Amendment_5_QA_12.20.17.pdf

RFP NNG17591526R

Questions and Answers December 20, 2017

Q53: Amendment 3, Exhibit 1C in the referenced file asks for Direct Labor Costs. Does the Government require the Offeror to enter the direct labor cost without any burdens, or does the Government require the labor cost with fully burdened rates for onsite, offsite, and manufacturing?

A53: Per L.17(b)(3) Exhibit 1C, The Grand Total Government Pricing Model value is a summation of costs in Exhibit 1A plus the Total Prime Offeror Loaded ODC Costs in Exhibit 1B. These are fully burdened rates.

Q54: Amendment 3, Section L.14(c)(2)(8) states that, “for proposals submitted as joint ventures, the facility clearance must be granted in the name of the joint venture.” However, the DSS Facility Clearance Branch states that a Facility Security Clearance (FCL) request will be rejected if it “is for a solicitation in which access to classified material or information is not needed during the pre-award stage.” For a new, unpopulated JV, will the Government accept active Secret (or higher) cleared facilities in the partners’ names until the DSS issues the FCL in the JV’s name?

A54: No. See response to #Q51.

Q55: In response to question #8, the Government stated “The Manufacturing Engineer III labor category hours under the Manufacturing GPM have been moved to the Offsite GPM. See question and answer #11 for revised Offsite total hours. Revised GPM document will be provided under Amendment 3.”

However, Amendment 3 did not change Enclosure CC, and the provided Exhibits 1A–1C include entries for a Manufacturing Site. Will the Government confirm that the Offeror is required to propose Manufacturing Site rates?

A55: Amendment 4 provided revised Enclosure CC which shows more accurate expectation of manufacturing hours. Updates correct answers provided under question #Q8 and #Q11.

Q56: The revised Exhibit 1A provided in Amendment 3 appears to conflict with Answer 8 and Answer 11 of the Q&A. It was our understanding that the manufacturing site would be removed completely. Will the Government issue a revised Exhibit 1A, and the Enclosure CC reflecting the changed hours?

A56: Updates provided under Amendment 4 correct answers provided for questions #Q8 and #Q11. A revised Enclosure CC was provided with Amendment 4 reflecting required manufacturing hours.

Q57: In light of the extensive Question and Answers provided today as part of Amendment 4, when will the Government issue a revised RFP? As you know many of the answers provided to industry impact sections of the solicitation and will significantly alter offerors’ approaches to multiple sections of their proposal. In particular, the revisions to the Government Pricing Model adding more than 32,000 hours at Manufacturing Site, pending changes to L.17(b)(1) in response to Q30, and several other answers that refer to changes to the language in the RFP indicate the

RFP NNG17591526R

Questions and Answers December 20, 2017 need for further revision of the RFP. Could you please clarify, via FBO post or other communication as soon as possible the anticipated release date for a revised RFP and an additional extension to address these changes?

A57: No changes are needed to L.17(b)(1) (see answer #A59). No significant revisions are needed to the existing RFP; however an extension will be provided with Amendment 5.

Q58: Your answer to question #29 says that the erroneous sentence would be removed in Amendment 3. We are now up to Amendment 4 but do not have a revised RFP since neither Amendment 3 nor Amendment 4 included a revised RFP language. So we don’t know what is the actual language that we must respond to.

A58: The referenced sentence in L.17(b)(4) was included in error and was removed in Amendment

3. The RFP does not require that any non-significant subcontractors include rates in the Attachment B Rate Matrices.

Q59: Ref. L.17(b)(1). The answer to Q30 could be interpreted to indicate you are issuing new language, if so, the RFP has not been revised and we don’t know what the new language is and whether it has been changed in both Section L and Section M. Please clarify.

A59: The response to question #Q30 was stating that GSFC has revised its standard language from what was provided as examples (MIST, OMES, and SEAS RFPs) to what is currently in ESES III. There is no change needed in the ESES III RFP language.

Q60: Answer #48 says that the existing Sections L & M sufficiently address manufacturing, while Answer #49 indicates that Enclosure CC has been revised to add Manufacturing Labor Categories and hours (approximately 32,700 hours were shifted from offsite location to manufacturing location).

First, A48 and A49 seem to contradict each other. Second, a shift of 32,700 hours to manufacturing site is a major change that impacts team composition and workshare. To accomplish this, offerors likely need to renegotiate teaming agreements, etc. This also impacts the significant/non-significant subcontractors for Past Performance Volume and PPQs.

A60: The Government does not consider the responses provided for Q48 and Q49 to be contradictory. The shift in overall hours from off site to manufacturing results in a manufacturing effort of approximately 5% of the total contract hours.