C2.1_N6600119R0001_Draft_RFP_Q&As.pdf

Questions and Answers for Draft RFP N6600119R0001 - Integration, Engineering and Support for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) and Shore Platforms

1. What is the total ceiling value of this MAC IDIQ?

Answer: The total estimated ceiling value of this MAC IDIQ is $249,033,405.

2. How many awards do you anticipate will be made?

Answer: As indicated in Section M-06, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD (BEST VALUE), “contracts will be awarded to all qualifying offeror(s) that provide an acceptable Offer; are determined to be a responsible source; submit a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the Contracting Officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.”

3. When is the anticipated start date of the contract?

Answer: See RFP L-27.

4. In Attachment 8 – SOW Addendum, Key Personnel: What are the qualification requirements for the six key personnel listed?

Answer: The six key personnel listed in Attachment 8 – SOW Addendum have been removed.

If applicable, the qualifications of individual key personnel will be identified for specific task order requirements.

5. According to the SOW, security clearance up to TS/SCI is required. Will HCS & G compartment clearance be issued with TS/SCI?

Answer: The Government does not anticipate that Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Control System (HCS) and Gamma (G) compartment clearance will be required at this time. If required, this may be identified at the task order level.

6. Ref; Attachment 2, Organizational Experience Matrix 1). Program Management Support & Engineering and Integration Services in Support of Naval C4ISR Ship, Shore and MILCON Installation.

Question: Does this reference have to include all three areas, Ship, Shore and MILCON installations? Or can it include one or more of the three areas Ship, Shore OR MILCON installations?

Answer: In accordance with RFP M-06, “Relevance may include, but is not limited to, similarity to work contemplated under the RFP with respect to complexity, length of performance, number of tasks, scope, type of work, and value….For evaluation purposes, ratings may be maximized for offerors who, in accordance with provision L-12, cited organizational experience references that collectively demonstrate maximum breadth and depth of relevant experience in the Key Areas.”

7. Ref: PWS Section 2.3 Guidance Documents – Question/Comment: Should ANSI/TIA 607-C Generic Telecommunications Bonding and Grounding (Earthing) for Customer Premises be included?

Answer: In accordance with the SOW Section 2.3, “additional applicable documents may be included in specific task orders.”

8. On page 90 of the draft solicitation, it states that questions are due on 30 August. On page 98 of the draft solicitation, it states that questions are due by 9 August. Which is correct?

Answer: The submission deadline for questions under the draft RFP was clarified with an update to the pre-solicitation synopsis on 19 August 2019. This update stated, “notwithstanding the deadline for questions as identified on page 90 (30 August 2019) and page 98 (09 August 2019) of the draft solicitation (N6600119R0001) all questions related to the subject draft solicitation shall be received NLT Wednesday, 21 August 2019.”

The deadline for questions regarding the Final RFP will be stated in the Final RFP.

9. What are the C4ISR Systems that are included in this effort?

Answer: The SOW includes the general descriptions of the C4ISR Systems. Known current examples include Joint Perimeter Surveillance Command and Control (JPSC2) and Access Control Enforcer (ACE). However, any systems within the scope of the SOW may be supported with future task orders.

10. Which Shore Platforms / Installations are included in this effort?

Answer: In accordance with SOW 1.1,”Contract activities may be performed throughout the world but primarily at shore facilities in the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region and Navy Region Southwest including Hawaii, Guam, Japan, California, Nevada, Washington, Oklahoma, South Korea, Singapore, Philippines, Australia, and outside this region at Bahrain, Djibouti and Italy.”

11. Is there an estimate for the FTE’s to execute this effort?

Answer: The Government’s anticipated labor categories and estimated hours are provided in the Final RFP.

12. Although it is considered “new” work, are any parts of the effort currently being executed by other companies? If so, which companies?

Answer: As with any new NIWC Pacific MAC, the prospective contracts can be used to support any requirements within scope, regardless of the requiring Department. However, it is anticipated that this new procurement will primarily support Code 56790 and Code H within NIWC Pacific. (Note: Code 56790 is the Shore Platform Integration branch. Code H, which is located in Hawaii, is the Pacific C4ISR Department and serves as a microcosm of NIWC Pacific. Code H performs many of the same functions as Code 56790, while mainly supporting work in Hawaii, Japan and Guam.)

Work similar to the requirements within the SOW has been performed by a number of companies historically, including prime and subcontractors.

13. This program includes efforts for fabrication. What type of components, sub-systems and/or systems would require fabrication?

Answer: The components, sub-systems and/or systems are unknown at this time, if fabrication is necessary, this information would be specified at the task order level.

14. Section L-38 on page 99 states "Offers shall submit their signed proposals as only four files."

Volume II, section C requires "Information regarding the general financial condition of the firm... including the latest available financial statements." As financial statements may be proprietary and require special information security measures, can the contractor submit financial statements as a separate file?

Answer: Offeror’s shall submit in accordance with L-38.

15. Reference: Section M of the draft states, “Relevance may include, but is not limited to, similarity to work contemplated under the RFP with respect to complexity, length of performance, number of tasks, scope, type of work, and value.” The Organizational Experience Matrix (RFP Attachment 2) references “Naval experience” for each of the four areas.

Question: Will the government consider C4ISR work for other DoD/Federal Government agencies relevant or is only Navy work deemed as relevant?

Answer: In accordance with RFP M-06, Section 2.1, “This evaluation will consider the breadth, depth and relevance of offeror work performed on Government contracts since 1 January 2014 in the Key Areas identified in provision L-12. Relevance may include, but is not limited to, similarity to work contemplated under the RFP with respect to complexity, length of performance, number of tasks, scope, type of work, and value. For evaluation purposes, ratings may be maximized for offerors who, in accordance with provision L-12, cited organizational experience references that collectively demonstrate maximum breadth and depth of relevant experience in the Key Areas.”

Additionally, the Government has revised RFP Attachment 2 - Organizational Experience Matrix, Key Area number three in the Final RFP (See question 16 below).

16. L-12 Section 3.0, Volume III: 3.1 (a), page 87 of 95:

Section 3.1 (a) indicates that the proposer is required to “Prepare and submit one (1) Organizational Experience Matrix (Attachment 2) to explain the breadth, depth and relevance of your organizational experience on Government contracts since 1 January 2014 in the following Key Areas: … Cybersecurity engineering and Information Assurance accreditation for Risk Management Framework requirements including creating accreditation packages and maintaining Naval C4ISR system compliance…”

Section 2.2 on page 6 indicates that the Specification for RMF is to be conducted in accordance with DoDI 8510.01 RMF for DoD IT. Regardless of the branch of service, this DoDI applies. As a result, we believe that experience completing accreditation packages for this purpose of this solicitation can be provided for any branch of service as long as experience with DoDI 8510.01 can be demonstrated.

Question: Suggest that the Government consider revising the specific requirement in Section

3.1 to read: “Cybersecurity engineering and Information Assurance accreditation for Risk Management Framework requirements including creating accreditation packages and maintaining DoD system compliance.”

Answer: The RFP was revised to replace “Naval” with “DoD.”

17. L-12 Section 3.0, Volume III: 3.3, Page 89 of 95:

Section 3.3, Paragraph 3 states “The inclusion of each subcontractor in the cost proposal shall serve as evidence that the prime contractor and subcontractor have entered into a business agreement; no further evidence of a business agreement is required.”

Considering that the government is only requiring Cost Information as specified in Volume II as part of this proposal, and is not requiring pricing except for post award proposals for task orders, can the government clarify (1) what is required from subcontractors as part of the Volume II submittal, if anything? And (2) Because a cost proposal is not being submitted nor evaluated as part of this proposal, is evidence outside of the small business plan required to demonstrate that there is a mutual business agreement?

Answer: The following sentence from L-12 Section 3.3 Small Business Participation has been deleted: “The inclusion of each subcontractor in the cost proposal shall serve as evidence that the prime contractor and subcontractor have entered into a business agreement; no further evidence of a business agreement is required.”

18. L-12 Section 1.0(b), paragraph 2, Page 84:

The last sentence states “The below stated amounts shall be used in the preparation of their cost proposal.” However, no additional cost proposal requirements are specified. It appears that the government is intending that cost proposals be submitted for individual tasks / delivery orders after award of the MAC for Task order RFPs. Can the government please confirm that the only cost proposal information required is completion of RFP Section B?

Answer: In accordance with L-12 Section 1.0(b), “RFP Section B ‘Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs,’ shall contain the amounts stated below for each priced contract line item number (CLIN). The stated amounts reflect the Government’s best estimates for each CLIN.

The Government cannot guarantee the amounts for each CLIN or the total estimated amounts. If the offeror does not propose the below stated amounts, it may be considered unacceptable.”

No further cost proposal information is required. However, offerors shall submit all required Cost Related Information under Volume II as specified in RFP L-12 Section 2.0.

19. Is this MAC being implemented to replace any current contracts? Are there incumbent contracts in place?

Answer: See the answer to question #12.

20. How many awards does the Government intend to award?

Answer: See the answer to question #2.

21. The SOW states that contract activities will be performed “… on-board coalition partner nation afloat vessels and on board U. S. Coast Guard vessels in port or at sea.” Will work also be performed on-board U.S. Navy vessels?

Answer: At this time, the Government does not anticipate work to be performed on-board U.S. Navy vessels.

22. The SOW cites the “Joint Worldwide Intelligence Information System (JIWCS)”. Please confirm that this is the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS).

Answer: The SOW has been updated accordingly.

23. Seven sections of the SOW state the potential need for employees with TS/SCI clearances.

Can the government provide a rough estimate of the number TS/SCI-cleared individuals who might be required?

Answer: The Government cannot identify a rough estimate of the required TS/SCI clearances at this time. This information will be provided at the task order level.

24. Please clarify whether commercial-off-the-shelf items that may need to be acquired may be invoiced as a direct charge to the contract.

Answer: The descriptions of CLINs 0002, 1002 and 2002 – Other Direct Cost state “include but are not limited to travel, material, and equipment.”

25. Please confirm that a Past Performance Questionnaire is not required for references that have past performance information in CPARS.

Answer: Confirmed. In accordance with L-12 Section 3.0, paragraph 3.2(b), “For contract action where past performance information does not reside in CPARS, offerors shall contact their past performance references and request that each reference complete Attached 4 ‘Past Performance Questionnaire’ and e-mail the completed survey form, before the due date of the solicitation…”

26. The summary page published states “….and the Small Business Size Standard is

$38,500,000. This requirement will be competed on a full and open basis. This is a new requirement.” So is this planned as full and open or a small business set aside?

Answer: In accordance with the most recent U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards, the NAICS code 541330 (except (a)) has been updated to updated to $41,500,000.

Additionally, FAR 52.204-8 and the pre-solicitation synopsis have also been updated. The solicitation is being issued as full and open competition.