N66001-18-R-0177Q&ANo2.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) N66001‐18‐R‐0177

SSC Pacific Administrative Support Services

Questions and Answers (Q & A) Set #2:

Q1: On Page 74 of 82 of the RFP, Section(d): “In Block 5 of each Reference Information Sheet, the contractor must state the start date of only the work referenced, rather than the period of performance start date for the referenced contract. The date in Block 5 can be no earlier than 1 January 2013. All of the work described in the summary description (i.e., the three pages attached to the Reference

Information Sheet) must have been performed on or after 1 January 2013.

a) Does this mean that if we had a project start on 10/1/2008 and ended on 9/30/2013, it would not be valid due to the fact that it started before 1/1/2013?

b) Does this mean that if we had a project start on 2/1/2013 and end on 3/1/2013, it would be valid past performance?

A1: Please see Section M of the solicitation for the Government’s evaluation methodology. Per L‐TXT‐ 12 paragraph 3.1(d): “In Block 5 of each Reference Information Sheet, the contractor must state the start date of only the work referenced, rather than the period of performance start date for the referenced contract.”

Q2: See Page 9 of 82; Section 3.3.2 Classified Material Control: “Contractor shall control, track, and process for disposition all secret/top secret documents and material…”

See Page 13 of 82; Section 7.0 Security: “work performed by contractor will include access to unclassified up to SECRET data, information, meetings, and spaces.” Question: Is clearance for SOW task

3.3.2 Top Secret v. Secret?

A2: Secret

Q3: See Attachment 5 Reference Information Sheet: “14c. Attach a copy of your most recently submitted ISR.” Question: Are ISRs included in the page count?

A3: No.

Q4: See Page 74 of 82, Subsection (d) “All of the work described in the summary description (i.e., the three pages attached to the Reference Information Sheet) must have been performed on or after 1 January 2013”. If any part of a reference contract was performed prior to 1 January 2013, would the reference be non‐compliant?

A4: Per L‐TXT‐12 paragraph 3.1(d): “In Block 5 of each Reference Information Sheet, the contractor must state the start date of only the work referenced, rather than the period of performance start date for the referenced contract.” Please see Section M of the solicitation for the Government’s evaluation methodology.

Q5: SCA Rates‐with a majority of the labor being SCA rates and where the escalation to SCA rate for future years is unknown, should no escalation be priced on these rates for the entire six year period?

A5: The Government will be performing a cost realism analysis in accordance with provision M‐TXT‐

06. Realistic costs should be proposed for all years.

Q6: Section 2.6—does the government intend on providing a pricing template to address all items listed?

A6: No.

Q7: What is the anticipated ceiling value for this contract?

A7: Provision L‐TXT‐12 provides an estimated level of effort. Ceiling values will be established at contract award.

Q8: When does the government anticipate completing its evaluation and notifying respondents of its recommended awardee(s)?

A8: To be decided.

Q9: Reference 3.2 Past Performance, pp. 74–75. The RFP notes that Past Performance Questionnaires should be sent directly to ian.robinson1@navy.mil. However, the PPQs list a different contact to send to:

raushanah.pendleton@navy.mil. Please confirm to whom PPQs should be sent.

A9: Send PPQs to ian.robinson1@navy.mil. Please see Amendment 0002 for correction to the PPQ form.

Q10: Reference 3.1 Organizational Experience, pg. 73. The RFP notes six key areas within the SOW that respondents are to “explain the breadth, depth and relevance of [their] organizational experience on Government contracts since 1 January 2013.” Are respondents also required to address in Volume III the other 20 areas of support laid out in the Statement of Work (Section 3.0 Technical Requirements)? Or does the government require only experience descriptions for the noted key areas?

A10: Only organizational experience from the key areas per provision L‐TXT‐12.

Q11: Reference 3.0 Technical Requirements, pp. 8–12. Is the full scope of support for each area in the Statement of Work expected to be fulfilled by only the seven Labor Categories provided on Page 69?

A11: Yes.

Q12: Reference 3.0 Technical Requirements, pp. 8–12. A number of the SOW descriptions indicate the contractor shall “manage” or “oversee” an area of support. When task orders are issued for these areas, will Key Personnel be requested to take on these management and oversight duties? If so, how will pricing for these Key Personnel be handled if not in the RFP?

A12: Per provision L‐TXT‐12, individual task orders may include key personnel and resume requirements. This is a multiple award contract (MAC). Solicitation clause C‐TXT‐05B DELIVERY/TASK ORDER PROCEDURES (JUN 2017)—ALTERNATE II describes how task orders will be evaluated.

Q13: Reference 3.1 Organizational Experience, pg. 73. Is the reference requirement of “Government contracts since 1 January 2013” limited only to federal experience? Or can state/local government references be provided?

A13: Federal, state, or local Government references can be provided.

Q14: Reference 2.0 Volume II – Price/Cost Information, pg. 67. “In preparing the cost proposal, it is required that the offeror breakout and identify separately for each year of the contract (with the first year period beginning on the estimated award date set forth in L‐TXT‐27) and on a cumulative basis for all six years”. While the above appears to note pricing should be broken out separately for each year, the instructions provided in Attachment 2 indicate several times to provide a labor rate “for the first year only.” Please clarify.

A14: Offerors shall propose in accordance with section L. Attachment 2 shall be filled out in accordance with the instructions included in Attachment 2 and provision L‐TXT‐12 paragraph 2.1(e)(6).

Q15: Reference Attachment 4 – Organizational Experience Matrix. The matrix does not appear to include a column for listing the names of the government references provided. Does the government want respondents to include only the contract number for each reference, as presently presented? Or should the client name be included?

A15: Provide only the contract number for each reference as presently presented. Please see provision L‐TXT‐12 paragraph 3.2 Past Performance for guidance on Government references.

Q16: Attachment 4 – Organizational Experience Matrix. There are six “key areas” listed but a maximum of four references allowed. Will respondents be adversely affected if all six areas cannot be matched to the four‐reference limit? Some may have experience in all areas, for instance, but not within the same contracts. Please advise.

A16: The evaluation methodology is sufficiently covered in Section M. Specifically, see provision M‐ TXT‐06(f)(1.2). Provision L‐TXT‐12 paragraph 3.0 also sufficiently addresses the submission requirements for this question.

Q17: 3.0 Volume III – Written Capability Information. Nowhere in the Volume III requirements are respondents asked to provide a general summary of their capabilities/resources/history. Does the government expect respondents to provide a general company/team overview? If so, what should be included in such and in which section?

A17: No

Q18: 3.1 Organizational Experience, pg. 73. Many of the “key areas” appear to involve scopes that go beyond placing General Clerks, Administrative Assistants, and Business Systems Analysts, which are the only positions respondents are asked to price. Will government references that involve the placement of those labor categories in relevant “key area” environments be deemed relevant by the government? Or must references meet the full SOW scopes described?

A18: The evaluation methodology is sufficiently covered in Section M. Specifically, see provision M‐ TXT‐06(f)(1.2). Provision L‐TXT‐12 paragraph 3.0 also sufficiently addresses the submission requirements for this question.

Q19: Reference 3.1 Organizational Experience, pg. 73. While the Statement of Work (3.0 Technical

Requirements) does not appear to prioritize any of the potential areas of support, Section 3.1 of the submission instructions specifically pulls out six departments as “key areas”. Why does the government consider these “key areas” relative to the others laid out in the SOW?

A19: Historically, these areas required more specialized experience and are therefore integral to being able to evaluate the technical capabilities/experience of the offerors.

Q20: Reference Amendment 1, Page 7 of 11, Section 2.6 ‐ Does the Government have a preferred pricing template in excel format for contractors to include with their submission?

A20: No.

Q21: Reference Attachment 2 – Rate Sheet: Are changes to the provided columns permitted?

Specifically, are we able to add additional columns such as G&A, Overhead and fee?

A21: No, do not add columns for G&A, Overhead, or fee in Attachment 2; this is not the purpose of Attachment 2. Offerors’ costs proposal submission shall be submitted in accordance with Section L.

Q22: Reference: RFP Section L‐TXT‐12, 3.1 Organizational Experience: (a) Prepare and submit one (1) Organizational Experience Matrix (Attachment 4) to explain the breadth, depth and relevance of your organizational experience on Government contracts since 1 January 2013 in the following Statement of Work (SOW) key areas: SOW 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.5, 3.3.7, 3.4.2, and 3.4.3.

Reference: RFP Section M‐TXT‐06 Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award (f) 1.2.1.

Question: Will offerors be rated higher if organizational experience is presented in other SOW areas as well? i.e. if the contract used in the Attachment 4 includes work in 3.3.6 will the offeror be evaluated higher for presenting this experience in non‐key areas?

A22: No.