ACTS ATCH 11 Draft RFP QA.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Air Combat Training Systems Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA300223R0014
About this file
This document contains a matrix of industry questions and government responses regarding a draft request for proposals (RFP) for Air Combat Training Systems (ACTS) support services. The solicitation seeks proposals for an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to provide operations, maintenance, and engineering services for ACTS equipment located at Luke Air Force Base, Holloman Air Force Base, and other sites. Services include pilot training, range operations center support, electronic warfare training, equipment maintenance, project management, and technical assistance. The RFP is a total small business set-aside and contemplates award of firm-fixed-price and cost-reimbursable contract line item numbers under the single-award IDIQ vehicle. The Department of the Air Force Air Education and Training Command is the contracting agency. The anticipated period of performance and proposal response date are not specified.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 37
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Draft RFP CRM
| ACTS (FA300223R0014) DRAFT RFP Question Matrix Attachment 11 | ||||
| # | Document In Question (PWS, Solicitation, Cover letter, Attachment etc.) | Page # & or Para # of Document In Question | Question, Comment or Recommendation | |
| (Note: use "Wrap Text") | Government's Response to Industry | |||
| Draft RFP Cover Letter | Draft Cover letter Paragraph # | Draft RFP Cover letter Questions, Comments, and Suggestions | ||
| 1 | Appendix 3 to Attachment 1 (file: ATCH 4 Appendix 3 Site Loc Maj Sys)- Sites, Locations, and Major Systems |
| 1.19. BLDG 492 / LUKE AFB | The number of P5 AIS Pods is indicated as 44, which does not match our inventory. Can the governmnet please clarify the number of P5 AIS Pods offerors should use for Luke AFB? | There are currently 34 V1 pods, and 10 V2 pods. Note: This is a current inventory of pods and these numbers subject vary at the time the contract is issued. | |||
| 2 | Soliciation: Section L | L.5. Volume III - Price Proposal | Is a subcontractor required to turn in a Volume III - Price Proposal? | The upcoming solicitation /contract will be a total small business set aside. A subcontracting plan is not required. The prime contractor will hold sole responsibility for the Price Proposal. | |
| 3 | Solicitation | Page #7 of 53 | Under Labor Rates should the Category read to see Attachment #17 verses #7? | Corrected to reference attachments 17 and 18. | |
| 4 | Solicitation and Draft RFP Cover Letter | Page 1 of Cover letter, and Page 50 of 53 of Solicitation | The Cover Letter states "The anticipated contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) structure will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost Reimbursable CLINS" and the Draft Solicitation states "The Government contemplates award of a Single Award IDIQ [Contracting Officer insert specific type of contract] contract resulting from this | ||
| solicitation." Can the Government detail the IDIQ structure? | IDIQ CLINS are listed in the schedule. Minimums and maximum order limitations will be inserted into the appropriate clause. Upon award, individual task orders will be executed to support Luke/Gila Bend and Holloman AFB's respectively. | ||||
| 5 | Solicitation: Section L and Section M. | Sec L 4.2.3 states the contracts to be cited for past performance must be within five (5) years, with one year of documented performance. Sec M 4.2.2 states the contracts cited must be within three (3) years, with 3 months of completed performance. | Please clarify the time for Past Performance contracts to be cited for recency. | The upcoming solicitation /contract will define recency as recent contracts in which the Offeror has performed within the previous three (3) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation. In order to be considered “recent” for the purpose of this evaluation, current programs must have at least three (3) months of completed performance from the date of issuance of this RFP. | |
| 6 | Attachment 2, Appendix 3 1.21 | There are five (5) pieces of equipment listed as part of major systems in Bldg 4310, Davis Monthan AFB. | The PWS does not task the contractor to be responsible for this equipment. Please clarify who is responsible for maintenance, accountability and operation of this equipment. | Equipment Inventory updated to reflect 4 pieces of equipment. The Davis Monthan AFB identified equipment is not accountable to ACTS Contract however Luke ACTS contractors will provide O&M for this site as needed. PWS Section 1.1.4 ACTS Locations; language was updated to state; " Refer to Appendix 3 to determine all ACTS locations and where, unless otherwise noted, ACTS equipment is physically stationed." PWS Table 1-1 ACTS Locations updated to accurately reflect contractor need. Appendix 3 updated to operations and maintenance only, as needed, at the Davis Mothan Site. Note: The contractor will be required to travel to Davis Monthan (146 mile drive from Luke) to perform O&M when required. | |
| 7 | Attachment 7, Appendix 6 Workload Information | Entire Appendix. The workload data provided in this Appendix covers the period from FY15 until FY23. The aircraft located at Luke and Holloman have changed significantly as have their use of the ranges. | Please provide and breakout the most recent year's workload data that more accurately reflects the requirements for this contract and projections for changes to support requirements relative to this contract. | Updated Atch 7, Appendix 6 to reflect most current data - Reduced Holloman ACTS P5 TDY hours, Increased hours required for Luke Ancillary Training, EW Threat Maintenance, and equipment custodial duties, etc. | |
| 8 | ATCH 11 Section L Draft | Section L.5.3.4 | L.5.3.4 states "Date beyond that required by section L.3.3 shall not be submitted unless essetial to the document or support the offeror's price position." There is not a section L.3.3 in this document. Please advise what should be submitted to support the price data. | The upcoming solicitation /contract will update Section L Para. L.5.3.4.1 to reflect "Data beyond that required by section L.5.3.4 shall not be submitted unless it is essential to document or support the Offeror’s price position." | |
| 9 | Solicitation: Section L and Section M. | Section L.3.2.6.2 and L.3.2.6.5 and Section M.3.1.3 |
| Section L.3.2.6.2 and L.3.2.6.5 both direct offerors to "provide the number of full-time and part-time equivalents" in addition to "rationale and calculations based on workload projections" | These two requirements appear to be the same. Can the governments please clarify the difference in the information offerors are required to address to meet these two requirements if in fact they are distinct and separate? | Removed duplicate entry. | |||
| 10 | Solicitation: Section L | Section L.3.2.3 Cross Reference Matrix. | The use of terms/phrases "is permitted" and "shall" lacks clarity in this paragraph. Can the government clarify if a cross reference matrix is required? | Replaced "shall" with "may". | |
| 11 | Solicitation: Section M | Section M.5.4 "...The Government reserves the right to further limit the number proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals...." | The DRAFT solicitation only discusses pass/fail criteria for non-pricing elements and lacks discussion of any criteria and methodology for rating offerors. Can the government please provide criteria and methodology for rating offerors. | IF it is deemed necessary to enter discussions after receipt of proposals, then the PCO with advice from the MFT will determine a competitive range consisting of the most highly rated offerors. If all offerors are considered "highly rated", then there will be no need for a competitive range determination to eliminate offerors at that time, and all will be involved in the discussions process. Due to this being LPTA, "highly rated" may be defined as acceptable offerers with a presumed reasonable and competitive price | |
| 12 | General | General | What is the rationale for issuing this solicitation on a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable basis given the provisions and requirements set forth in 48 C.F.R. § 215.101-2-70, DFARS 215.101-2-70 and other regulations and statutes related to the use of Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable as a source selection method? Refer to correspondence sent by this respondent on 27 February 2023 to the Contracting Officer raising this issue previously. | The LPTA process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest total evaluated price. |
The ACTS requirement has been on a contract vehicle since 1998 and has been refined. Benefits and risks have been weighed and the Governmetn has determined that the best value for this requirement can be obtained via the LPTA evaluation method.
13 Cover Letter Paragraph 2 DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1): "...the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process shall only be used when—
(i) Minimum requirements can be described clearly and comprehensively and expressed in terms of performance objectives, measures, and standards that will be used to determine the acceptability of offers..."
What are the minimum requirements for performance? How did the agency determine the minimum requirements for performance objectives? How will the agency measure the performance with respect to the minimum requirements? What are the standards that will be used to determine the acceptability of offers as the offers relate to the established minimum requirement? Historical data and market research indicates that there are multiple capable small businesses for this effort available. The current contract was competed on an LPTA basis with no issues regarding the source selection method, or the performance. Additionally, there is no evidence that having a trade-off would significantly mitigate risk or produce a significantly superior product that would place technical or past performance as more important than a price factor.
DFARS references have been addressed in internal documents and will be reviewed with the contract package.
13 Cover Letter Paragraph 2 DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1): "...the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process shall only be used when—
(ii) No, or minimal, value will be realized from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements..."
Given required ratings such as: the contractor shall meet or exceed 95% of the Operational Effectiveness Rates (OER) and other performance standards relating to operations as defined in Section 5, Performance Requirements.” Is the government implying they would receive zero value by receiving 99% OER vs a 95% OER?
Engineering is used nearly 90 times throughout the PWS. How does that lend itself to a LTPA methodology?
Cover Letter Paragraph 2 DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1): "...the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process shall only be used when—
(iii) The proposed technical approaches will require no, or minimal, subjective judgment by the source selection authority as to the desirability of one offeror’s proposal versus a competing proposal..."
This essentially implies the government is soliciting a commodity, or a commodity-like service. How can did the government conclude that technical responses regarding, pilot training, ROCC operations, electronic warfare, engineering support, etc. all would require no, or minimal, subjective judgment by the SSA?
16 Cover Letter Paragraph 2 DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1): "...the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process shall only be used when—
(iv) The source selection authority has a high degree of confidence that reviewing the technical proposals of all offerors would not result in the identification of characteristics that could provide value or benefit..."
How did the government conclude that an offeror with a superior technical proposal at any of the evaluated factors would not result in value or benefit to the DoD?
17 Cover Letter Paragraph 2 DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1): "...the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process shall only be used when—
(v) No, or minimal, additional innovation or future technological advantage will be realized by using a different source selection process..."
As evidenced by the quantity of questions included in this Question Matrix, there appears to be issues, omissions, ambiguities, etc. with the PWS. How can the government be certain the lowest price reflects the total cost of all services required under the PWS provided?
18 Cover Letter Paragraph 2 DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1): "...the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process shall only be used when—
(viii) The contracting officer documents the contract file describing the circumstances justifying the use of the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process..."
Will the Contracting Officer please share their documented rationale for the use of LPTA?
19 Cover Letter Paragraph 2 DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(2): "...contracting officers shall avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, using the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process in the case of a procurement that is predominately for the acquisition of—
(i) Information technology services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering and technical assistance services, advanced electronic testing, or other knowledge-based professional services..."
How did the government conclude that the services provided in this PWS do not meet the services prohibited from being subject to LPTA at DFARS 215.101-2-70(2)(i)?
20 PWS Para 2.2.3.1.2. Para 2.2.3.1.2. lists JTEs, Generators as required to be supported by the Contractor. Will the government update relevant solicitation documents with the quantities and locations? Quantities identified in updated Appendix 3. Mobile threat emitters may be located at any of the 15 sites listed in the Appendix 3.
| 21 | PWS | Para 4.2.7.2 | Para 4.2.7.2., Command Supported Equipment, requires Contractor support of equipment "not identified in Appendix 3" -- this statement conflicts with all of the other appendix 3 requirements. Will the government please ensure the final Appendix 3 includes all equipment the Contractor is required to support? | PWS language revised to accurately capture government need. | |
| 22 | PWS | Para 4.4.2 | Para 4.4.2, Project Management. | ||
| How will the government determine they would realize no, or minimal, value from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements? | Historical data and market research indicates that there are multiple capable small businesses for this effort available. The current contract was competed on an LPTA basis with no issues regarding the source selection method, or the performance. Additionally, there is no evidence that having a trade-off would significantly mitigate risk or produce a significantly superior product that would place technical or past performance as more important than a price factor. |
DFARS references have been addressed in internal documents and will be reviewed with the contract package.
23 PWS Para 4.4.3 Para 4.4.3, Studies and Analysis.
How will the government determine they would realize no, or minimal, value from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements?
24 PWS Para 4.4 Para 4.4, Technical Support Services:
As the role of the ACTS continues to grow and change, systems engineering, integration and test will become more and more relevant. Accommodating this growth with increased data, communications, power generation, and other infrastructure upgrades will increase the number and complexity of engineering projects and must be considered in long- and short-range planning, budgeting, and cost estimation
How can unknown, unquantified future growth and change be adequately proposed and/or evaluated on an LPTA basis?
| 25 | Draft RFP | ATCH 4 Appendix 3 Sites Locations and Major Systems; 1.18. BLDG 500/Luke AFB | Appendix 3 lists the Yuma Shout Line as supported equipment. Is this accurate or still supported? | Atch 4 Appendix 3 updated to reflect most current data. After follow up with the site, the Yuma Shout Line has become to costly to maintain and is to be decommissioned and was removed from the Appendix. Additionally the Luke Remote Helo Operating sites and those associated RRUs (Previously identified)were recently removed and are also deleted from equip inventory |
| 26 | Draft RFP | ATCH 4 Appendix 3 Sites Locations and Major Systems, 1.14 BMGR Tactical Ranges; PWS Para 2.2.3.1.; and others | The PWS lists Smokey SAM as supported equipment. Is this accurate? | Yes statement is accurate but the equipment is currently non-operational. At Luke AFB / BMGR, based on primarily F35 centric training, Smokeys Sams are a much less requested system. However until officially decommissioned Luke will maintain Smokey Sam systems. |
| 27 | Draft RFP | ATCH 4 Appendix 3 Sites Locations and Major Systems | Will the government confirm Appendix 3 is current, accurate, and complete? | Atch 4, Appendix 3 updated to reflect most current data |
| 28 | Draft RFP | ATCH 5, Appendix 4 to Attachment 1 - Government Furnished Property | Will the government confirm Appendix 4 is current, accurate, and complete? | Updated Atch 5. Appendix 4 updated to reflect most current data. |
| 29 | Draft RFP | ATCH 5, Appendix 4 to Attachment 1 - Government Furnished Property | Are the quantities for pods and related items at Holloman accurate? | |
| Atch 4, Appendix 3 updated to reflect most current data. Holloman AFB is currently authorized 62 pods. Note: This is a current inventory of pods and these numbers are subject vary at the time the contract is issued. | ||||
| 30 | Draft RFP | ATCH 5, Appendix 4 to Attachment 1 - Government Furnished Property | Is LMOC WarRoom required for Holloman? | Atch 5, Appendix 4 updated to reflect most current data at both sites. The LMOC WarRoom is required for Holloman but is currently performing only low-side functions. LMOC is required to operate Link-16, and LVC (Live Virtual Constructive). It is also being used with the ACMI and UMTE systems. |
| 31 | Draft RFP | ATCH 7, Appendix 6 to Attachment 1 - Historical Workload Estimates | Did the government consider Required Ancillary Duties, Systems Security Workload or cryptographic equipment and materials for Holloman in Appendix 6? | Atch 7, Appendix 6 - updated to incorporate Holloman Required Ancillary Duties |
| 32 | Draft RFP | ATCH 7, Appendix 6 to Attachment 1 - Historical Workload Estimates | Does the Government anticipate any support requirements for JTE and associated equipment's for Movements, Operations, Maintenance? | ACTS Contract JTE Operations and Maintenance, yes. Movements, no. Movement of these systems are tied to another contract. |
| 33 | Draft RFP | ATCH 7, Appendix 6 to Attachment 1 - Historical Workload Estimates | Attachment 7 lists the latest estimate as 2016. Is this accurate? | Atch 7, Appendix 6 - updated to reflect most current data. |
| 34 | Draft RFP | ATCH 10, Appendix 9 to Attachment 1 - Additional Information; Government Furnished Training | The Government currently does not furnish the listed training for this program. Will the Government update Appendix 9 to correctly reflect the training provided by the Government? | Government Furnished Training is described in Attachment 10 was updated to reflect most current data. |
| 35 | ||||
| 36 | ||||
| 37 | ||||
| 38 | ||||
| 39 | ||||
| 40 | ||||
| 41 | ||||
| 42 | ||||
| 43 | ||||
| 44 | ||||
| 45 | ||||
| 46 | ||||
| 47 | ||||
| 48 | ||||
| 49 | ||||
| 50 | ||||
| 51 | ||||
| 52 | ||||
| 53 | ||||
| 54 | ||||
| 55 | ||||
| 56 | ||||
| 57 | ||||
| 58 | ||||
| 59 | ||||
| 60 | ||||
| 61 | ||||
| 62 | ||||
| 63 | ||||
| 64 | ||||
| 65 | ||||
| 66 | ||||
| 67 | ||||
| 68 | ||||
| 69 | ||||
| 70 | ||||
| 71 | ||||
| 72 | ||||
| 73 | ||||
| 74 | ||||
| 75 | ||||
| 76 | ||||
| 77 | ||||
| 78 | ||||
| 79 | ||||
| 80 | ||||
| 81 | ||||
| 82 | ||||
| 83 | ||||
| 84 | ||||
| 85 | ||||
| 86 | ||||
| 87 | ||||
| 88 | ||||
| 89 | ||||
| 90 | ||||
| 91 | ||||
| 92 | ||||
| 93 | ||||
| 94 | ||||
| 95 | ||||
| 96 | ||||
| 97 | ||||
| 98 | ||||
| 99 | ||||
| 100 | ||||
| 101 | ||||
| 102 | ||||
| 103 | ||||
| 104 | ||||
| 105 | ||||
| 106 | ||||
| 107 | ||||
| 108 | ||||
| 109 | ||||
| 110 | ||||
| 111 | ||||
| 112 | ||||
| 113 | ||||
| 114 | ||||
| 115 | ||||
| 116 | ||||
| 117 | ||||
| 118 | ||||
| 119 | ||||
| 120 | ||||
| 121 | ||||
| 122 | ||||
| 123 | ||||
| 124 | ||||
| 125 | ||||
| 126 | ||||
| 127 | ||||
| 128 | ||||
| 129 | ||||
| 130 | ||||
| 131 | ||||
| 132 | ||||
| 133 | ||||
| 134 | ||||
| 135 | ||||
| 136 | ||||
| 137 | ||||
| 138 | ||||
| 139 | ||||
| 140 | ||||
| 141 | ||||
| 142 | ||||
| 143 | ||||
| 144 | ||||
| 145 | ||||
| 146 | ||||
| 147 | ||||
| 148 | ||||
| 149 | ||||
| 150 | ||||
| 151 | ||||
| 152 | ||||
| 153 | ||||
| 154 | ||||
| 155 | ||||
| 156 | ||||
| 157 | ||||
| 158 | ||||
| 159 | ||||
| 160 | ||||
| 161 | ||||
| 162 | ||||
| 163 | ||||
| 164 | ||||
| 165 | ||||
| 166 | ||||
| 167 | ||||
| 168 | ||||
| 169 | ||||
| 170 | ||||
| 171 | ||||
| 172 | ||||
| 173 | ||||
| 174 | ||||
| 175 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .