Industry_Questions_ _Answers.rtf

Industry Questions & Answers

Question 1: In consideration of the resources, complexity and time required to provide a compliant and responsive proposal after release of the Q&A (to be posted after 09 July 2014), would the Government consider an extension of the proposal due date to 06 Aug 2014?

Answer 1: The response date has been extended as illustrated in Amendment 0002.

Question 2: The WD that is attached to the solicitation is WD 2005-2053 Revision 16 dated 06/19/2013 for California Counties of Riverside, San Bernardino. The place of performance for this effort is Kern County California. Which WD should be applied to this effort?

Answer 2: The Weapons Survivability Laboratory (WSL) is located in San Bernardino County. Accordingly, the wage determination for San Bernardino County shall be utilized in responses.

Question 3: RFP page 67, Section L, Part B, 1.0 Volume 1: Executive Summary. Proposal Packaging, Paragraph vii and RFP page 70, Section L, Part B, 3.0 Volume 3: Past Performance. Are we to include consent forms from principal subcontractors and critical team members in Volume 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY or Volume 3 PAST PERFORMANCE?

Answer 3: Refer to L-1, Part B, 1.0 Volume 1: Executive Summary; this requirement has been revoked from the Executive Summary.

Question 4: RFP page 67, Section L, Part B, 1.0 Volume 1: Executive Summary. Paragraph iii requires us to include “completion of any RFP clause or provision that requires a fill-in or response.” Are we to include these in the SF 33 section or in Section iv. Reps and Certs?

Answer 4: Please respond in accordance with the solicitation guidance.

Question 5: RFP Attachment 8 – Cost Spreadsheet. Are the values provided for the travel and ODC CLINs 0002, 0003, 0006, 0007, and 0010 plug numbers that all offerors must use in the development of their pricing? If so, are these numbers not to exceed or are offerors to apply burdens to these values?

Answer 5: Section L and the Attachment 8 Cost Spreadsheet have been revised to provide additional clarification on the ODC and Travel tabs as well as other tabs. ***Please note that comments have been included in the spreadsheet cells for additional clarifications embedded in Attachment 8.***

Question 6: RFP page 69, Section L, Part B, 2.0 Volume 2: Technical. Paragraph c. Personnel Resources - Workforce Qualifications Spreadsheet Attachment 6. In completing the spreadsheet, are we correct in assuming that the field “Brief Description of Qualifications Relevant to Degree Requirements, Specific Experience, and Functional Area/Description” should be left blank for each prospective hire employee since they are likely to be incumbent employees that will transfer in accordance with FAR 52.222-17 Non-displacement of Qualified Workers?

Answer 6: “The Offeror is responsible to present enough information to allow the Government to evaluate the proposed work effort, support and approach, as well as the price/cost proposal without opening discussion” as stated in L-1 Section 1.0.

Question 7: RFP Amendment 0001, page 8, Section L, Part B, 3.1 General. RFP instructions indicate that our customers should send completed Past Performance Questionnaires and CPAR updates directly to Ms. Gina Olson. Therefore we will not receive copies. However, the RFP asks us to “include copies of each completed questionnaire or matrix in the Past Performance volume.” Please clarify.

Answer 7: Please refer to the revised Section L Instructions; this requirement has been revoked.

Question 8: RFP Amendment 0001, page3, Part A, 2.0 Proposal Format. RFP instructions indicate we are to use a “Times New Roman 12 pt normal font”. However the Past Performance Matrix table required under (a) Contract Data in the Past Performance volume for each of our contracts referenced will take up most of the 10 page limit since we are referencing 5 contracts. Request that table font size be reduced to 10 point.

Answer 8: “In presenting material in the proposal, the Offeror is advised that quality is more important than quantity” as stated in L-1 Section 1.0.

Question 9:

Background: In response to previous Q#8 regarding Executive Summary Page Count. The table shows a one (1) page limit for Volume 1: Executive Summary, however in Part B Specific Instructions it lists 7 items that must be included in that volume, 5 of which are not excluded from the page count. Item i. requires us to provide “a concise abstract of the Offeror’s strategy for each of the evaluation criteria,” this alone will take at least one page. Respectfully request page limit be increased. Govt. Response: “See revised Section L. Please note your question indicated it had been one page when Section L had stated 10 pages. Also see the additional exceptions to the page limit noted under the Table in Section L, Paragraph B Specific Instructions, 1.0 Volume 1: Executive Summary.”

New Question: The Proposal Content Table in Section L still shows a one (1) page limit for the Executive Summary. Although more items were excluded from page count, the abstract of our proposal and the Offeror Summary Table are still included. It is virtually impossible to fit both onto one page. We respectfully request page limit be increased.

Answer 9: See Revised Table in Amendment 0002-revised to 2 pages.

Question 10:

Background: In response to previous Q#10 regarding the Past Performance Volume. Govt. Response: Please see revised Section L. Section 3.0 Proposal Content Table. Also, in lieu of the table Past Performance Matrix table listed under 3.1 use Section J. Attachment 2. In lieu of the first table under Section 3.2 use Section J. Attachment 3.

New Question: Both the tables listed under 3.1 and 3.2 are still in the revised Section L, Part B Specific Instructions. Q&A does not relieve offerors from providing data in accordance with Section L, so we believe that still we must respond to this requirement. Request that data not required by the Government be removed from Section L.

Answer 10: The referenced tables are part of Standard NAVAIR clause therefore cannot be removed from Section L. However, clarifying language was added to show that the tables are provided for illustrative purposes.

Question 11. The response to Q#10 (on first Q&A round) states “In lieu of the first table under Section 3.2 use Section J. Attachment 3.” Please confirm that Government wants us to provide copies of the Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaires that were sent out to our customers for completion?

Answer 11: Please refer to the revised Section L Instructions and question 7 herein.

Question 12:

Background: In response to previous Q#27 (on first Q&A round) regarding Volume 5 Exceptions, Deviations and Waivers. Govt. Response: “Also see the answer to question #13. This has been corrected to Volume 5. It was just to note that even if there are no exceptions, deviations etc. you still have to include a Volume 5 even if just a one-page stating there are no exceptions etc.”

New Question: Please clarify the Government is requesting this one page statement in its own Volume 5 to be submitted in the form of 3 hard copies and 6 individual CDs? Also, the revised Section L for Volume 1 still shows this as a requirement for Volume 1 and not excluded from the page count. Request that Section L be revised to delete this requirement in Volume 1.

Answer 12: “If there are no exceptions, deviations, or waivers the Offeror shall provide a one page Volume 5 in the Executive Summary stating so” per L-1 Section 5.0.

Question 13:

Background: In response to Q#34 (on first Q&A round) regarding Section L, Clause 5252.215-9505 Exclusive Teaming Arrangements Which Inhibit Competition. RFP requires offerors to “provide a copy of all teaming arrangements…” Please provide direction on where to include the copies of the teaming arrangements. Govt. Response: See Section L. Part B. Specific Instructions 1.0 Volume 1: Executive Summary.

New Question: The amended Section L. Part B. Specific Instructions 1.0 Volume 1: Executive Summary does not contain information on which section should contain the copies of Teaming Arrangements. Please clarify. Also, are the copies of Teaming Arrangements excluded from the page count?

Answer 13: Refer to Section L, Part B, 2.0, VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL, b. Management Approach.

Question 14:

Background: In response to the previous second Q#40 regarding Past Performance Volume. The Proposal Content table shows a breakdown of each of the volumes with the detail in Part B. However, the breakdown in the table of Volume 3 Past Performance is completely different than the detail breakdown in Part B. Please clarify how to format our Volume 3 Past Performance submission. Govt. Response: See Revised Section L.

New Question: (2 parts) Request additional information on how to format our Volume 3 Past Performance submission:

14(a) New Question. What information is required for “Summary Past Performance Proposal” under Proposal Content Table? The narrative sections in the Past Performance area do not address this item at all.

14(a) Answer: Please refer to the revised Section L-1, Part A, 3.0 proposal content and volumes table.

14(b). New Question. Section L.3.1 Past Performance, paragraph 2, states the following “For each contract identified, provide contract data, relevancy, past performance, and systemic improvement information as described below. Demonstrate the relevancy of the Offeror's, and if applicable, the Offeror's principal subcontractors' or critical team members' past performance, as well as demonstrated systemic improvements with respect to the solicitation requirements. For each past performance problem identified, describe the status of the demonstrated systemic improvement efforts and, where applicable, demonstrate the impact that the demonstrated systemic improvement effort had on resolving the problem such that it would not reoccur.” Is this data to be provided at the end of Attachment 2, in addition to page 2, or is it part of the “Summary Past Performance Proposal” noted in Proposal Content Table?

14(b) Answer: Please refer to the revised Section L Instructions and question 14(a) herein.

Question 15:

Background: The Government answered in response to Question 8 of the Industry Q&A document, related to Volume 1: Executive Summary, “Please note your question indicated it had been one page when Section L had stated 10 pages.” Also, referencing p. 4 of the Revised Solicitation the table still references a one page limit for the Executive Summary Volume. Is the page limit for the Executive Summary Volume 1 page or 10 pages? Will the Government please change the page limit for the Executive Summary Volume to 2 pages to adequately capture the i. Offeror’s Strategy, ii Offeror Summary Table, and required statements (v. Affirmation and vi. Proposal Validity)?

Answer 15: See the Government response to Question #9.

Question 16: The Government answered in response to Question 10 of the Industry Q&A document, related to Volume 3: Past Performance, “Also, in lieu of the table Past Performance Matrix table listed under 3.1 use Section J. Attachment 3. In lieu of the first table under Section 3.2 use Section J. Attachment 3.” Is the table listed under 3.1 on p. 9 and the table under 3.2 on p.10, of the Revised Solicitation, required for inclusion in the Summary Past Performance Proposal (with a 10 page limit) identified on p. 4 of the Revised Solicitation?

Answer 16: See the response to Question 14a. and 14b.

Question 17: The Government states within the Past Performance section of the table on p. 4 of the Revised Solicitation, “Attachment 2: Past Performance Matrix – ….1 email to contract specialist per reference.” The Matrix (first page) lends itself to containing information for multiple references; however the 2nd page lends itself to being duplicated for multiple references. Will the Government accept 1 email with 1 Past Performance Matrix document that covers all the Offeror’s references?

Answer 17: Please refer to the revised Section L Instructions and question 7 herein.

Question 18: The Government states under 3.1 on p. 8 of the Revised Solicitation, last paragraph, “For contracts that have CPARS Reports or similar reports that are more than six months old. E.g., the completion date is more than six months before the due date for this Past Performance Volume, the Offeror will forward a copy of the CPARS Update Questionnaire (Attachment 7) to the contract customer’s Program Manager.” If a contract being referenced is complete and has a “Final CPAR” that is more than 6 months old, is the Offeror still required to have their Customer complete a CPAR Update Questionnaire, given the ratings will not change from the Final CPAR?

Answer 18: Please respond in accordance with the solicitation guidance.

Question 19: The Government states under 3.1 on p. 8 of the Revised Solicitation, last paragraph, “Once completed, all CPARS Update Questionnaires (Attachment 7), Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 3) and Past Performance Matrices (Attachment 2) shall be forwarded within two weeks from the RFP release date via email to the contracts specialist Gina Olson …” Since this is a new requirement and the two week deadline has already passed, will the Government remove the two week requirement as long as completed Questionnaires and Matrices are received by the proposal due date of July 30th? If not, will the Government please revise the two week requirement as it is currently stated?

Answer 19: Please refer to the revised Section L. Instructions and question 7 herein.

Question 20: The Government states on p. 13 of the original Solicitation under 3.7.3 Research, “The Contractor shall perform research……best suited to meet test program requirements in accordance with A00J.” Exhibit A-CDRLs does not contain a CDRL A00J. What is the appropriate CDRL reference for this section?

Answer 20: See the revised PWS in the Amendment 0002 to the RFP. The CDRL reference has been removed.

Question 21: The Government answered in response to Question 29 of the Industry Q&A document, related to Attachment 8 Cost Spreadsheet, “No, please submit in accordance with your approved accounting systems for the Cost Volume but translate this information into the Attachment 8 Spreadsheet without altering the format/setup of the Attachment 8 Spreadsheet.” Also, on p. 13 of the Revised Solicitation, paragraph (j), 7th bullet the Government states “If the offeror chooses to increase the Government estimated amount by applying burdens or for other reasons, the offeror must provide the basis/detail for the variance.” What is the Government’s recommendation for applying a burden to ODC elements within Attachment 8 without altering the format/setup (e.g. utilizing/adding a cell for burden calculation)?

Answer 21: See the Government’s response to Question #5.

Question 22: The Government answered in response to Question 29 of the Industry Q&A document, related to Attachment 8 Cost Spreadsheet, “No, please submit in accordance with your approved accounting systems for the Cost Volume but translate this information into the Attachment 8 Spreadsheet without altering the format/setup of the Attachment 8 Spreadsheet.” Also, on p. 13 of the Revised Solicitation, paragraph (j), 6th bullet the Government states “Identify profit/fee rate and total amounts proposed and identify the various cost elements to which the profit/fee is being applied. Profit, Base, Award, and Incentive fee rates, as applicable in Section B, must be clearly distinguishable.” What is the Government’s recommendation for entering a Fee Rate into Attachment 8 for each performance period, without modifying altering the format/setup (e.g. adding a cell(s) for applying Fee Rate)?

Answer 22: The Attachment 8 Cost Spreadsheet is laid out by CLIN. The “Total CLIN” cell is set up so all that needs to be done is to update the fee percentage from 0 percent to offeror fee rate proposed. Also please refer to the Government’s response to Question #5.