Questions and Answers N6600117R0494.pdf

Questions and Answers

11 October 2017

1. L-TXT-38A - SUBMISSION OF ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS--ALERNATE I (JUN

2017) Paragraph (d) has a separate hard copy submission, in addition to uploading onto e-commerce. Do subcontractors have to submit hard copies for their portions of the proposal as well, or does this only apply to the Prime?

Only primes must submit hard copies.

2. The labor categories listed in the RFP, Attachment 4, and Attachment 5 do not match.

Can the government please confirm which labor categories are correct?

RFP Attachment 4 has been amended.

3. Will the government consider extending the due date to 25 October 2017 to allow offerers additional time to respond to the RFP to give contractors additional time once questions are clarified?

RFP due date has been extended.

4. Will this contract support all of Code 56 or will it be limited to Code 564?

The contract may support any work within scope of the Statement of Work regardless of technical code.

5. Attachment 4 Reference: “Total Cost” tab and Section L 2.6 Cost Proposal Format (page

99 of 112) of the RFP- The Government specifies that “The prime’s submission must cover only the prime’s proposed labor categories”, however, this would not give an accurate representation of the prime contractor’s total proposed cost/price. Will the government please change the instructions to read “The prime’s submission must cover the entire contract pricing” and “subcontractor submission must cover only the subcontractor’s proposed categories”?

6. Section L 2.6 Cost Proposal Format (page 99 of 112) of the RFP shows the submission format for cost proposals, however, Attachment 4 “Total Cost” tab does not follow this same format. Will the government amend Attachment 4 to follow the same format as

Attachment L, or specify in the RFP that contractor’s need to submit their own format compliant with Section L?

RFP Attachment 4 and L-TXT-12 para. 2.6 have been amended.

7. Section L. 3.0 Volume III, Technical – Section B Past Performance (Page 103)-There is no subsection “C” (Only A, B, D, and E). Is this an editorial overlook or is the subsection missing?

L-TXT-12, 3.0, Section B, has been amended.

8. Section L, Item 2.3 Estimated Level of Effort and Attachment 5 Desired Personnel

Qualifications contain different Labor Categories than Attachment 4 Rate Sheet. Which is the correct Labor Categories?

9. Attachment 3 WD 04-0047 Rev 14 specifies a pension payment. Would the Government please clarify the requirement for pensions for SCA/Wage Determined positions under this contract vehicle?

For clarification on pension requirements in a Wage Determination, please contact the local Wage and Hours division office in San Diego or review the DOL website at:

https://www.dol.gov/whd/.

10. Reference L-TXT-27, RFP pg. 104 indicates an estimated award date of 1 January 2018.

L.2.3, RFP pg. 97 provides the Estimated Level of Effort by contract years 1 - 5.

Attachment 4 Rate Sheet asks for data by GOV Fiscal Years 2017 - 2022. Given contract years do not synchronize with Government fiscal years, should partial hours be bid in

GFY 2018 and add GFY 2023, or should Attachment 4 be adjusted to read Contract

Years as stated in L.2.3?

11. Attachment 4 - On the Total Cost tab in the Attachment 4 Rate Sheet, what constitutes a

Major Sub (Row A10) and Other sub (Row A13)? Within those categories are the subs to be listed by name only or by name and labor categories?

12. Attachment 4 – Should the RFP stated Material dollars be populated in Row A9 under the

SubTotal$ columns? If not, then where?

13. Reference Section L, 2.4 Other Direct Costs. When adding the amounts provided for each year the Total is off by $1 in both Travel and Material. Will the Government amend the

RFP so the total in each category increases by $1?

https://www.dol.gov/whd/

Section L, 2.4 has been amended.

14. Attachment 4 - Should this be priced using the GFY or should it be priced using the RFP contract year period of performance dates?

15. L.2.3, RFP page 97 directs estimated level of effort by labor category including

Engineering Technician VI (SCA 30086). RFP table on page 56 in clause 52.222-42 identifies SCA labor categories including Engineering Technician IV (SCA 30084) however no hours are allocated to that labor category. Would the Government consider allocating hours to both SCA 30084 and SCA 30086 labor categories?

Clause 52.222-42 has been amended.

16. Section L.2.3, RFP page 97 Level of Effort table direct the Small Boat Operator SCA

47601 occupation code. The WD schedules provided do not list that occupation code.

Please provide the WD schedule for 47601.

RFP L-TXT-12, 2.3 has been amended to change the classification of the Small Boat

Operator. A wage determination is no longer required for that labor category.

17. The font size for graphics is not specifically called out in the RFP. Would the

Government allow an 8-point San Serif font for readability?

Font size for graphics shall be the same as the font size for the proposal Times New roman 10-point.

18. Section L, 3.0 Volume III – Technical, Section C – Software Development Plan (SDP)

Page Limitation - The RFP states that the offeror’s entire Software Development Plan, inclusive of the draft SDP, SDP Rationale, and all descriptions of previous software experience, shall be limited to not more than 50 single-sided pages. The requirement in

Section L, 3.0, Section C pages 103 - 104 that “the level of detail shall be sufficient to define all software development processes, activities, and tasks to be conducted.

Information provided must include, as a minimum, specific standard, methods, tools, actions, strategies, and responsibilities associated with development and qualification”.

Will the Government increase the page allocation for the SDP to 75 single sided pages to add in the required content for the new DID DI-IPSC-81427B?

The Government considers the page count provided sufficient to address the requirements.

19. Attachment 5 Desired Personnel Qualifications - Labor Categories 2 and 3

Engineer/Scientist 1 and 5, Labor Categories 4 and 5 Logistician 1 and 5, and Labor

Categories 6 and 7 Training Specialist 1 and 4 are listed. Would the Government consider using mid-level personnel in addition to junior and senior personnel in these labor categories?

The Government considered a range of labor categories in determining the appropriate labor mix for proposal purposes. The Government considers the labor categories identified in the RFP sufficient for proposal purposes.

20. Section L-TXT-12 – Submission of Proposals (Complex) June 2017, paragraph 2.1 (d)

(2), the Solicitation states that “If subcontractors are proposed, regardless of subcontract type, submit the same detailed level of cost information as for the prime contractor.”

Would the Government be willing to modify this requirement such that subcontractors providing solely commercial items (e.g. small boat operators and divers) are not required to submit supporting price/cost detail for Volume II, in order to ensure commercial items can be utilized to the greatest extent practicable, as required by 41 U.S.C. 3307 and FAR

52.244-6?

The requirement will not be modified; however, if this information is unavailable the Government may rely on information included in the prime’s analysis of the subcontractor’s cost proposal to determine a fair and reasonable price. See L-TXT

12, 2.7 (g)(1).

21. Attachment 5 – Desired Personnel Qualifications, important note #6, the Solicitation states “Security Clearance level for all personnel: "Secret” level clearance; TS/SCI eligible.” However, in Section C – Descriptions and Specifications, Statement of Work paragraph 7, the Solicitation states that “The work performed by the Contractor will include access to unclassified and up to Top Secret/incidental Sensitive Compartmented

Information (SCI) data, information, and spaces. The contractor will be required to provide individuals with security clearances at the appropriate classification levels, as specified in individual task orders.” Could the Government please confirm that the requirement is for personnel to be appropriately cleared to support their work requirement and that not all personnel require a minimum of a “Secret” level clearance?

Section C of the Statement of Work is accurate. Attachment 5 has been amended.

22. Are companies that cannot perform most of the SOW disqualified from consideration?

This procurement is open to any interested bidders; however, a technical evaluation of experience in the areas identified in the RFP will be performed.

23. Can an offeror be considered for award without an approved accounting system?

An adequate accounting system is required for award of any cost-reimbursement type contract (see FAR 16.301-3(a)(3)). A company without an adequate accounting system would be ineligible for award. See RFP Section 2.7(b) for documentation required for accounting system reviews.