N6852022R0001 RFP QA Government Responses_.pdf

N6852022R0001 RFP

Questions and Answers

# Question Answer

Will copies of the Standard Work Packages (SWPs) and FRC Instructions referenced by the SOW be provided to potential bidders?

See the response to Question 7 of the draft RFP Q&A response posted on SAM.gov.

Are Sigonella and Sicily location rates included in the US-East composite rate? Ref Sec B, p. 5, para 3

See the response to Question 2 of the draft RFP Q&A response posted on SAM.gov.

Can the Government please confirm the Period of Performance (PoP) for this effort is 3 years and 8 months? Ref Sec F, p. 15, para 1.

Three-years and eight-months is the anticipated period of performance.

Section 1.1. states, “Simply stating that the Offeror understands and will perform the listed tasking areas is inadequate. Paraphrasing the SOW is similarly inadequate. The offeror shall not assume that the Government evaluators possess any knowledge or familiarity with their company or approach in their proposal. The offeror shall therefore fully explain any proposed schedules, processes, methods, or procedures that are relevant to demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding and proposed approach. The Offeror shall submit a detailed and comprehensive response that clearly explains the offeror’s understanding of the tasking and the strategy that the offeror is proposing for this effort. Responses shall include the following:

Evidence of the offerors’ understanding and experience in engineering and logistics efforts supporting Fleet Support Teams (FST) and Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) functions for Naval Type/Model/Series (T/M/S) aviation platforms IAW SOW section 1.0. ” In the spirit of leveraging joint best practices, will the Government consider past performance outside the realm of Navy-only T/M/S aircraft as relevant? Ref Sec L.1.1, p. 68 , para 1.

The RFP, Section L, Part B, 1.1 has been revised.

This Section indicates that the Government level of effort estimate is provided in attachment P6. Additionally, subsection 3.3.3.1 indicates that offerors shall propose the total labor hours per labor category.

QUESTION: Will the Government please confirm that offerors are not permitted to deviate from the Government-provided Level of Effort?

Ref Sec L.3.2.2, p. 72, para 1.

The LOE estimate is not shown in Attachment P-6, per Section B-1 and per Clause 5252.211-9503, the estimated Level of Effort is shown in Attachment B-1. See the RFP, Section L, Part B, Volume 3, paragraph 3.3.3.1.

This section contains the clause “The Offeror shall not utilize any fully burdened hourly rates when pricing the labor of its employees QUESTION: We understand this to mean that Offerors must provide insight into each cost element for all proposed labor (Direct Labor/Fringe/OH/G&A). Will the Government please clarify the Government’s intent of this clause. Ref Sec L.3.3.3, p. 72, para 5.

See Attachment P-6 Instruction.

These sections outline solicitation ground rules for indirect costs. More specifically, these sections indicate that offerors shall submit a list of the following artifacts to substantiate proposed indirect costs:

a) Section 3.3.5.1: Copies of offeror-proposed Forward Pricing Rates (FPRP’s/FPRR’s/FPRA’s), Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA’s), and Department of Labor Area Wage Determinations (AWD’s) QUESTION: Offerors may not currently employ the use for Forward Pricing Rates or Collective Bargaining Agreements. Will the Government please confirm that these requirements only apply to offerors who have active proposals/recommendations/agreements?

The required documents are as applicable.

See FAR 15.407-3.

b) Part 1- Section 3.3.5.2: The most current DCAA Provisional Billing Rate Approval Letter and DCAA Final Billing Rate Approval Letter.

QUESTION: The most recent fiscal year incurred cost submissions are not required to be submitted to DCAA until June of the following year.

Will the Government please clarify that the most recent year’s completed and approved incurred cost rates (i.e. FY 2020) will be acceptable to satisfy this requirement?

See the RFP, Section L, Part B, paragraph 3.3.5.2, "The most current DCAA Provisional Billing Rate Approval Letter, DCAA Final Billing Rate Approval Letter."

b) Part 2- A task order of this magnitude has the potential to have a significant impact on an offeror’s cost bases and pools. Are offerors permitted to deviate from using the most recent approved Provisional Billing Rates in developing rates for this proposal, in order to accurately reflect the expected costs for executing this task order? Sec L.3.3, p. 73, paras 3 and 4.

If alternative indirect rates are proposed, please provide substantiation to support.

See FAR 42.704(b).

These sections identify requirements for substantiating proposed direct labor rates for current employees, contingent hires, consultants, and subcontractors.

QUESTION: Many offerors use labor market data as a major resource in developing reasonable and realistic direct labor rates. Will the Government permit the use of labor market data as substantiation for positions that are not identified as current employees or contingent hires? Ref Sec L.3.3.5.4, 3.3.5.5, 3.3.5.6, and 3.3.5.7, p. 73 paras 6 - 9. See RFP, Section L, Part B, paragraph 3.1.

Section L.4.2 requires Offerors to complete any solicitation provisions requiring fill-ins, however, we were unable to find any provisions requiring this. Can the Government please confirm that all provisions that require completion will be done at the Task Order level? Ref Sec L.4.4, p. 74, para 5.

Provisions to be completed are located in Section K.

Will the Government please confirm that for JVs submitting proposals, that they will evaluate individual JV team member’s relevant past performance? Ref Sec M.2.0,

p. 78, para 4.B22

See the RFP, Section M, Part A, Paragraph 2.0, 2nd paragraph, "When proposals are received from joint ventures, specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual JV team member’s relevant past performance."

Can offerors modify the Past Performance Matrix to maximize space within the 15 page limit (similar to the table below)? Ref Attachment P-

1. Offerors are allowed to change font size

ONLY. No less than 8 point font size.

For purposes of completing the Past Performance P1 “Brief Description of Work Performed” column, should Offerors write to each subsection of the SOW elements or, due to page limitations, can one limit the detail to the broader SOW sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 and still be in compliance?

Recommend that offerors provide at-least a description of work up-to third level (example: 3.3.1) mentioning in the brief description what section of the SOW the description relates to.

Since the Past Performance Matrix is a table, and Section L, Part A,

2.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT (p. 64) states “The minimum size font for graphs and tables is 10 pt. font,” is 10 pt. font acceptable for the Past Performance Matrix?

Offerors are allowed to change font size ONLY. No less than 8 point font size.

May the P1 Past Performance Matrix be adjusted as necessary to better enable compliance with Sections L and M, so long as the overall width of the Matrix itself does not change? Currently, the column width for Description of work is narrow and unnecessarily increases the number of pages required to display the information required.

Offerors are allowed to change font size ONLY. No less than 8 point font size.

If the prime Offeror is a JV having more than 3 members, is there a limit to the number of JV Past Performance References that can be submitted (not exceeding two per JV Member)?

See the RFP, Section L, Part B, Volume 2, 2.1.

If the prime offeror is a JV, is each JV member required to provide at least one Past Performance Information reference?

See the RFP, Section L, Part B, Volume 2, 2.1.

Request Volume 2 (2.1 and 2.2) be extended to 20 pages. Since Small Business Primes can include similarly situated Small Businesses and JVs can have multiple members, the PP requirement of 15 pages (to include detail at the TO Level) does not allow adequate space to fully convey all the necessary PP information for all parties involved.

The RFP has been updated.

The SOW section 3.4.20 PHS&T references Exhibit C. An Exhibit C was not provided with the RFP. Is it possible to get clarification on this section?

See the RFP, Attachment 3 SOW, paragraph 3.1.3.1.

Please verify that the Functional Duties and Required Experience for Senior Logistics Analyst (which includes supervisory duties) and Senior Logistics Manager (which include subject matter expertise but no supervisory duties) are correct and not interchanged.

The labor category duties are accurate.

Logistics Engineer, Senior is the only labor category that requires a Master’s Degree under education. The requirement is a Master’s and 10 years of experience or a Bachelor’s and 14 years of experience.

a) Should the Section 4.4. Substitution Clause on page 68 of the SOW be updated to allow a Master’s Degree to substitute for the required years of experience for those labor categories not specifying a Master’s Degree under education?

The substitution table is not applicable to

4.5.17 Logistics Engineer, Sr., see

paragraph 4.5.17.1.

b) Does the additional years of experience in lieu of a Bachelor’s degree as specified in SOW Section 4.4 also apply to the technical degrees for the Engineering and Scientist labor categories?

Engineering substitution guidance, see Attachment 3 SOW, paragraph 4.4.1, which has been updated to include physical scientist and computer scientist disciplines.

Attachment 3 LOGEN SOW, Section 4.2 lists 20 Key Labor Categories.

The RFP, Section L, Part B, Subsection 1.2 requires a resume for “all proposed Key Personnel,” but requests 14 resumes for only 6 distinct Key Labor Categories. Which list of Key Labor Categories is correct and how many key resumes total should be submitted by the Offeror?

See updated language in Section L, Part B, paragraph 1.2.

Request the Program Manager, Senior labor category, which is designated as a Key Labor Category in Attachment 3 LOGEN SOW, Section 4.2, also be included on the list of requested Key Personnel resumes contained in the RFP, Section L, Part B, Subsection 1.2.

Rationale: A contract of this size and complexity will require strong Senior Leadership and requesting PM Key Resume(s) will enable the Government to adequately evaluate one of the critical elements of an Offeror’s Management Plan.

There is no requirement to review the Program Manager, Sr. Labor Category resume in Section L.

RFP, Sec M.2.0, p. 80, table - Will the Government please clarify the applicability of the Past Performance Magnitude Component with regard to "Approximately 300,000 hours per year," as this requirement would eliminate many SB Past Performance candidate submissions.

The stated approximate magnitude of 300,000 is less than half (approximately 32%) of the actual yearly projected hours of 926,411. While the 300,000 hours is already on the low side of the projected hours, it still allows for some comparison of proposals that are closer to the projected 926,411 hours.