being proposed on a Time and Materials (T&M) basis and there are known names of individuals comprising the rate, is it the government’s expectation that the proposed T&M rates will not be composite but rather a unique rate per named individual?

Yes.

8. Offeror's Volume I, Secion 1.0, page 94 of 113

This section requires completed Standard Form (SF) 33. The SF33 currently has a watermark with the word “DRAFT” incorporated. Will the Government provide a revised SF33 without the watermark for use in Volume 1 of the proposal submission?

See response under question #1.

9. L-317, Volume III, Section 3.3, page 102 of 113

Section L-317 states “Prepare and submit one copy of Attachment 5 “Small Business Commitment Sheet” to identify all small business concerns proposed for contract performance, whether as prime contractors or subcontractors. Offerors shall also identify in the matrix the extent to which each identified business will be participating, as a percentage of the total value of the acquisition.” However, the instruction on Attachment 5 states “Prepare and submit one copy of this attachment to identify the extent of participation of specific small business concerns, whether as prime or subcontractors, in terms of the dollar value of the total acquisition.” Since dollar values constitutes cost and pricing data, will the Government please confirm that the dollar values are not to be included on Attachment 5?

Dollar values proposed are to be included in attachment 5 along with % of total acquisition value as outlined in the attachment.

10. L-317, Introduction, page 94 of 113

This sections states "The type used shall be no smaller than Times New Roman, 10-point." Please verify that this limitation applies to the text and charts and does not apply to graphics.

Correct.

11. Would the Government allow offerors to change the header/footer on all RFP Attachments?

No. Please maintain current headers/footers.

12. Would the Government confirm that in Section L.3.4.1, first paragraph, the “associated processes listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS)” are referring to PWS 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, and 4.0?

As stated in the above mentioned section: “Demonstrate your knowledge of the strategic enterprise communications, messaging, and networks systems and the associated processes listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS)…”. This includes any section of the PWS that encompasses the aforementioned demonstration of knowledge and is not limited to any specific section of the PWS.

13. Based on our evaluation of the PWS, we believe to adequately demonstrate our knowledge of the technical requirements we would require information that is UNCLASSIFIED//For Official Use Only or UNCLASSIFIED//SENSITIVE. Is it acceptable to submit U//FOUO or U//SENSITIVE data to the SPAWAR E-CC website as part of the proposal response?

Yes, submission through the SPAWAR eCommerce site is acceptable for the level of classification referenced.

14. Based on the breadth of the project scope across multiple Federal Agencies and Services, would the Government consider allowing Offerors to submit an additional Past Performance and Organizational Experience reference (for a total of four)?

No

15. Would the Government confirm that the SDP Rationale (Section L.3.2, paragraph 2), Description of previous experience in developing software of the same nature (Section L.3.2, paragraph 3), and Description of previous experience in developing software using the same/similar process (Section L.3.2, paragraph 4) are to be submitted in addition to the draft SDP, and therefore are not included in the 75 page-count?

The requirements referenced above do not count towards the 75 page limit for the SDP; they are in addition to.

16. Ref: Section L 2.0 Volume II Price/Cost Information; Attachment 2 Ratesheet Referenced section L requires pricing information for Direct Labor, Fringe, Overhead, G&A; Attachment 2 only requires Direct Labor and Fringe to be recorded. Does the government want to see Overhead and G&A in the Attachment 2 spreadsheet? If so, will the government issue a new spreadsheet model?

The information required in attachment 2 is accurate. OH, G&A, etc. shall be provided in the Cost Proposal portion as outlined in L-317, 2.0 Volume II.

17. Is there a requirement for offerors to justify any proposed costs that exceed standard SPAWAR tripwires for labor rates or ODCs?

Not at this time.