RFP N6852021R0004 Questions 3_18_21.pdf

NAVAIR ITSS RFP N68520-21-R-0004

Final RFP Questions and Answers #1, Posted 30 Mar 2021

N68520-21-R-0004

Reference

Paragraph Industry Question Government Response

1 PWS

We respectfully request the reduction of the corporate experience requirements for the Information Technology Solutions Support (ITSS)

RFP, solicitation number N68520-21-R-0004 from $10M to $2M. Because the opportunity is a Small Business Set-Aside under 541330 with a size standard of $41.5M, the requirement of $10M annually by the prime, spread across no more than 2 contract references, covering 2 elements of the PWS, backed up by supporting documentation regarding the relevance of those two areas of the PWS, significantly reduces competition and eliminates many highly qualified small businesses with a long history supporting NAVAIR.

How did the Government determine the $10M annual threshold for relevancy on this opportunity? Was this based on an IGE? Will the

Government release the methodology and data used to establish this threshold so industry can understand how this determination was made?

This value seems overly restrictive for an opportunity with a maximum of 43 FTEs per year, and we request a reduction to $2M per year.

Further, the evaluation criteria for this proposal includes a management plan and workforce/key personnel and thus affords the ability to properly assess a small business’ ability to manage a LOE of 43 FTEs.

The Government intends to reduce the overall size requirement RFP Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE #4 for proposal purposes to $7 Million total for one year of performance. Changes will be posted in amendment.

2 Section L-page 112

My question is to the Key Personnel.

• Page 112 of the RFP displays

Program/Project Management Analyst Senior (13-1111) (Key) 3,840

• This clearly represents 2 Senior Program Analysts 13-1111

• There are other categories that have multiple personnel (Software Developer Senior, 15-1252) as Key

My question is: Are all personnel in the category Key (i.e., the two Senior PMs, the three Software Developer Senior, 15-1252, OR, only 1 person from the batch of 2 or 3 respectively?

Essentially, are there 13 Key or 25 Key Personnel?

Anticipated Key Labor Categories are identified at the IDIQ level for informational purposes. Resulting task orders with specifically identify

Key Labor Categories and level of effort required for performance. For proposal purposes Offerors are only required to provide Two (2) resumes each for the four Key Labor Categories: Senior Software Developer, Senior Information Security Analyst, Senior Computer

Programmer and Senior Cyber Security Specialist.

Section L, Part B, Subsection 1.0, paragraph 4

Paragraph 4 requires a Prime Offeror to have been awarded a contract with value equal to or greater than $10M per one year of performance

(if combining, must be the same year) on a Department of Navy Information Technology contract. Given this is an IDIQ contract with actual funding provided at the Task Order level, unless the Government commits to providing the Prime Offeror with a $10 million TO for the first year of performance, it is not clear how the $10M criteria can be justified for participating in his procurement. Will the Government please provide the basis for establishing a $10M annual Navy IT contract threshold to justify sufficient experience to perform this, particularly since the TO funding and associated requirements are not yet established?

The Government intends to reduce the overall size requirement RFP Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE #4 for proposal purposes to $7 Million total for one year of performance. Changes will be posted in amendment

If the Prime Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV) entity, would demonstrated experience for either/any member of the JV, or for the JV members combined, qualify as a Prime Offeror demonstrated experience for purposes of Section L, Part B, Subsection 1.0 Volume 1: Corporate

Experience?

Yes, demonstrated experience for either/any member of the JV, or for the JV members combined, qualify as the Prime Offeror demonstrated experience for purposes of Section L, Part B, Subsection 1.0 Volume 1: Corporate Experience.

Section C, paragraph 3.1.2.2

Meeting Support

(page 10)

This section requires that the Prime Contractor’s facility be able to host/conduct meetings and training sessions with a location within 10 driving miles of Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD. Question: If the Prime Contractor is a Joint Venture (JV) entity, could this requirement be met by either/any member of the JV?

Yes, this requirement can be met by either/any member of the JV.

N68520-21-R-0004

Section L 1.0

Corporate

Experience – Para 4

Para 4 includes 4 specific conditions to demonstrate a small business’ experience that each must be met, or the small business offeror’s proposal is determined unacceptable, as a precondition for evaluating any other element of the proposal. These conditions include 1) Performance on a Navy IT contract; 2) At least 1 year of performance; 3) Direct IT experience specific to the SOW; and 4) Performance on a Navy IT contract with an awarded contract value equal or greater than $10M annually. We recognize NAVAIR’s desire to evaluate Offeror experience. However, by setting these conditions as pass/fail requirements, it appears that the solicitation establishes new and severely restrictive small business qualifications and special standards beyond those established by the Small

Business Act, SBA’s regulations at 13 CFR and the FAR for participating in a Small Business Set-Aside procurement beyond what is necessary to comply with the performance requirements. Additionally, the solicitation unfairly and without evaluating specific Offeror capabilities, predetermines that an Offeror does not have the capability, capacity, or competency and cannot perform the work if any of the 4 conditions are not met. This in effect is predetermining that a small business is not responsible if it cannot meet any one of the 4 conditions, without regard to SBA’s role in that process through the Certificate of

Competency procedures in FAR 19.6. The solicitation requirements further appear to be inconsistent with NAVAIR’s market research that led to the Small

Business Set-Aside determination that 2 or more responsible small businesses under the established size standard for NAICS 541330 can satisfactorily perform this work and are competitive in terms of pricing, quality, and delivery. Any small business that otherwise meets the small business size standard and can submit a proposal to perform the actual work should not be precluded from full consideration in a “best value” small business set-aside competition simply because it has not performed a Navy IT contract valued at 10M or more in a single year, for example. Without evaluating technical, management, past performance, and price, it seems impossible to know if an offeror’s proposal will or will not offer best value, therefore unreasonably denying otherwise qualified small businesses from participation in a small-business set-aside procurement. Lastly, the solicitation restrictions appear to be in conflict with the

Limitations on Subcontracting requirements that allow similarly situated entities to team together to propose to meet the 50% performance requirements. For the above stated reasons, we are providing the following questions:

1) Has the Government consulted with or otherwise obtained SBA approval to include the Corporate Experience restrictions in the solicitation? If so, please provide industry the SBA point of contact that approved the restrictions.

2) Will the Government reconsider these restrictions Contained in Section L 1.0 and remove them from the solicitation?

3) If the Government determines that Corporate Experience must be evaluated in terms of the 4 stated criteria, will the Government consider evaluating experience based using an adjectival process similar to the other non-price factors to allow for evaluating the extent the Offeror has relevant experience and the associate proposal risk?

4) Will the Government consider removing requirements for specific Navy IT experience as this severely restricts competition and denies the Government access to qualified small businesses?

5) Will the Government consider removing any dollar requirement for contracts as an indication of experience?

6) If a contract dollar value is determined to be necessary to determine experience, will the Government set a dollar value that is consistent with the anticipated

Level of Effort and allow consideration of combined contracts with the Prime and subcontractor teammates to demonstrate experience?

1) The coordinated DD2579 was approved through NAVAIR Office of Small Business Program (OSBP).

2) The Government intends to reduce the overall size requirement RFP Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE #4 for proposal purposes to $7 Million total for one year of performance.. The Government plans to change the following: Section L, 1.0 VOLUME

1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE b) The Offeror shall identify and submit at least one, but no more than three contract references. Changes will be posted in amendment.

3) The evaluation criteria in Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE will not be removed and/ or changed any further, see prospective changes in question #2 response.

4) The evaluation criteria in Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE will not be removed and/or changed any further, see prospective changes in #2 response.

5) The Government intends to reduce the overall size requirement RFP Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE #4 for proposal purposes to $7 Million total for one year of performance.. The Government plans to change the following: Section L, 1.0 VOLUME

1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE b) The Offeror shall identify and submit at least one, but no more than three contract references. Changes will be posted in amendment.

6) The Government intends to reduce the overall size requirement RFP Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE #4 for proposal purposes to $7 Million total for one year of performance.. The Government plans to change the following: Section L, 1.0 VOLUME

1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE b) The Offeror shall identify and submit at least one, but no more than three contract references. In accordance with RFP Section L Prime (including JV) or JV Member's are the only submitted experiences acceptable. Changes will be posted in amendment.

Section C, Subsection 3.3

The table in Section C, Subsection 3.3 Detailed Support, pages 16 and 17 of the RFP lists 40 different functional performance requirements, including Program/Project Management, Configuration Management, Risk Management, Data/Modeling/Analytics, Database Administration, Web Support, Education and Training , Help/Service Desk, Documentation, Status Reporting, Process/Program Improvement, Project

Planning Documents, Sustainment Support, Monthly Plan of Action & Milestones (POAM), and Operations and Support. Additionally, the impetus behind Clause 52.219-14 Limitations On Subcontracting (Deviation 2020-O0008) (MAR 2020) is to enable a small business Prime to team with multiple small businesses just to reach the minimum 50 percent threshold, allowing the Prime Offeror to more heavily rely on subcontractors to perform many the given SOW requirements. Given this Clause 52.219-14 (Deviation 2020-O0008) and the fact that much of this SOW includes functional performance requirements that are NOT Information Technology (IT) related, but critical to successful IDIQ execution, on what basis was the $10 million minimum corporate experience in IT ALONE, by the Prime Offeror ALONE, determined?

Request removal of this requirement from the RFP.

The Government intends to reduce the corporate experience requirements for proposal purposes to $7 Million Annually. In accordance with

RFP Section L Prime (including JV) or JV Member's are the only submitted experiences acceptable. Changes will be posted in amendment.

The level of effort on this opportunity is estimated on Page 6, Clause 5252.211-9503 (a) at 412,800 man-hours of direct labor (DL), which equates to an average of 82,560 hours per year over the five years. While the labor rates associated with this effort is specified on Page 4 as

“TBD at time of contract award,” the salary range for each of the associated labor categories, Attachment L12, does show the Salary-derived

Direct Labor Rate Ranges for each labor category. By multiplying the average Low and average High DL rates by our company multiple and multiplying that product by the annual average hours of 82,560, total DL cost per year at the HIGH end of the range is still substantially less than the $10 million minimum specified in Section L, Part B, Subsection 1.0, paragraph 4 as a precondition for being a Prime Offeror, and the total DL cost at the LOW end of the range is less than $5 million. Additionally, under the Clause 52.219-14 Limitations On Subcontracting

(Deviation 2020-O0008) (MAR 2020) (page 67 of 127 of the RFP), the small business Prime on this contract can perform substantially less than 50 percent of the cost of the contract, so long as it and other small business subcontractors COMBINED perform over 50% of the cost of the contract. Thus, a Prime Offeror on this opportunity could perform perhaps 30 percent of the entire LOE and perhaps one-fourth of the $10M minimum threshold specified in Section L, Part B, Subsection 1.0, paragraph 4, and still meet all Limitations on Subcontracting at the full LOE specified, using the Direct Labor Ranges provided. Given this incongruity, could this $10 million minimum requirement be removed or altered to more realistically align to the true requirement of a Prime small business Offeror on this RFP

The evaluation criteria are designed to identify offerors that have experience managing requirements of similiar scope, magnitude and complexity. The total contract cost includes Direct/Indirect rates, profit/fee and ODC's. The Government intends to reduce the corporate experience requirements for proposal purposes to $7 Million Annually. Changes will be posted in amendment.

N68520-21-R-0004

9 Page 94

On page 94 of the RFP, Clause 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications (MAR 2020) states that the NAICS Code for this opportunity is 541330, Engineering Services, with a size standard of $16.5 million. However, the size standard for this NAICS Code when related to the Department of Defense business is $41.5 million. Is that not the appropriate size standard for this opportunity?

Clause 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications (MAR 2020) on page 94 has been updated to $41.5M changes will be in the amendment.

Since this IDIQ requirement is functionally described as being of the nature encompassed by the industry classification (NAICS) Code of

541330, Engineering Services, could recent work of a similar scope/complexity and similar magnitude of 43 FTEs under NAICS Code

541330 on an IDIQ contract be considered recent and relevant experience?

In accordance with Section L 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE e) The Offeror may submit contract references under NAICS codes other than 541330, regardless of small business status within those NAICS codes, to meet the experience requirements identified in

Volume 1 Corporate Experience. The Offeror must meet all requirements in Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE to be recent and relevant.

Section L, Part B, Subsection 1.0, (page 106 of 127)

Section L, Part B, Subsection 1.0, (page 106 of 127) cites four areas where the Prime Offeror must demonstrate experience to qualify for an award under this RFP. These criteria include performance on a Navy contract where the “predominance of the contract requirement was for the development and/or maintenance of Information Technology” and “a contract with value equal to or greater than $10M per one year of performance (if combining, must be the same year) on a Department of Navy Information Technology contract.” To demonstrate this experience, the Prime Offeror needs to clearly understand what is meant by a an Information Technology contract and how a predominance of requirements for development and/or maintenance of Information Technology is demonstrated. Specifically:

1) Would any contract awarded under this NAICS Code (541330), be considered an Information Technology contract? If not, what NAICS

Code would define an Information Technology contract? If that NAICS Code is other than 541330, why wasn’t that NAICS Code used for this RFP?

2) In attempting to determine which of past contracts under NAICS Code 541330 should be considered predominantly Information

Technology in nature, which of the functional performance requirements listed in Section C of the RFP are to be considered Information

Technology in nature?

3) For the purposes of demonstrating “predominance,” would that be determined by counting all SOW elements and matching to those listed on the table in Section C , Subsection 3.3 Detailed Support, pages 16 and 17, and if the majority of requirements from the referenced contract match that table it is considered predominantly Information Technology, or should some other method be used? If an alternative measure of predominance is to be used, please specify.

4) Will the Government please provide the rationale for selecting NAICS 541330 Engineering Services for this procurement in light of the fact that experience in Information Technology is a mandatory requirement to participate? Additionally, since the work as described in the

SOW is for Information Technology support, should this not be under an Information Technology oriented NAICS?

5) If the Government confirms selection of NAICS Code 541330, will the Government consider allowing experience consistent with the

NAICS Code 541330 industry class?

1) No, NAICS code 541330 alone does meet the requirements of the RFP. Offeror shall meet the requirements set forth in Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1:

CORPORATE EXPERIENCE. Please see response to question #4 below for NAICS rationale. Offerors may submit contract references under NAICS codes other than 541330, regardless of small business status within those NAICS codes, to meet the experience requirements identified in Volume 1

Corporate Experience. 2) The Government will be modifying Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE #1 to "1. Performed as the Prime or Subcontractor on a Department of Navy contract demonstrating the contract requirement was for the development and/or maintenance of Information Technology systems". Section M of RFP Part

B 1.0 CORPORATE EXPERIENCE will be updated with the following addition "The Government will evaluate requisite experiences provided as the development and/or maintenance of Information Technology systems referenced in Section C, SOW Paragraphs 3.3.1-3.3.4". Changes will be in

Amendment.

3) See #2 for revised language.

4) The rationale for the selection of NAICS 541330 was based off of the functional tasking areas RFP Section C, Statement of Work coinciding with the

NAICS Sector 54: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services and 541330 - Engineering Services definitions. Software Development Life Cycle, Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), and the specified Support Activities requirements fall under the NAICS code 541330 due to the software and systems engineering processes such as design, development and system utilization. The requirements of the Statement of Work encompass deliverables which coincide with NAICS 541330 for example: Process/Program Improvement Plans, Project Planning Documents, Engineering

Documents, Analysis and Design Documentation and Implementation Documentation. The underlined items are relevant to the functional tasking areas

RFP Section C, Statement of Work: NAICS Sector 54 definition: The Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services sector comprises establishments that specialize in performing professional, scientific, and technical activities for others. These activities require a high degree of expertise and training. The establishments in this sector specialize according to expertise and provide these services to clients in a variety of industries and, in some cases, to households. Activities performed include: legal advice and representation; accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll services; architectural, engineering, and specialized design services; computer services; consulting services; research services; advertising services; photographic services; translation and interpretation services; veterinary services; and other professional, scientific, and technical services. The underlined items are relevant to the functional tasking areas RFP Section C, Statement of Work: NAICS 541330 - Engineering Services definition: This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in applying physical laws and principles of engineering in the design, development, and utilization of machines, materials, instruments, structures, processes, and systems. The assignments undertaken by these establishments may involve any of the following activities: provision of advice, preparation of feasibility studies, preparation of preliminary and final plans and designs, provision of technical services during the construction or installation phase, inspection and evaluation of engineering projects, and related services.

5) See response to #1.

Section L, Part B;

VOLUME 1.0

Corporate

Experience

Section L, Part B; VOLUME 1.0 Corporate Experience:

4. Total awarded contract value is equal to or greater than $10M per one year of performance (if combining, must be the same year) on a

Department of Navy Information Technology contract.

We kindly request the Contract Activity remove the statement “on a Department of Navy Information Technology contract” based on the following:

1. This language removes fair competition amongst Small Business without the credibility of 2 or more Small Businesses demonstrating capability from an RFI response.

2. The Draft Section L Part B did not include the added language: “on a DoN IT contract” requirement.

3. The 1st minimum requirement under Part B V 1.0 Corporate Experience lists already lists DoN experience as a requirement: “Performed as the Prime or Subcontractor on a Department of Navy contract where the predominance of the contract requirement was for the development and/or maintenance of Information Technology systems”;

The change in language to the CORPORATE EXPERIENCE appears to demonstrate favoritism of specific vendor, while eliminating fair competition amongst Small Business that were preparing from prior Drafts and Q/As.

The Government does not intend to remove the DON IT contract experience requirement see amendment 0001 for Section L revisions.

N68520-21-R-0004

Section L, Part B, Subsection 1.0, paragraph 4

Paragraph 4 requires a Prime Offeror to have been awarded a contract with value equal to or greater than $10M per one year of performance

(if combining, must be the same year) on a Department of Navy Information Technology contract. DoD policy states that business systems

“will be aligned to commercial or government best practices and will minimize the need for customization of commercial products to the maximum extent practicable” (DoDI 5000.75, Ch 2, para 1.2.a.). Given this policy of reliance on commercial products and best practices when designing, developing, deploying, and sustaining DoD Information Technology (IT) used in DoD business systems, why would demonstrated experience be limited to Department of the Navy? For example, if the demonstrated experience was in deploying IT in industry, versus the Government, why would that not be relevant? Additionally, since DoD life cycle efficiencies and interoperability can often be better assured by leveraging non-recurring investments across the Military Services and Defense Agencies, why would not other DoD contracts be relevant?

The Government is seeking a vendor that provides the best value in accordance with the terms of the RFP. Changes will be posted in amendment 0001.

Vol 1 – Corporate

Experience, Pg 106

RFP states “Total awarded contract value is equal to or greater than $10M per one year of performance (if combining, must be the same year) on a Department of Navy Information Technology contract”. The $10M per year threshold is a very high barrier given this is a SB procurement and not many, if any, SBs will have performed this size of contract and remain under SB status. We would appreciate a more realistic limit of $1-$2M/yr range. Could the Government please review this requirement and adjust the dollar threshold accordingly?

The Government intends to reduce the overall size requirement RFP Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE #4 for proposal purposes to $7 Million total for one year of performance. Changes will be posted in amendment 0001.

Section L, Part B,

1.0 Volume 1

Corporate Experience, paragraph b states, “The Offeror shall identify and submit at least one, but no more than two contract references.”

However, Section M, Part B, 1.0 Corporate Experience, states, “If the Government assesses the Offeror did not provide any contract references that meet the Corporate Experience requirements, out of the maximum of three (3) allowable for submission…” Furthermore, Attachment L1’s T-2 Contract Summary tab provides spaces for 3 references, and Attachment L2 provides tabs for 3 contract references.

Can the Government please clarify whether the maximum number of references to submit is 2 or 3?

The Government intends to revise Section L to allow for up to three contract references. See Amendment 0001 for revisions.

Section L, Part B,

1.0 Volume 1

Corporate Experience, #4 states, “Total awarded contract value is equal to or greater than $10M per one year of performance (if combining, must be the same year) on a Department of Navy Information Technology contract.” Can the Government please clarify how Offerors can combine contracts to meet the $10M per one year of performance requirement?

The Government intends to reduce the overall size requirement RFP Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE #4 for proposal purposes to $7 Million total for one year of performance. Changes will be posted in amendment 0001.

3.0 Proposal

Content and

Volumes, page 104

Is each Attachment submitted as a separate document with its own cover page and table of contents, or can the attachments for each Volume be combined into one document/Volume? For example, Volume 1: Cover page, table of contents, Attachment L1, L2, and Supporting

Documentation combined into one (1) document to make up Volume 1: Corporate Experience.

No. In Accordance with RFP Section L, 3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES paragraph 2 states " Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as specified in the table below" the table provides which attachments should go in each volume . The bottom of the chart states "Each volume shall contain the following information:

- Cover and title page

- Title of proposal and proposal number as applicable

- Offeror’s name, address, and POC

- RFP number

- Proposal volume number

- Table of Contents (The table of contents must provide sufficient detail to enable easy location of important elements)"

The Offeror must follow the parameters set for each volume.

3.0 Proposal

Content and

Volumes, page 104 -

Is the Offeror permitted to insert a Title page and Table of contents at the beginning of each Attachment? For example, Attachment L3:

Understanding and Approach is one page, is the Offeror permitted to add 2 additional pages to cover the requirement for a cover page and

Table of contents?

No. In Accordance with RFP Section L, 3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES paragraph 2 states " Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as specified in the table below" the table provides which attachments should go in each volume . The bottom of the chart states "Each volume shall contain the following information:

- Cover and title page

- Title of proposal and proposal number as applicable

- Offeror’s name, address, and POC

- RFP number

- Proposal volume number

- Table of Contents (The table of contents must provide sufficient detail to enable easy location of important elements)"

The Offeror must follow the parameters set for each volume, including the page counts.

N68520-21-R-0004

Volume 1:

Corporate

Experience, page

Are subcontractors permitted to submit a Contract Summary, or is Volume 1: Corporate Experience only include information from the Prime and Joint Venture?

Only the Prime or JV. In accordance with RFP Section L 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE, "g) All current CAGE

Codes/DUNS should appear in Table T-1 Offeror Summary. The Offeror shall provide a written explanation if multiple CAGE codes/DUNS are applicable. The description shall include all changes in the organization as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason and must demonstrate that the organizational entity who performed the work in the contract reference is currently a part of the Prime (including JV) or JV Member for the CBO ITSS RFP N68520-21-R-0004 proposal response".

Volume 1:

Corporate

Experience, page

106.

4. “Total awarded contract value is equal to or greater than $10M per one year of performance (if combining, must be the same year) on a

Department of Navy Information Technology contract.” Can you please clarify if this statement means the Total Contract value is equal to or greater than $10M? Or is one year of performance equal to or greater than $10M? For example, is we have a 5-year contract, is the total award value for 5 years equal to $10M, or is one year of performance under the 5-year contract equal to $10M?

In accordance with RFP Section L "4. Total awarded contract value is equal to or greater than $10M per one year of performance (if combining, must be the same year) on a Department of Navy Information Technology contract". The Government intends to reduce the overall size requirement RFP Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE #4 for proposal purposes to $7 Million total for one year of performance. The Offeror must provide corporate experience equal or greater than $7 Million total for one year of performance.

Changes will be posted in amendment 0001.

Volume 2, Section

2.3 Key Personnel, Can you please clarify the number of key personnel? This section states 2 resumes for each of the four (4) key labor Categories: Senior

Software Developer, Senior Information Security Analyst, Senior Computer Programmer and senior Cyber Security Specialist, but on page

112 section 3.5.2 in the ordering period one, it lists 13 key positions.

Anticipated Key Labor Categories are identified at the IDIQ level for informational purposes. Resulting task orders with specifically identify

Key Labor Categories and level of effort required for performance. For proposal purposes, Offerors are only required to provide Two (2) resumes each for the four Key Labor Categories: Senior Software Developer, Senior Information Security Analyst, Senior Computer

Programmer and Senior Cyber Security Specialist.

RFP, 3.1.2.1 Work

Location Page10 of

Does the government anticipate any changes to its remote work plan in 2021 and future years? Will the 70%/30% allocation remain the same?

The Government does not anticipate any changes to the RFP Section C, Statement of Work, 3.1.2 Work Location and Facilities paragraph,

3.1.2.1 Work Location.

RFP, 3.2.12.1

Cybersecurity Plan

Section 3.2.12.1 references a Cybersecurity Plan (CSP) as Attachment 9. There is no Attachment 9 in the RFP. Would the government please provide Attachment 9?

Yes, the attachment will be provided with Amendment 0001.

RFP, 3.3.3.4

Operations and

Support 21 of 127

What level of vendor interaction is the contractor expected to maintain for COTS/SAAS solutions? Will the contractor be independently managing each solutions without vendor assistance, providing Tier I/II support?

The Government performs Integration role with the vendor providing support to the Government.

RFP Section 3.4.1

Experience and

Educational Level

Definitions 28 of

RFP page 28 Section 3.4.1 Experience and Educational Level Definitions requires that a Senior level staff member must hold a MA/MS level degree. Given that the senior technical roles listed in the RFP are historically filled with senior technical professionals with a BA/BS degree with several years of DoD experience along with appropriate certifications, will the government please consider adjusting the MA/MS requirement to accept an equivalency of a BA/BS level degree with appropriate DoD experience?

In the RFP Section C, Statement of Work paragraph 3.5.2 Labor Qualifications, each senior position is provided an allowable substitution for example, "Senior Program / Project Management Analyst, SOC 13-1111 (Key), Allowable Substitution: Bachelor’s degree in

Engineering, Computer Science, Information Systems, Business, Mathematics, Management or Relevant Technical Discipline plus two (2) years of additional work experience performing the duties similar to the Experience Requirements below may be substituted for a Master’s degree."

RFP, Section J 92 of 127

Section J – List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments.

Would the government please provide “Attachment (L13), Solicitation N6852021R0004 Questions”, which was listed as an attachment? Yes, the attachment will be provided with Amendment 0001.

RFP Section L 105 of 127

Section 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes, states Section numbers “3.1-3.4.2” Would the government please clarify the section numbers for

Volume 3 Price/Cost?

Section L, Part B Specific Instructions, Section 3.0 Volume 3: Price/Cost and General Information. Paragraph 3.1-3.4 follows Section 3.0

Volume 3 Price/Cost and General Information.

RFP Section 3.2

Price/Cost Build-Up

Information Page

RFP page 110 references an escalation rate to be based on BLS ECI data embedded into the Cost/Price Spreadsheet Attachment L10 but that rate is missing from the spreadsheet. Will the government be mandating the rate to use or can the bidder enter a rate?

“b) Escalation: Rates for years 2 through 5 will automatically be calculated for each labor category by an escalation factor embedded in the

Cost/Price Spreadsheet. This escalation factor is determined by an averaged Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Economic Cost Index (ECI).”

The offeror will enter the rate.

RFP, Section 3.5.2

Labor Hours Page

RFP page 113 lists the labor category of Information Security Analyst Junior (15-1212), but that is missing from the Attachment L10 -

Cost_Price Spreadsheet. Would the government please clarify?

Same question for Technical Writers Journeyman (27-3042) which is in the RFP but not in the pricing spreadsheet. Would the government please clarify?

The Government will provide a revised "Attachment (L10), Cost Price" Spreadsheet to include both labor categories in Amendment 0001.

N68520-21-R-0004

RFP, Section 3.5.2

Labor Hours Page

113Tab T-1 Offeror

Summary

RFP page 113 lists the labor category of Information Security Analyst Junior (15-1212) labor category but that is missing from the

Attachment L12 - Direct Labor Ranges. Would the government please provide the missing labor category?

Attachment (L12), Direct Labor Ranges Spreadsheet will be updated to include Information Security Analyst Junior (15-1212) labor category in Amendment 0001.

Attachment L.1 –

Corporate

Experience

Summary TablesTab

T-1 Offeror

Summary

L.1 – Corporate Experience Summary Tables, Tab T-1 Offeror Summary reference JV Members.

Would the Government please confirm that Tab T-1 Offeror Summary can include subcontractors who are not JV members?

No, it should not include subcontractor information. In accordance with RFP Section L 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE, "g)

All current CAGE Codes/DUNS should appear in Table T-1 Offeror Summary. The Offeror shall provide a written explanation if multiple

CAGE codes/DUNS are applicable. The description shall include all changes in the organization as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason and must demonstrate that the organizational entity who performed the work in the contract reference is currently a part of the Prime (including JV) or JV Member for the CBO ITSS RFP N68520-21-R-0004 proposal response".

Attachment L.3

Understanding and

Approach

To complete L.3, the Government states not to change the forms and only have two SOW requirements in the form (SOW 3.3.2.4 and SOW

3.3.3.4).

Would the Government please confirm that only SOW requirements SOW 3.3.2.4 and SOW 3.3.3.4 are the only two requirements that should be addressed in Attachment L.3 Understanding and Approach form?

Yes. In accordance with the RFP Section L 2.0 e) Offerors shall address the following technical elements using Section J Attachments: •

Understanding and Approach (L3).

2.1 Understanding and Approach 2.1.1 The Offeror shall provide a written narrative detailing the understanding, capability, and approach including procedures, methodologies, risks and mitigations to perform the detailed support requirements for the tasking described in the SOW paragraphs listed below as it relates to the systems in Attachment (L6) Listing of IT Toolsets and Enterprise Efforts:

• 3.3.2.4

• 3.3.3.4

Attachment L.2

Contract Reference

Experience

Information ID 13

(Experience), para.

4.4.

The Government asks for:

“4.4. Total awarded contract value is equal to or greater than $10M per one year of performance (if combining, must be the same year) on a

Department of Navy Information Technology contract”

1. Is this statement an error, as this is a Small Business Set-Aside with a NAICS of 541130/$16.5M and the nature/size standard of the

NAICS would preclude most successful small businesses?

2. If the statement is not an error, is this a “go–no/go” requirement, or is it a question that is just a part of the standard pre-formatted attachment?

Clause 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications (MAR 2020) on page 94 has been updated to $41.5M based on the exception for this NAICS. 1. The Government intends to reduce the overall size requirement RFP Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE #4 for proposal purposes to $7 Million Annually. Changes will be posted in amendment 0001.

2. In accordance with RFP Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE "The Prime Offeror shall demonstrate experience that meet all of the minimum requirements". In Accordance with RFP Section M PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION, 1.0 CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE "If the Government assesses the Offeror did not provide any contract references that meet the Corporate Experience requirements, out of the maximum of three (3) allowable for submission, the Offeror will be determined to be “Unacceptable” and no further evaluation will be conducted".

Page 31, Section

3.4.1

Page 31, Section 3.4.1 lists Junior Information Security Analyst as one of the labor categories of this solicitation. Attachment L12 – Direct

Labor Rate Ranges does not list a labor rate range for this labor category. We respectfully ask that the Direct Labor Rate Range for the

Junior Information Security Analyst position be added to Attachment L12 – Direct Labor Rate Ranges.

Attachment (L12), Direct Labor Ranges Spreadsheet will be updated to include Information Security Analyst Junior (15-1212) labor category in Amendment 0001.

Page 27, Section

3.4.1

Page 27, Section 3.4.1 Experience and Educational Level Definitions, Junior states “A Junior level person within a labor category has up to three (3) years of experience in at least one (1) area related to the description and a BA/BS degree”. Page 31, Junior Information Security

Analyst, page 34, Junior Network and Computer System Administrators, and page 36, Junior Cyber Security Specialist all have education requirements that state that the labor category requires “AS or AA degree in Engineering, Computer Science, Information Systems, Business, Mathematics, Management or Relevant Technical Discipline”. Does the Government intend for the overarching Junior Labor Category

Educational Level to be an AS or AA degree?

Page 27, Section 3.4.1 Experience and Educational Level Definitions, Junior will be updated to “A Junior level person within a labor category has up to three (3) years of experience in at least one (1) area related to the description and a AS or AA degree” Changes will be posted in amendment 0001.

Page 106, Section

L, Part B, Volume

1, Page 106, Section L, Part B, Volume 1, b) states “The Offeror shall identify and submit at least one, but no more than two contract references”. Page 123, Section M, Part B, 1.0, Paragraph 3 states “If the Government assesses the Offeror did not provide any contract references that meet the Corporate Experience Requirements, out of the maximum of three (3) allowable for submission…” Is it the

Government’s intention to allow a maximum of two (2) contract references under Corporate Experience?

The Government intends to revise Section L to allow for up to three contract references. See Amendment 0001 for revisions.

Attachment L2 –

Contract Reference

Experience

Information

Attachment L2 – Contract Reference Experience Information has tabs for References P1, P2, and P3; however, Page 106, Section L, Part B, Volume 1, b) states “The Offeror shall identify and submit at least one, but no more than two contract references”. Is it the Government’s intention to allow a maximum of two (2) contract references under Corporate Experience?

The Government intends to revise Section L to allow for up to three contract references. See Amendment 0001 for revisions.

N68520-21-R-0004

39 Page 112, 3.5.2.

Page 112, 3.5.2. Labor Hours states “The Government estimate is 454,080 hours for the entire ordering period work effort.” The following breakdown of Hours per Labor Category for each ordering period (pages 112 to 116) estimate 82,560 Hours per Ordering Period, for a total of 412,800 hours. Please clarify the Government estimate of labor hours.

The Government estimate is a total of 412,800. Changes will be made in amendment 0001.

40 Attachment L2

Attachment L2 – Contract Reference Experience Information Column C, Row 13, #3 asks for Offeror Input for “the Offeror has direct experience performing tasking relative to the requirements in the Statement of Work (SOW) Paragraphs 3.3.2.4 and/or 3.3.3.4.” Are we limited to the space provided in Column C, or are we able to expand that cell in order to allow for more space for our explanation?

Attachment L2 – Contract Reference Experience Information Column C, Row 13, it is allowable for cells to be expanded to provide brief work description and/or program responsibility. Changes will be posted to Attachment L2 in amendment 0001.

41 Attachment L10 Attachment L10 – Cost_Price Spreadsheet the Base Ordering Period 1 Tab through the Fully Burdened Rate Tab list one row per Labor

Category. Are we able to add rows in order to account for one row per FTE?

Please follow the instructions outlined in the "Instructions" tab of Attachment L10. Offerors can change the labor category titles in each row as necessary.

42 Attachment L6 Workload Management System (WMS) is used across all FRC sites on a daily basis. WMS is critical to FRC working in an effective manner for planning and managing budgets. Should WMS be included in Attachment L6 - CBO Toolsets and Enterprise Efforts?

The Government intends to revise Attachment L6 - Listing of IT Toolsets and Enterprise Efforts to include Workload Management System.

See Amendment 0001 for revisions.

43 Attachment L6 Project Execution Management (PEM) is critical to the operation of the Corporate Business Office (CBO). It is vital to effective contract management. Should PEM be included in Attachment L6 - CBO Toolsets and Enterprise Efforts?

The Government intends to revise Attachment L6 - Listing of IT Toolsets and Enterprise Efforts to include Project Execution Management

(PEM). See Amendment 0001 for revisions.

44 Attachment L5

Attachment L5 – Key Personnel Resume and Qualifications Matrix is to be used for all Key Personnel resumes. We are limited to 3 pages per resume. Are we able to delete the instruction language and/or blank spaces from the template in order to allow for more room to outline the qualifications of our candidates?

The Government will be updating the page limit for Key Personnel resumes to Four pages. Changes will be posted in amendment 0001.

45 Attachment L5

Key Personnel Resume and Qualifications Matrix is to be used for all Key Personnel resumes. We are limited to 3 pages per resume. The formatting of the template as well as the requirement to fill in the qualification matrix within the three page limit does not allow for adequate space to outline 10+ years of experience for a senior level candidate. Would the Government consider increasing the max page count for key personnel resumes to allow respondents adequate space to respond accordingly?

The Government will be updating the page limit for Key Personnel resumes to Four pages. Changes will be posted in amendment 0001.

46 Attachment L5 Key Personnel Resume and Qualifications Matrix is to be used for all Key Personnel resumes. We are limited to 3 pages per resume. Is the

Qualifications Matrix included in the page count?

Yes, Qualifications Matrix included in the page count. The Government will be updating the page limit for Key Personnel resumes to Four pages. Changes will be posted in amendment 0001.

Page 110, Section

3.1

Page 110, Section 3.1 i states “If the subcontractor requirement contains cost type CLINs, the subcontractor shall also provide documentation verifying that it has a DCAA approved Cost Accounting System or state that its Cost Accounting System has not been approved by DCAA.” What Price/Cost Build-up information is required of T&M subcontractors that do not have a Cost Accounting System that has been approved by DCAA?

Subcontractors must provide all cost/price build up information required by Section L of the RFP regardless of subcontract type. An approved accounting system is not required for T&M type subcontracts; therefore, if a T&M type subcontract is contemplated, it should be noted as part of the cost accounting response.

Page 103, Section

2.0, Paragraph 2

Page 103, Section 2.0, Paragraph 2 states “Proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12 pt Normal font”. Attachment L5 –

Key Personnel Resume and Qualification Matrix, Attachment L7 – Offer Letter, and Attachment L9 – Cost and Price Narrative are all pre-formatted with Times New Roman 10 pt font. Please advise whether we are able to utilize Times New Roman 10 pt font for these attachments.

In accordance with RFP Page 103, Section 2.0, Paragraph 2 states "When using Government supplied templates (e.g. Attachment L1,, Attachment L2, Attachment L3), no modifications to font or scaling required". Therefore, the font of the Government supplied template is acceptable and no modification to font is required.

Section L of the

RFP, page 106

Section L of the RFP, page 106 states that the "Prime shall demonstrate..."

• This suggest only the Prime's Past Performance will be considered.

Past performance is not an evaluation factor for this RFP. In accordance with RFP Section L 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE, "g) All current CAGE Codes/DUNS should appear in Table T-1 Offeror Summary. The Offeror shall provide a written explanation if multiple CAGE codes/DUNS are applicable. The description shall include all changes in the organization as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason and must demonstrate that the organizational entity who performed the work in the contract reference is currently a part of the Prime (including JV) or JV Member for the CBO ITSS RFP N68520-

21-R-0004 proposal response" submitted references must be the Prime Offeror or a JV member.

N68520-21-R-0004

50 Section L #4

On the same section, item # 4 says; "Total awarded contract value is equal to or greater than $10M per one year of performance (if combining, must be the same year) on a Department of Navy Information Technology contract."

• This implies that the Prime must have a contract worth, at least $50M over a Base + 4 Option construct to even hit this target.

Essentially, the only Small Company I am familiar with that can make this claim is an Alaskan Native which are perpetual small, regardless of how much money they make.

I had already began writing and my team is fully invested, until I read through Section L again and came to the realization I articulate above.

I believe the pool of Small Companies will be limited by this factor and you will end up with only [8(a) companies] that can muster that kind of PP at those dollar levels.

The Government intends to reduce the overall size requirement RFP Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE #4 for proposal purposes to $7 Million total for one year of performance. Changes will be posted in amendment.

Page 106, Section

L, Part B, Volume

1, Item 4 requires the prime contractor to have completed $10M of work on IT contracts within a single year, however, the RFP only requires 2 contracts as references. If a bidder has 4 IT contracts in a single year that achieve the $10M threshold, can the 4 be used to satisfy the requirement and how should that be stipulated in the bidders response?

The Government intends to reduce the overall size requirement RFP Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE #4 for proposal purposes to $7 Million total for one year of performance. The Government updated Section L, 1.0 VOLUME 1: CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE b) The Offeror shall complete Table T-2 Contract Summary provided in Attachment (L1) for all contract references submitted for Volume 1 Corporate Experience. The Offeror shall complete the table according to the instructions within the attachment. The Offeror shall identify and submit at least one, but no more than three contract references. Please designate the contract references in a sequential order from the most relevant (e.g., P1, P2, P3) to those that meet the requirements. The contract references designated in Table T-2 Contract

Summ…