Draft RFP N6852025R0001_QandA_5.13.2025.pdf

# Document Reference Paragraph Question Answer

1 Draft RFP pages 4-5 Section B-1 Estimated and Negotiated Labor Rates

Would the Government please add the following locations to the estimated locations for the composite rate table to account for all the locations where work is performed at on one of the incumbent contracts? Please add,Mayport, FL, Philadelphia, PA, Richmond, VA, Camp Pendleton, CA, Kinston, NC, Japan, and England. "Other Sites as Needed"

The Government does not intend to add the suggested locations. Rates will be established for east coast and west coast regions, for planned work performance locations identified by the Government. The anticipated planned work locations identified are CONUS in support of FRC work locations, although their may be OCONUS for temporary travel the Government does not anticipate CSS deployed

OCONUS.

2 Draft RFP page 10 Section B - LEVEL OF EFFORT Clause

As referenced in Question #2, the LOE totals in Attachment B-1 are 10 man-hours less than the aggregate amounts listed in the individual rows and columns. The total Level of Effort set out in page 10 of the Draft RFP does not account for that 10 man-hour discrepancy. Can the Government use formulas to calculate the totals in the Attachment B-1 so that all hours can be accounted for. Please use the total amount of hours from the B-1 to identify the total estimated level of man-hours in the Level of Effort Clause.

The final RFP level of effort will be updated to align with the B-1 table total hours, as well as updating the B-1 table correcting the aggregate totals.

3 Draft RFP page 12 Section C, Requirement of

Local Security System Clause

Section C of the Draft RFP lists the various locations requiring contractor employees to have a permanent badge for entry. In the Question Submitter's experience, contract performance often requires access to locations not anticipated in the original RFP. Would the Government consider updating the clause to include additional locations such as Mayport, FL, Philadelphia, PA, Richmond, VA, Camp Pendleton, CA, Kinston, NC, Japan, England, and "Other Sites as Needed" to ensure that all geographic locations are covered?

The final RFP "CTXT.204-9502 REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL SECURITY SYSTEM" will be updated to allow for other work locations identified by the government in individual task orders.

4 Draft RFP page 34 HTXT 227-9511

The Draft RFP states that the Government may use an independent services contractor (ISC) to conduct reviews, evaluations or independent verification and validations of technical documents submitted to the Government during performance. The Question Submitter has been providing logistics and engineering support services to NAVAIR for over 30 years and has not worked in conjunction with any entity designated as an ISC. Can you elaborate on the function of the ISC and which portions of the Statement of Work (SOW) an ISC would likely be involved in reviewing and evaluating the prime contractor’s performance and what these reviews and evaluations would likely consist of? Can you provide a sample of an Agreement between a prime contractor and ISC as referenced in subparagraph 277-9511(e)?

Please see details HTXT.227-9511 DISCLOSURE, USE

AND PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

(NAVAIR) (FEB 2009) for function of the ISC. Since this is an IDIQ contract, currently there is no known usage of ISC, however, in execution, a task order may require this usage based on their technical deliverables.

The Government does not have a sample, however, please see FAR 9.505-4 and DFARS 209.505-4 for further guidance.

Draft_Request for Proposal_N6852025R0001_Questions & Answers Logistics and Engineering Support (LOGEN II)

5 Draft RFP page 53 Section K, Annual

Representations and Certifications Clause

The Draft RFP cites NAICS 541330 as the applicable code for this acquisition and lists the size standard as $25.5 million. While NAICS 541330 does specify a $25.5million size standard, NAICS 541330 (Exception 1) sets the size standard for Engineering Services for Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons at $47.0 million. According to the Request for Information published in July, 2024, the current solicitation will combine the work encompassed in Contract N6852023D0001 (COMFRC Enterprise Logistics and Engineering) and Contract N6852021D0002 (FRCE LSS). Each of these prior contracts employed the higher size standard set in NAICS 541330 (Exception 1). That would more accurately describe the work encompassed in this solicitation. Moreover, the RFI for this solicitation states that “[T]he applicable NAICS Code is 541330, Engineering Services, Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons with a size standard of $47.0 million.” Can you clarify that the $47.0 million size standard applies to this solicitation?

The Government will update the size standard in Section K (Clause 52.204-8) to $47M in the final RFP.

6 Draft RFP page 53 Section K, Annual Reps and Certs Clause

FAR 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications lists the NAICS code for this acquisition as 541330 with a size standard as $25.5 million. While NAICS 541330 does include a $25.5million size standard, NAICS 541330 (Exception 1) sets the size standard for Engineering Services for Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons at $47.0 million. Will the size standard be revised to the $47.0 million size standard for this solicitation?

see response to question #5

7 Draft RFP Page 66 Section L, Part A, Subsection 2. Proposal Formatting

For ease of reference and organization, will the government allow the offeror to submit a cover and title page (which includes offeror's name, cage, UEI, address, POC, solicitation number, and proposal volume number for each volume) as well as table of contents that are exempt from volume page count requirements?

The final RFP, Section L, Part A, subsection 2. Proposal Formatting, will be revised to allow for administrative pages for each volume.

8 Draft RFP page 68

Section L, Part A, Subsection 3. Proposal

Content and Volumes and Table G-1

Section L states that "…the Offeror shall organize its submission using one folder for each volume or annex…" and further directs Offerors to "submit each volume or annex as one file, if possible," discouraging submission of separate files per section or paragraph. However, the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) does not allow Offerors to upload folders or compressed (.zip) files. PIEE also imposes individual file size limits that may restrict the ability to submit large volumes, annexes, or combined documents as single files.

The final RFP, Section L, Part A, subsection 3. Proposal Content and Volumes and table G-1, will be revised to allow for individual file submissions.

9 Draft RFP page 68

Section L, Part A, Subsection 3. Proposal

Content and Volumes and Table G-1

Will the Government allow Offerors to submit individual files for each volume and annex, provided that file naming conventions remain compliant with Table G-1 and files are clearly labeled for traceability and evaluation purposes? This adjustment would ensure compliance with PIEE limitations while preserving clarity and organization in proposal submissions.

See response to question #8

10 Draft RFP page 68 Section L, Part A, Subsection 3. Proposal Content and Volumes

Paragraph four states: "Offerors shall submit each volume or annex as one file, if possible".

However, Table G-1 indicates separate files must be submitted for each book in Volume 2.

Will the government please clarify the conflicting requirements.

Section L, Part A, Subsection 3, fourth paragraph will be removed from the final RFP.

11 Draft RFP page 68-69 Section L, Part A, Subsection 3, Table G-1

Table G-1 requires separate books for Volume 2. For ease of review and clarity, would the government consider allowing the offeror to submit a cover page, table of contents, and introduction as a separate book to accompany each book in Volume 2?

See response to question #7

12 Draft RFP page 68-69 Section L, Part A, Subsection 3, Table G-1

Table G-1 indicates paragraphs 2.3.2 & 2.3.3-2.3.3.3 are included in the NTE 10 page limitation for the Management Approach book of Volume 2. Is paragraph 2.3.3.4 also included in the 10 page limitation?

Yes, paragraph 2.3.3.4 shall be included within the NTE page limit for the Management Approach Book 3 of Volume 2. The final RFP will be updated accordingly.

13 Draft RFP page 68-69 Section L, Part A, Subsection 3, Table G-1

Table G-1 lists a 10-page total maximum page limitation for the Management Approach volume (2.3). However, the size and complexity of this effort requires significant management processes and resources. Based on the requirements stated in “Teaming and Subcontractor Management” (2.3.2), the “Transition Plan” (2.3.3), “Incoming Personnel” (2.3.3.2) and “Communication” (2.3.3.3), we request an increase in page limitation to 20 pages to fully describe the management efforts required.

The Government will increase the page limitation for the Management Approach Book 3 of Volume 2 from 10 pages to 15 pages. The final RFP will be updated accordingly.

14 Draft RFP page 68-69 Section L, Part A, Subsection 3, Table G-1

Please confirm that the resumes for the “Key Personnel” (2.3.1) are not counted towards the page limitation of the management plan.

The Government confirms that the resumes for Key Personnel, (Management Approach Book 3 of Volume 2) do not count towards the overall page limitation of the Management Approach proposal response. Resumes for Key personnel are limited to 3 pages for each resume.

15 Draft RFP page 68-69 Section L, Part A, Subsection 3, Table G-1

Table G-1 refers to a “Past Performance Matrix”; however, no Past Performance Matrix can be found in the draft RFP. Would the government please clarify the format of the Past Performance Matrix?

The "Past Performance Matrix" referenced in Table G-1 was intended to reference the Volume 3 Table PP-1 (Relevant Contract Summary). Table G-1, as it relates to Past Performance, will be revised in the final RFP.

16 Draft RFP page 68-69 Section L, Part A, Subsection 3, Table G-1

Page 68 of the Draft RFP sets a 10-page limit for the proposal's Management Approach Section. That Section at a minimum includes Teaming and Subcontractor Management, the Transition Plan and Communication. For a contract of this magnitude and complexity, a full description of the offeror's Management Plan requires more than 10 pages. Would the Government consider increasing the page limit for the Management Plan to 20 pages to allow offerors the ability to capture all of the requirements for the Management Approach Section?

See response to question #13

17 Draft RFP page 68-69 Section L, Part A, Subsection 3, Table G-1

Table G-1 Section 2.0 Management Approach of Volume 2 indicates an NTE 10 page total limitation listing paragraphs 2.3.2 & 2.3.3-2.3.3.3. However, paragraph 2.3.4 System Safety is also included in the 2.0 Management Approach section and it lists 3 page total limitation. Is the total requirement 13 pages for the Section 2.0 Management Approach, not including resumes?

No, the Management Approach Book 3 of Volume 2 has separate page limitations for specific sub elements within the Management Approach proposal response. While the aggregate page limit for the Management Approach response is currently 13 pages in total (not including resumes), the proposal response for sub elements 2.3.2 through 2.3.3.4 (see response to question #12) is limited to 15 pages (see response to question #13) and the proposal response for sub element

2.3.4 (System Security) is limited to 3 pages.

18 Draft RFP pages 68 & 69 Section L, Part A, Subsection 3

The Draft RFP sets out the page limitations for the various proposal volumes. Table G-1 lists a 10-page total for the Management Approach volume (2.3). “Key Personnel” (2.3.1) is listed as a subsection of Management Approach but the 3-pages per resume do not appear to be included in the 10-page limit for management approach. Is that correct? Is it also correct that the 10-page limit applies only to the aggregate number of pages for “Teaming and Subcontractor Management” (2.3.2), the “Transition Plan” (2.3.3), “Incoming Personnel” (2.3.3.2) and “Communication” (2.3.3.3)? Are any subsections other than these included in the 10-page limit for Management Approach?

Yes, the page limits for key Personnel resumes are not included within the page limits set forth for the Management Approach Book 3 Volume 2 proposal response. Please see the response to questions #12, #13, and #17.

19 Draft RFP page 69 Section L, Part A, Subsection 3, Table G-1

Table G-1 lists a 15-page total maximum page limitation for the Past Performance volume.

Due to the scope of the SOW on this contract and large number of related tasks and varying efforts on relevant Past Performance references we request an increase in page limitation to 25 pages to fully describe the relevant experience.

The Government appreciate the recommendation, however, the determination was made that the page limit for the past performance information is sufficient.

Within the comparative analysis, Offerors will identify the relevant portions (sections, paragraphs, and page numbers), for the contract reference SOW/PWS being provided, do not insert full text or restate the SOW/PWS in the comparative analysis.

20 Draft RFP page 69 Volume 3, 3.1 and 3.2

Past Performance Matrix. Is there a particular format the Government is expecting to see or this up to the offeror's discretion?

See response to question #15

21 Draft RFP page 69 Section L, Part A, Subsection 3, Table G-1

The Draft RFP within Table G-1 lists a 15-page total maximum page limit for Past Performance. Due to the combination of the current LOGEN and FRCE Logistics contract, would the government consider to increase the page limitation to demonstrate experience and past performance.

See response to question #19

22 Draft RFP page 69 & 79-

Section L Part A Subsection 3, Table G-1 Section L Part B Subsection 3. Volume 3

Past Performance

Table G-1 Past Performance numbering and Part B Paragraph 3 Volume 3 Past Performance beginning on page 79 do not coincide. Would the government please clarify the past performance requirements?

The final RFP will be revised to clarify Table G-1 Past Performance. The numbering scheme in Section L, Part B, Volume 3 is correct. Please see the response to question #15 the second question asked.

23 RFP RFP Table G-1

Please clarify the page limits for Volume 3 – Past Performance. Is the 15-page limit for all written content, but excluding Att. L-3 as it is an Excel file, and excluding consent letters as they are included in an annex? Or is each CR written content limited to 3 pages each, as PPQs are not submitted in the proposal?

The page limits for the Section L, part B, Volume 3 (Past Performance) will be revised in the final RFP to include updates to Table G-1. The page limit applies to the written narrative for the proposal response.

Attachment L-3 is a form that shall be completed for each contract reference and should only contain the information requested within the instructions tab of the attachment.

Page limits for each Annex are separate from the written narrative in the proposal response. Please see the response to question #15 and #22.

24 RFP RFP Table G-1

Requirements for Volume 2 will be difficult to address sufficiently in 40 pages. For example:

Although resumes are counted outside of that page count, the Management volume includes the transition plan which is usually close to 10 pages by itself. Even if extremely abbreviated technical subsection responses are provided, a 10 page management section is not enough to provide the level of detail required. Will the Government consider the following page limits to ensure a compliant proposal can be provided by responsible offerors?

Book 1: 20 Book 2: 20 Book 3: 20 (not including resumes)

Please see the response to questions #12, #13, and #17.

25 Draft RFP page 72 Section L, Part B, Subsection 1.a.(3)

The draft RFP states "Prime Offerors shall provide a copy of all teaming arrangements in accordance with Section H Clause HTXT.215-9505." Based on the reference to Clause

HTXT.215-9505 EXCLUSIVE TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS WHICH INHIBIT

COMPETITION (NAVAIR) (OCT 2005), based on the clause referencing exclusive teaming arrangements, please confirm that only exclusive teaming agreements need to be submitted in Annex A.

Per clause HTXT.215-9505 all teaming arrangements, not just Exclusive arrangements, shall be provided in Annex A.

HTXT.215-950 states in part "Offerors who propose teaming arrangements on an exclusive basis will be evaluated to determine whether such teaming agreements inhibit competition. In order for the Government to evaluate whether the proposed agreements inhibit competition, offerors are required to (1) provide a copy of all teaming arrangements, and (2) explain why the teaming arrangements do not inhibit competition."

26 Draft RFP page 75 & 77

Section L, Part B, Subsection 2, Table T-1 and

Section L, Part B, Subsection 2, 2.2

The draft RFP Technical Volume requirements indicate that the Offeror shall respond to specific paragraphs identified for the Logistics Approach identified in Table T-1 and on page

77. Additionally, on page 77 the draft RFP states "For the SOW task areas specified below (including subparagraphs within):". Since the language indicates that a response is required for subparagraphs, is there a reason why subparagraphs 3.4.3.13.3 and 3.4.3.13.4 were specifically identified?

The Government will revise the instructions for the Logistics Approach Book 2 Volume 2 in the final RFP by removing "(including subparagraphs within)".

27 Draft RFP pages 77-78 Section 2.3.1

The Draft RFP, at pages 77 and 78, identifies Key Labor Categories. With the magnitude, scope and complexity of incorporating both LOGEN and FRCE Logistics contract into LOGEN II, we recommend the Government request additional resumes for Key Labor Categories listed. This will allow the Government to adequately evaluate the Workforce Section of an Offeror’s Technical Proposal.

The Government appreciates the question and has determined that the key personnel identified within Section L Part B, Management Approach Book 3 Volume 2 are the appropriate number and type required by the Government for evaluation purposes.

28 Draft RFP pages 79-81 Section L Volume 3 Past Performance

Page 80 of the Draft RFP states that “[T]he Offeror shall submit no more than three (3) Past Performance Information as the Prime Contractor, no more than two (2) for each principal subcontractor and/or no more than two (2) for each JV team member. Table PP-1, Relevant Contract Summary, lists 3 Past Performance Items for a Prime or Joint Venture Company. If the proposed prime contractor is a mentor-protégé JV, what is the page limit for each member of that JV? Additionally, Table PP-1 on page 80 appears to list 3 past performance contracts for hypothetical Subcontractor A, while the narrative limits each principal subcontractor to 2 Past Performance items. Does the 2-page limit apply to all proposed subcontractors as indicated in the narrative?

Each individual contract reference is not page limited. Table PP-1 and the instructions within Section L, Part B Volume 3 (Past Performance) limit the number of contract references an offeror may submit for evaluation. Table PP-1 summarizes the proposed contract references. The written narrative for the Volume 3(Past Performance) proposal response is page limited. Table PP-1 within the final RFP will be revised to remove the additional row for Subcontractor A.

29 Draft RFP page 80 Section L, Part B, Subsection 3, Table PP-1

Please clarify what information is to be provided in the last column of Table PP-1 that states “*Description of Changes/Additions from Early Information”.

The "*Description of Changes/Additions from Early Information" column is not applicable and will be removed in the final RFP.

30 Attachment B-1 LOE Tab

Many labor categories do not have hours assigned. Will the government consider adding a nominal amount of hours to each labor category to allow offerors to establish a composite rate for each labor category? This will provide customers the flexibility to utilize all labor categories during execution of this contract.

The Government recognize that the West Region does not have hours associated with some of the labor categories.

However, this does not prevent the establishment of the composite rate nor will it prevent utilization of the labor categories in execution.

31 Attachment B-1 LOE Tab Totals are incorrect and appear to be hard coded. We suggest using formulas to ensure correct totals if additional changes are made. See response to question #2

32 Attachment B-1 LOE Spreadsheet Tab

Attachment B-1 sets out the anticipated level of effort, by hours, for each geographic location, for each labor category described in the Draft SOW. However, a number of categories do not have hours assigned to them. Can the Government clarify the estimated level of effort under this contract by assigning hours to each of the labor categories identified in Attachment B-1 for all years and in each geographic location so that potential bidders can establish a composite rate for every labor category and each contract year?

See response to question #30

33 Attachment B-1 LOE Spreadsheet Tab

In Attachment B-1,the total hours listed for Contractor Engineering and Logistics Support Services do not accurately reflect the amounts noted in the individual labor category rows and columns. There is a discrepancy of 10 man-hours with the totals ten hours less than the amounts listed. Can the Government use formulas to calculate the totals in the Attachment B-1 to ensure that all hours are accounted for in the overall LOE totals?

See response to question #2

34 Attachment B-1 LOE Spreadsheet Tab

It is anticipated that there will be an occasional need for Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to complete some highly technical items in the SOW. These experts, such as a staff scientist or an appointed approver, warrant/demand higher rates than what would be standard in the relevant labor category. Can a SME labor category be added so this extra cost doesn't have to be incorporated into the more broadly used Senior category and to allow easier execution of small task orders that utilize a SME? This would be a key person that offers exceptional subject matter expertise for the specified task, including advanced technical knowledge and analysis of highly specialized applications and operational environments. Provides high-level functional systems analysis, design, integration, documentation, training, and implementation guidance on complex issues requiring SME knowledge and experience. Utilizes principles, methods, and expertise from specific functional areas to meet task order requirements. Advises on intricate problems necessitating extensive subject matter knowledge.

Standardized labor categories are aligned to clearly defined functional areas, and required skills have been identified by government. The requirements SOW includes a wide range of specialized Sr. engineering and logistics labor categories to cover the scope of work. SME labor categories will not be added to the final SOW.

35 RFP Section M, III. B.

The requirement of at least 500K hourly annually to achieve "somewhat relevant" past performance relevance eliminates many small businesses from presenting a qualifying response for this RFP. Would the Government consider lifting or altering this requirement to open the competition to additional small businesses?

The government does intend on updating "somewhat relevant" past performance hours threshold and language in the final

RFP.

36 RFP & Attachment L-3 RFP Section L-B.3 Attachment L-3 Should Contract References be within three years or five years?

The evaluation of Past Performance contract references will be limited to the past three years. Attachment L-3 will be revised in the final RFP.

37 Attachment 3 Draft SOW page 38 Paragraph 3.4.4.4 Will additional language be provided as referenced by the inserted comment?

Paragraph 3.4.4.4 will be revised in the final RFP to correct the grammar and remove comments. No additional language will be provided.

38 Attachment 3 Draft SOW page 44 Paragraph 3.4.9.2 Will additional language be provided as referenced by the inserted comment?

Paragraph 3.4.9.2 will be revised in the final RFP by replacing the reference to SPAWAR with NAVWARSYSCOM. No additional language will be provided.

39 Draft SOW pages 64-65 Section 4.4, 4.4.1 and 4.4.2

Section 4.4 of the Draft SOW indicates that 6 years’ additional work experience or an Associate’s Degree plus 4 years’ additional work experience may be substituted for a Bachelor’s Degree. Section 4.4.2 states that on a case by case basis, the Government may waive certain labor category requirements if experience is significantly above the minimum required or a highly unique skill set, specialized training, military experience and/or professional certification is determined to qualify the individual to meet the need. However, Section 4.4.1 states that the listed engineering disciplines require a BS degree, without substitution in a professional engineering (from an American Board for Engineering and Technology – accredited educational program) or a relevant scientific/technical degree in the applicable task area. Do the substitution provisions in the Table on page 64 apply to the engineering labor categories listed in the Draft SOW? Does the case-by-case waiver provision in Section 4.4.2 apply to the engineering labor categories listed in the Draft SOW? Are there any instances where a Bachelor’s Degree would not be strictly required under this SOW for any of the engineering labor categories? If so, which ones?

No, the substitution provisions in the table on page 64 do NOT apply to the engineering labor categories. Section 4.4.1 states no substitutions for engineering positions.

Yes, the case by case waiver provisions in paragraph 4.4.2 may apply to engineering positions but only for case-by-case situations at the Governments discretion. For example, a Professional Engineering license may replace the need for a bachelor's degree in engineering.

Educational requirements are listed for each labor category.

Positions such as engineering technician, for example, are in the engineering labor categories but do not require bachelor's degrees.

40 Attachment 3 Draft SOW page 71-72 Paragraph 4.5.8.1

The labor category requirements for Computer Programmer, Journeyman states that "At least three (3) to ten (10) years of experience performing the functional duties to be performed for this position." However, in the Journeyman Required Education subparagraph following this statement an allowable substitution for education states "or Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university in computer science, programming, or related field, with no additional experience required." Please confirm that no experience is required to fulfill this labor category if a Bachelor's degree is achieved.

With a Bachelors, the minimum experience for a Journeyman is three (3) years performing functional duties.

41 Attachment 3 Draft SOW page 90 Paragraph 4.5.27.1

The labor category requirements for Software Developer, Senior states that "At least ten (10) years of extensive experience in performing the functional duties to be performed for this position" However, the Senior Required Education subparagraph states "BS or BA degree from an accredited college or university in computer science, programming, or related field, with no additional experience required" Please confirm that no experience is required to fulfill this labor category if a Bachelor's degree is achieved.

The experience for a Senior is 10 years. The education requirement is a Bachelor's degree. The phrase "no additional experience required" will be deleted in the Final RFP. The intent in other similar paragraphs is to give alternate methods to achieve the qualifications. No alternate methods is applicable to the Senior Software Developer labor category.