47QFSA26R0004_SolicitationQuestionsAnswers_2026-05-22.pdf

PART # PARAGRAPH # PARAGRAPH TITLE QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

IV M.6.3 Factor 3: Corporate Experience

Paragraph two of Section M.6.3 states that "Similar Size is defined as at least 100 aircraft." with respect to relevance of Corporate Experience. The exact number of MV- 22Bs within MAG-29 at MCAS New River should be around sixty (60) spread across six (6) TACAIR squadrons, given the current Primary Aircraft Authorization (PAA) at 10 aircraft per squadron as of 2025.

Question 1: Respectfully request clarification on the accuracy of the 100 aircraft threshold and recommend reduction of the threshold to reflect the realistic and current MV-22 aircraft count within MAG-29.

Question 2: Respectfully request clarification on whether the intent of the 100 aircraft threshold is to assess an offeror’s capacity to manage operational complexity at scale, rather than requiring that such experience be derived from a single contract vehicle. If so, would the Government consider allowing offerors to substantiate this capability through aggregated past performance examples that, in total, meet or exceed the threshold?

The 100 aircraft is due to the Marine Corps operational shifts. Aircraft is moved in and out of the operational location often and at times there are 100 different aircraft at MCAS New River. For the second question, the requirements accurately reflect the Marine Corps needs. Please review Section M.6.3. for the ratings.

IV M.2 Pass/Fail Elements

Paragraph 2, Item d within Section M.2 states that "The offeror shall provide evidence that it possesses the required certifications in compliance with DFARS 252.204-7021 (Section K) including Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Maturity Level 1). This DFARS reference is specific to Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), versus CMMI. Can the government confirm that the requirement is for CMMC Level 1?

See Amendment 01.

IV M.6.3 Factor 3: Corporate Experience

Paragraph four within Section M.6.3 states that "Similar complexity is defined as maintenance in complex tiltrotor, drivetrain, and propulsion systems." Given that the model for all CMS contracts is retention of incumbent staff and backfilling as required with qualified and certified staff with relevant MV-22 experience to account for needs associated with attrition, we respectfully request that the government consider revision of the requirement to be ""Similar complexity is defined as maintenance in complex tiltrotor, fixed wing and/or rotary wing, drivetrain, and propulsion systems." The revision of this requirement will increase competition for this requirement.

The Government has considered the request and declines the request to revise the existing characterization of "similar complexity" in the RFP; the RFP accurately reflects and corresponds to the Government's needs there.

PWS C.2 & C.7 SCOPE & WORKLOAD DATA

Paragraph states "Contractor will perform Organizational and Intermediate Level (O/I- Level) scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. QUESTION: Will the USG clarify specifically what I-Level maintennace functions the Powerr Plants Mechnaics and Airframes Mechanics are expected to perform?

The Government will be unable to provide specifics on the requirements but it would be the major systems such as would avionics, powerplants, hydraulics, airframes, landing systems, rotor/dynamic components, flight controls, structural and composite repair,general support equipment(GSE), aviation life supports ALSs etc.

PWS C.2 SCOPE

Marine Corps Order (MCO) 8023.3B is cited as a referenced instruction/order the Contractor is expected to ues/follow. QUESTION: Will the USG clarify if there are ordnance handling aspects of this effort as there are no ordnance related tasks addressed in the PWS?

No ordnance is not including in this requirement.

PWS C.2 SCOPE

Subparagraph a. states "The contractor will perform all work in accordance with the most current version of Commander Naval Air Forces Instruction (COMNAVAIRFORINST) 4790, also referred to as the Naval Aviation Maintenance Program (NAMP), applicable MV-22 maintenance instruction manuals, Marine Corps Order (MCO) 8023.3B Technical Directives (TDs), Squadron Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and such other instructions as may be applicable in the support of these tasks." There is no specific mention of NAVAIRINST 3710.1 (Contractor’s Flight and Ground Operations). QUESTION: Since the NAMP, Chapter 11 references NAVAIRINST 3710.1 along with 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk, which is cited in the PWS, will the USG require Contractor Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) as a Deliverable?

While the NAMP, Chapter 11 references NAVAIRINST 3710.1 along with Ground and Flight Risk, which is cited in the PWS, the USG will still require Contractor Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) as a Deliverable.

Solicitation Number: 47QFSA26R0004

ATTACHMENT M

SOLICITATION QUESTION AND ANSWER (Q&A)

Solicitation Name: 2nd MAW MV22 Maintenance Support

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 1 of

PWS C.2 SCOPE

The Contractor will participate in periodic quality assurance (QA) audits and periodic monitoring. Additionally, the Contractor shall participate in periodic: Aviation Maintenance Management Team (AMMT) inspections, Aviation Logistics Management Assist Team (ALMAT) inspections, Maintenance Program Assist (MPA) visits, etc.

QUESTION: Are there any NAMPSOP programs the Contractor will be directly responsible for managing? If so, please specify.

No, contractors will not be responsible for managing. However, they are expected to be compliant and be part of periodic audits.

PWS C.6 LIST OF REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS /

CERTIFICATIONS

Referenced Table does not address Plane Captian qualification or Safe For Flight for Maintenance Control. QUESTION: Will the USG clarify if these qualifications are required as well?

Plane Captains are not a requirement and as of now there are no qualified Plane Captains. The SFF is the Safe For Flight. The onsight Commanding Officer's make the determination to deligate someone a PC or SFF. Contractors may be required but those needs are based on the local Commanding Officer. Contractors may need to complete a syllabus to obtain the delegation.

PWS C.6 LIST OF REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS /

CERTIFICATIONS

MV-22 Maintenance Control has (Note 3), which includes the following statement "All CMS will attain Collateral Duty Qualification within 6 months from contract initiation."

QUESTION: Will the USG clarify if the Maintenance Control personnel are expected to obtain CDI qualifications and if that is in copmpliance with the NAMP?

Yes.

PWS C.6 LIST OF REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS /

CERTIFICATIONS

Ground Support Equipment Mechanic (NOTE 4) states "(5) qualified contractors to support the maintenance operations for ground support equipment (GSE). The scope of work includes both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance services to ensure continued operational readiness and compliance with all applicable technical standards and safety regulations." QUESTION: Will the USG clarify if SE Mechanics are expected to perform bot O & I-Level maintenance on SE checked out from MALS-26 or is just "servicing" required/authorized?

Yes, for maintenance and servicing.

PWS F.2 & F.7 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE & HOURS

OF OPERATION

In an HOURS OF OPERATION section, a subparagraph addresses "Rescue of stranded aircraft", which would constute emergent work with Travel highly likely.

QUESTION: Since paragraph F.2 specifically states "Long-distance travel is not anticipated to be required in support of this effort" and since there are no Travel ODC funds allocated, will the USG clarify how the Contractor would support an emergent aircraft rescue outside of 50 mile of MCAS New River?

Rescue of stranded aircraft outside of 50 miles would not be part of the contractor's effort.

RFP H.11 SECTION 508 COMPLIANCE

REQUIREMENTS

In section H.11 (c) the USG identifies a requirement for Seciton 508 Compliance.

QUESTION: Since the awarded Contractor will use USG provided IT equipment (e.g., NALCOMIS OOMA, IETMS, etc.) in the performance of this effort, will the USG clarify how "The contractor shall identify all ICT products, platforms, and services to be used and the degree of compliance with the applicable standards" which is further stated in the RFP and since the ICT does NOT belong to the Contractor?

If the equipment is government provided, it will be Section 508 compliant. All electronic submissions by the contractor to the government are required to be Section 508 compliant.

RFP L.5.2.9, M.2 PASS/FAIL ELEMENTS (TAB I)

Section L and M reference FAR 252.204-7021 and “Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Maturity Level 1.” QUESTION: Because DFARS 252.204-7021 is associated with Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) requirements rather than CMMI, can the Government clarify whether offerors are required to demonstrate CMMC Level 1 or CMMI Level 1?

See Amendment 01 and 02.

47QFSA26R0004_AttIPriceExcel Workbook and RFP Price Summary Tab Column I, Cells 18-21

Section B.4 displays the Base and all Option Periods. B.4.5 is the Fourth and final Option Period for all listed CLINs; however, the USG provided Price Workbook has an Option Period 5 that is mapped to the Base Period Tab. QUESTION: Will the USG update the attachment or should offerors overide Cells I19 and I20 with $0 values?

See Amendment 01.

RFP Section B B.4.5 Section B.4.5 lists Overtime CLIN as 0002 instead of 4002. QUESTION: Please confirm the correct CLIN structure for the Fourth Option Period and provide a revised pricing table.

See Amendment 01.

RFP Sections C & F C.4.1.3 and F.3

Section C states that the Monthly Status Report (MSR) is due "NLT 3rd duty day of each month"; however Section F states the MSR is due "monthhly, 10th calendar day of the next month." QUESTION: Please clarify the required submission timeline for the Monthly Status Report, as Section C.4.1.3 and Section F.3 specify conflicting due dates.

See Amendment 01.

RFP C.4.2 TASK 2-WORKFORCE CONTINGENCY

PLAN

PWS requires a workforce contingency plan, but it is not included in section F.3 as a deliverable. QUESTION: Will the Governemnt clarify the requirement for Worforce Contingency Plan as a Deliverable?

See Amendment 01.

Will this opportunity be released as a separate contract or as a Task Order under an existing IDIQ Contract Vehicle? This is an open market RFP. It will be a stand alone contract.

If an existing Contract Vehicle - which one? No.

Is the offerer required to have an OASIS or GSA schedule to respond to the RFP? No.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 2 of

RFP - Section L L.6 - L.7 Written Technical Proposal

Reference #1: L.6, which states, “Part II is the Written Technical Proposal and shall contain the following (page limitations, if applicable, are indicated in the parentheses following each item):

a. Project Staffing Plan

b. Project Staffing Rationale (limited to 2 pages)

c. KPQM (limited to 2 pages for the Key Person)

d. Draft Transition-In Plan (limited to 2 pages)

e. Technical Assumptions (if any, limited to 1 page)

f. QMP (limited to 2 pages)

g. Corporate Experience (limited to 4 pages)

h. Written Response to PWS (limited to 8 pages)” Reference #2: L.7, which states, “The Written Technical Proposal shall include the following topics and be organized in the following order:

a. Topic 1: Key Personnel and Project Staffing

b. Topic 2: Technical Approach” Question: Do Topics 1 and 2 have a page limit, separate from items a-h in the list above?

No, those are the page limitations and are part of their respective Topics.

RFP - Section L L.5.1 Written Technical Proposal

Reference: L.5.1 designates (Tab A - Tab I) in parentheses after items a. - i. (L.5.1.1 - 5.2.9).

Question: Will GSA please clarify if the "tab" letters are intended to correspond to a particular proposal attachment?

The Governemnt doesn't quite understand the question but if the intent is to inquire if those tab letters are connected to another part of the technical proposal,

no. Those tabs are for the price proposal and other administrative matters.

RFP Section L L.5.1.8 - L.5.2.9 Price Assumptions (Tab H) / Pass/Fail Elements (Tab I)

Reference: The section numbering is out of sequence, jumping from L.5.1.8 to L.5.2.9, then to L.6.

Question: If this numbering sequence is unintended, will GSA please update accordingly?

See Amendment 01.

RFP Section L L6.6 Corporate Experience / Written Response to PWS

Reference: L.6.6 is used to number both Corporate Experience and Written Response to

PWS.

Question: If this numbering sequence is unintended, will GSA please update accordingly?

See Amendment 01.

RFP - Section L F.3; H.8, L.5.2.9€ Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan

Reference: F.3 and H.8 state that a Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan is due after award, at the Project Kick-Off Meeting. However, L.5.2.9(e) lists this as an item in the "Pass/Fail Elements (Tab I)" as part of the Written Price Proposal.

Question: Will GSA please clarify if the Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan CDRL is due with proposal submission? If so, will GSA align the RFP accordingly?

See Amendment 02. This is removed from the Pass/Fail Requirements. It is only required post-award.

RFP - Section L L.5.2.9 Pass/Fail Elements (Tab I)

Reference: L.5.2.9 states "A failure on any single Pass/Fail criteria will make the proposal ineligible for award, with no further evaluation of the Written Price Proposal (Part I) and Written Technical Proposal (Part II) accomplished by the Government. At the time of proposal Part I submission, the offeror shall provide:.." L.5.2.9 is listed in the area for instructions on Part II, but states to include these items in Part I.

Question: Due to page count limitations, will GSA please clarify which Pass/Fail criteria are to be included in Part I and Part II, respectively?

The Written Price Proposal is to be separate from the Written Technical Proposal.

The information required in the Written Price Proposal is not affected by the page counts.

RFP - Section L L.5.2.9; H.9 Pass/Fail Elements (Tab I)

Reference: L.5.2.9 (d) states "d. Required Certifications: The offeror shall provide evidence that it possesses the required certifications in compliance with Section H.9 including Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Maturity Level." -- and Section H.9 points to requirements re: Training and Permits.

Question: Will the GSA please specify the types of certifications it requires to be compliant with Section H.9 and update Section L accordingly? (see related next question below)

The only required certification pre-award is the CMMC Level 1. GSA will not require specific Training certifications pre-award.

RFP - Section M M.2(d) Pass/Fail Elements / Required Certifications

Reference: M.2(d) states "Required Certifications: The offeror shall provide evidence that it possesses the required certifications in compliance with DFARS 252.204-7021 (Section K) including Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Maturity Level 1."

Question: DFARS 252.204-7021 is related to Contractor Compliance With the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level Requirements. Will GSA clarify if the required certifications are for CMMI or CMMC levels, and update Section M accordingly?

See Amendment 01 and 02.

RFP - Section M M.6 Technical Evaluation Factors

Reference: M.6, which states, “The Government will combine the results of the written and oral submissions including the Q&A responses, to arrive at a rating for the technical evaluation factors as a whole.”

Question: Will GSA please clarify what the “oral submissions” and the “Q&A responses” are?

See Amendment 01.

Solicitation Cover Letter Page 1 Submission Deadlines and Instructions

For your reference as a follow-up to the question during the Pre-Proposal Conference:

Enterprise Portal (https://acqbot.us/portal/overview) is the sam.gov "submission portal" that we have used in the past. Example: AFRL MAC:

https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/8ff5733877344abc953498aa99137477/view

See Amendment 02 removing the Sam.gov submission. Only email submissions will be accepted.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 3 of

RFP C.2 SCOPE

Subparagraph states "Additional guidance and minimum qualifications are provided in Section C.6. These Contractor personnel shall augment government maintenance personnel at the O/I/D-Level.

QUESTION: Will the USG clarify where and how CMS personnel will augment D-level maintenance?

As of now, there is not requirement for D-Level Maintenance; however, they will supplement PMI (Periodic Maintenance Interval) inspections which is a D-level requirement. They only supplement by providing O/I level maintenance that is outside of the PMI scope of work.

RFP M.6.3 FACTOR 3: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

The following definitions will be used to determine the relevance of the offeror’s Corporate Experience submissions. Similar Size is defined as at least 100 aircraft. The USG used 100 aircraft as a Corporate Experience discriminator on in section M, when the maximum number of MAG-26 MV-22 aircraft on the flightline at MCAS New River is 60, and that is with no aircraft deployed is 72, excluding VMMT-204's aircraft.

QUESTION: Since it is unrealistic for any CMS team to maintain 100 MV-22 aircraft for MAG-26, would the USG consider reducing the "similar size" requirement number of aircraft to 60 vice 100 so other 8(a) companies can compete favorably with the incumbent?

See Amendment 05.

Section L L.5.1.3 Solicitation, Offer and Award (SF 33) (Tab C)

Reference: "When completed and signed by the offeror, SF 33, “Solicitation, Offer and Award,” constitutes the offeror’s acceptance of the terms and conditions of the proposed Contract. Therefore, the form must be executed by representatives of the offeror authorized to commit the offeror to contractual obligations. The offeror shall sign the SF 33 in Block 17."

Question: GSA has not provided an SF 33. Does GSA intend to provide an SF 33 prior to proposal submission?

The SF33 is available on sam.gov.

Section L

L.6.2 H.3 C.5 C.6

Key Personnel Qualification Matrix

Reference 1. L.6.2 states, "The offeror shall submit a KPQM (Section C.6) for the Key Person proposed relating the specialized experience identified in Section H.3 of this RFP and the qualifications of the person or persons being proposed for that position.

Reference 2. H.3.a identifies the Site Lead as the required Key Personnel. H.3.1 Site Lead lists the requirements of the Site Lead, to include, "The contractor shall identify a Site Lead by name who shall provide management, direction, administration, quality assurance (as defined in Section C.5.1), and leadership of the execution of this Contract.

a. It is required that the Site Lead has the following qualifications:

1. Be an employee of the prime contractor.

2. Minimum of 10 years of aircraft maintenance experience on the MV-22.

b. It is desired that the Site Lead has the following qualifications:

1. Strong leadership capabilities."

Reference 3. C.5.1 does not exist, but C.5 lists the QA Performance Requirements Summary Reference 4. Section/Table C.6 lists the qualifcations for all CMS, yet only lists 10 years of experience for the Site Lead (required Key Personnel).

Question: Does the Government intend to receive a KPQM that is completed with all the applicable qualifications that the Site Lead has despite those qualifications not being listed in the requirements for this position?

For the purposes of this RFP, GSA only expects information on the Key Personnel. However, during the performance of the contract, the requirements are that all personnel meet the stated requirements of the Marine Corps.

Section L L.5.1.1 Contract Registration (Tab A)

Reference: "The offeror shall submit a statement that the contract under which this proposal is being submitted has been registered in ASSIST and that all information in ASSIST is up to date. ASSIST can be accessed by visiting the following webpage:

assist.gsa.gov/assist-web/registration/contractor/search" Question: It is understood that the Offeror (Contractor) should be registered in ASSIST.

However, will GSA clarify its intention of this requirement stating "the contract under which this proposal is being submitted" since this procurement is independent of any existing contract such as a Government-wide Acquisition Contract (GWAC)?

A simple statement that the Offeror is registered in ASSIST will be sufficient.

Section L L.5.1.3 Solicitation, Offer and Award (SF 33) (Tab C)

Reference: A conformed solicitation with an SF33 included would help offerors ensure a compliant and more easily evaluated proposal can be submitted after the series of changes updated requirements and paragraph numbering.

Question: Will the Government provide a conformed copy of the final solicitation that includes all changes driven by Amendment 0001 and Amendment 0002?

No, the Amendments are for changes to the RFP. If language is not mentioned in the RFP, there are no changes to that Section.

Part IV L.5.1.3 tation, Offer and Award (SF 33)(Tab C) (page

Background: Section L.5.1.3 states: When completed and signed by the offeror, SF 33, “Solicitation, Offer and Award,” constitutes the offeror’s acceptance of the terms and conditions of the proposed Contract. Therefore, the form must be executed by representatives of the offeror authorized to commit the offeror to contractual obligations.

The offeror shall sign the SF 33 in Block 17.

The solicitation document 47QFSA26R0004 starts with Section B and does not include an SF 33.

Question: Will the Government provide the SF 33 for inclusion in our Part I - Written Price Proposal as required in Section L.5.1.3?

It is available on sam.gov.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 4 of

Part IV L.6.6 (page L-9) L.6.6 (page L-

10)

L.6.6 Corporate Experience (page L-9) L.6.6 Written Response to Performance

Work Statement (PWS) (page L-10)

Background: There are two (2) L.6.6 sections for Part II - Written Technical Proposal.

Question: Will the Government clarify that Section L.6.6 on page L-10 is instruction for responding to the PWS in offeror's response to Topic 2: Technical Approach;

specifically Section L.7.2?

Yes. Amendment 01 addressed the numbering mistake.

The USG responded to question #9 and stated Maintenance Controllers are required to be CDI qualified. NAMP para 7.3.3 states CDIs are assigned only to Production work centers. Maintenance Controllers are assigned to Maintenance Control which is a staff work center. QUESTION: Since PWS C.2 states this effort will be performed IAW the NAMP and the USG's response appears to conflict with the NAMP, will the USG clarify if there is an approved deviation in place to allow for a Maintenance Controller

CDI?

Maintenance Controllers are not required to be CDIs. But no one who has not been a CDI (ideally a CDQ) would ever be selected to be a controller. When they move into control, their CDI/CDQ qualification/permissions are “not in used” to essentially avoid any accusation of signing as CDI and controlling one’s own work. Nothing prevents an active CDI from being a controller. It is simply frown upon to hold those two qualifications at the same time.

QUESTION: Will the USG provide a SF-33 for this effort? It is available on sam.gov.

In the USG responses to questions, there were many references to Amendment 01.

However, Amendment 01 was only 3 pages and did not update the entire RFP.

Consequently, there is no conformed PWS (Section C), C.6 (List of Required Qualifications / Cerifications), etc. QUESTION: Will the USG be releasing a conformed RFP as Amendment 02 that addresses the additional requirement for Plane Captains and Safe For Flight and other updates as applicable?

The amendments are only for what has changed. A completely reproduced RFP document would be an excess use of government resources.

The USG reponded to keep the Corporate Experience "Similar Size" definition of 100 aircraft the same. QUESTION: Since this is an "augmenting" effort per C.2 and the Contractor is not responsible for the overall readiness of MAG-26's aircraft, why would the magnitude of corporate experience matter at all as there are only 40 O-Level Production CMS personnel for this effort and it would be impossible for these 40 CMS personnel to maintain all MAG-26 MV-22 aircraft? QUESTION: Since this appears to be a "discriminator" heavily favoring the incumbent, will the USG consider removing the size criteria all together? Furthermore, the USG did not address the question posed QUESTION: regarding "aggregating" experience. Will the USG clarify whether aggregating experience is allowed?

See Amendment 05. Please review Section M.6.3.

I B.4 and G.3.1 (for LABOR)

B.4 SECTION B TABLES and G.3.1 TIME-

AND-MATERIALS (T&M) CONTRACT

LINE ITEM NUMBERS (CLINs) (for LABOR)

Section B only addresses FFP Labor and a NTE Overtime Labor, however, Section G.3.1 describes invoicing instructions for a T&M CLIN for Labor. Would the Government please revise Section B to include all required CLIN items?

Should overtime be used, it will be billed as T&M. The overtime is capped in Section B.

I H.10 H.10.2 NON-DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT

Could the Government please clarify if the offeror and its subcontractors, consultants, and teaming partners are required to include a completed and signed copy of the Corporate Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) Form (Section J, Attachment F) in its proposal?

Yes, NDAs are required to ensure that there are not misuses in teaming or disclosing of other protected information.

IV L.6.6 CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

Could the Government clarify how it would evaluate the relevance and acceptability of affiliate or sister subsidiary past performance, particularly when the proposed approach would include formal labor leasing or intra-organization transfer agreements to ensure the necessary resources and expertise are available to the contract? We respectfully request that the Government recognize the operational realities of tribal and ANC structures and provide clear guidance on how such affiliate/sister subsidiary experience would be considered when the experience combined meet the 100 aircraft threshold, but due to operational considerations the experience is executed through more than one subsidiary within the Corporation. The clarification is required as it impacts the offerors ability to demonstrate the meaningful involvement through awarding of a subcontract or intra-organizational agreement to each given the restriction of 40% award to other entities in the evaluation. This clarification will enable offeror to understand the government's approach in ensuring a fair and reasonable assessment of offeror capabilities and to mitigate the risk of an evaluation challenge

See L.6.6., regarding the consideration of affiliates and subsidiaries. See M.6.3.

for the evaluation factor description. Factor 3: Corprorate Experience's "Collective overall factor rating" description including but not limited to "collectively" in that description.

IV M.6.3 FACTOR 3: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

The solicitation defines relevant past performance as experience supporting a fleet size of at least 100 aircraft. However, the scope of this contract, as detailed in the PWS, is for maintenance labor augmentation services rather than full-fleet management or maintenance. Could the Government clarify the rationale for using fleet size as the primary determinant of past performance relevance, rather than considering the comparability of programs that supply staff augmentation services of similar size, complexity, and technical requirements? We are concerned that this criterion may unduly restrict competition and exclude highly qualified offerors with substantial experience in large-scale maintenance labor augmentation, even if their supported fleet sizes differ from the specified threshold. We respectfully request the Government provide the basis for this relevancy determination, as it appears to be misaligned with the actual requirements and risk profile of the contract as described in the PWS

See Amendment 05.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 5 of

IV M.6.3 FACTOR 3: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

Given that the PWS defines the contract as a maintenance labor augmentation effort, we respectfully request that the Government revise the Corporate Experience evaluation criteria to focus on the relevance of experience providing comprehensive maintenance services—particularly for V-22 aircraft—where the offeror is responsible for supplying, managing, and performing 100% of all maintenance resources, regardless of whether the supported fleet size meets the 100-aircraft threshold. Many highly qualified offerors have successfully executed large-scale, full-scope maintenance programs for V-22 fleets of fewer than 100 aircraft, requiring the deployment and management of significant workforces and resources. By focusing solely on fleet size, the current relevancy standard may inadvertently exclude these offerors, whose experience is directly aligned with the requirements and complexity detailed in the PWS. We urge the Government to modify the relevancy standard to reflect the actual requirements of the contract, ensuring a fair and reasonable assessment of offeror capabilities, promoting competition, and mitigating the risk of an evaluation challenge

See Amendment 05.

General Wage Determination Can you please provide a copy of the CBA? There isn't a CBA to provide.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 6 of

Q&A