C06 - Responses Spreadsheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6893624R0017
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) spreadsheet for solicitation N6893624R0017, which provides clarifications about a Japanese Defense Forces Interpretation and Translation services contract at Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD). The document reveals that Saalex Corporation is the incumbent contractor under contract N6893618D0012, order N6893623F054. Key clarifications include extending the proposal due date to 1/17/2025, modifying the contractor facility requirement from mandatory to preferred within 50 miles of NAWCWD Pt. Mugu, and maintaining the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type despite contractor requests for Time & Materials.
The Q&A addresses staffing requirements of approximately 11,000 hours per year for Interpreters/Translators (totaling 55,000 hours over the contract duration), facility security requirements referencing the DD 254, and confirmation that facility costs cannot be included as Other Direct Costs (ODCs). The Government declined to modify minimum labor category requirements when asked about implementing Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) levels for Japanese and English language skills.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 24R0017 Amendment 5.docx | DOCX document | |
| 24R0017 Amendment 4.docx | DOCX document | |
| 24R0017 Amendment 3.docx | DOCX document | |
| C06 - Responses Spreadsheet 02.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Solicitation amendment 02.docx | DOCX document | |
| Solicitation amendment.docx | DOCX document | |
| Solicitation N6893624R0017.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Technical Questions | ||||
| RFP Section | Page | Sentence from RFP | Questions/Comments | Government Response |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | Would the Government confirm if this is a recompete of a current contract? If so, would the Government share the incumbent and current contract number? | Would the Government confirm if this is a recompete of a current contract? If so, would the Government share the incumbent and current contract number? |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | Would the Government extend the due date of responses to give vendors enough time to analyze and addresses Government responses to Q&As? | Would the Government extend the due date of responses to give vendors enough time to analyze and addresses Government responses to Q&As? |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | Would the Government confirm if this is a recompete of a current contract? If so, would the Government share the incumbent and current contract number? | This requirement is currently being satisfied under N6893618D0012, order N6893623F054 and the incumbent is Saalex Corporation. |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | Would the Government extend the due date of responses to give vendors enough time to analyze and addresses Government responses to Q&As? | The RFP due date will be extended to 1/17/2025. |
| PWS Section 3.1.2.2.1 | 10 | The contractor shall establish a facility located within fifty (50) miles of the NAWCWD main gate at Pt. Mugu, California | Would the Government remove this requirement for the facility as 90% of the work is anticipated to be at a government site and the facility would greatly increase costs to the Government. | The Government will revise PWS Section 3.1.2.2.1 as follows: The Government would prefer the contractor have a facility located within fifty (50) miles of the NAWCWD main gate at Pt. Mugu, California to accomidate meetings for emergent needs. In the absense of a local facility, Contractors shall attend in person meetings requested by the Government within 72 hours of request. |
| PWS Section 3.1.2.2.1 | 10 | The contractor shall establish a facility located within fifty (50) miles of the NAWCWD main gate at Pt. Mugu, California | Would the Government provide details of the nature of the work to be performed at the contractor facility? Are there any specific facility accreitation e.g. SECRET or software or IT network requirements and other requirements required at this facility? | Please refer to the DD 254 located in Section J, Exhibit 2. |
| PWS Section 3.1.5 | 4 | Other Direct Costs | Would the Government include facilities under ODC as required under PWS Section 3.1.2.2.1? | Would the Government include facilities under ODC as required under PWS Section 3.1.2.2.1? |
| PWS Section 3.1.5 | 4 | Other Direct Costs | Would the Government include facilities under ODC as required under PWS Section 3.1.2.2.1? | It is not the intent of the Government to include facility costs under ODC's. |
| RFP Section L, Part B, Section 1.2.1 | 57 | The Offeror shall provide resumes for all current, prospective, or contingent Personnel identified in Section L-1, Part B, Volume 2, paragraph 3.6.3 | Paragraph 3.6.3 is not present in the RFP. Would the Government confirm how many Full-Time Employees (FTE) are required? RFP Section L, Part B, Section 3.5.2 states a work-year is defined as 1,920 hours and 11,000 hours are allocated per year for Interpreters/Translators. This equates to ~5.79 FTE. If 6 FTE are required, recommend the Government use a work-year of 1872 hours (11 federal holidays and 15 days PTO) for a total of 11,232 per year and 120 for program management for a total of 11,352 hours per year. | Reference to Section L1 Part B, Volume 2, paragraph 3.6.3 has been removed. The Government's estimated need is based on hours not FTE's, as such the Government anticipates an overall need of 55,000 hours for Interpreters/Translators over the duration of the contract. |
| RFP Section A | 2 | The government intends to issue Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) price, Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contract, with a 5-year ordering period | Would the Government consider issuing a Time & Materials (T&M) contract, instead of a CPFF? CPFF contracts require contractors to have a DCAA-approved accounting system, which is time consuming and cost intensive. A CPFF would substantially limit competition among qualified 8(a) firms. Contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity have been awarded to 8(a) firms as T&M, with no issues. |
Issuing of a CPFF also creates challenges for a prime offeror to team with a subcontractor, as a subcontractor is then required to share certified pricing data, which can be laborous and sensitive and may required submission of sealed pricing packages from subcontractor teammates. Would the Government consider issuing a Time & Materials (T&M) contract, instead of a CPFF? CPFF contracts require contractors to have a DCAA-approved accounting system, which is time consuming and cost intensive. A CPFF would substantially limit competition among qualified 8(a) firms. Contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity have been awarded to 8(a) firms as T&M, with no issues.
Issuing of a CPFF also creates challenges for a prime offeror to team with a subcontractor, as a subcontractor is then required to share certified pricing data, which can be laborous and sensitive and may required submission of sealed pricing packages from subcontractor teammates.
RFP Section A 2 The government intends to issue Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) price, Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contract, with a 5-year ordering period Would the Government consider issuing a Time & Materials (T&M) contract, instead of a CPFF? CPFF contracts require contractors to have a DCAA-approved accounting system, which is time consuming and cost intensive. A CPFF would substantially limit competition among qualified 8(a) firms. Contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity have been awarded to 8(a) firms as T&M, with no issues.
| Issuing of a CPFF also creates challenges for a prime offeror to team with a subcontractor, as a subcontractor is then required to share certified pricing data, which can be laborous and sensitive and may required submission of sealed pricing packages from subcontractor teammates. | The Government will not revise the contract type as CPFF is the approved contract type within acquisition strategy. | ||||
| PWS Section 3.3.1 | 8 | Translation and Interpretation | Recommend the Government set Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) levels of 3/3/3 (Reading/Writing/Listening/Speaking) for Journeyman Labor Category qualifications; 4/4/4 for Senior and SME Labor Category qualifications in both Japanese and English language skill. Recommend that Linguist qualifications be verified through use of an approved language testing vendor such ALTA or acceptatnce of previous military Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT) scores completed within the last 3 years of proposal submission. Also recommend that test qualification ILR 3 levels be used in lieu of years experience and degree requirements for the Journeyman labor category qualification. ILR 4 for Senior and ILR 4 along with years experience for SME labor category qualifications. | The minimum Government Labor Category requiements are contained in the PWS and the Government does not intend to update these requirements at this time. |
&"-,Italic"&9MF-02B Company Points of Contact – v3 Effective 5/2/2022
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .