AEDC Draft FOPR Comment Matrix_Answers.pdf

AEDC DRAFT FOPR Comment Matrix

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Reponse

1 Attachment 5, Eval Criteria 1 1.1 Ties and Tie-Breakers - request the Government consider switching the first and second tie-breaker, making total CPARS score #1.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

2 Attachment 5 and Attachment 17 6 3.1.3

Subfactor 3.1.3 - request the Government consider allowing this category to apply to 1) one prime and one subcontractor work sample, or 2) all work samples since every team will include subcontrators and those subcontractors will be required to transition staff and should be required to show evidence of successful past transition experience.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

3 Attachment 5 and Attachment 17 6 3.1.4 Subfactor 3.1.4 - request the Government clarify how offerors are supposed to substantiate that non-incumbents hired qualify as 'engineers' or 'engineering support'.

Per the Cross Reference Matrix - PWS, contract documentation, labor categories, contract/modificaitons.

4 Attachment 5 and Attachment 17 8 3.2.3 Subfactor 3.2.3 - request the Government clarify this category by specifying 'technical support for hypersonic weapons systems ground test experience'.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

5 Attachment 5 and Attachment 17 9 3.2.5 Subfactor 3.2.5 - request the Government clarify this category by specifying 'Lead Development Test Organization or equivalent test organization.' Added Executing Test Organization (ETO)

6 Attachment 5 and Attachment 17 10 3.2.9

Subfactor 3.2.9 - request the Government add 'subsonic' to the list of types of relevant wind tunnel grond testing and consider a graduated score structure based on complexity of wind tunnel ground test support provided to the Air Force or other customers.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

7 Attachment 5 and Attachment 17 11 3.3.1 Subfactor 3.3.1 - request the Government consider making the max points the same for 'Superior' and 'Commendable' DSS ratings.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

8 Attachment 5 and Attachment 17 11 3.4 Subfactor 3.4 - request the Government resist attempts to reduce the scoring percentage for CPARS.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

9 ITO 17.2.2.1 & UPT 11 17.2.2.1

From ITO: A separate pricing tab must be completed by the Prime for all major Subcontractors as instructed in the UPT. Will the Government add tabs to the UPT for Subcontractors? Prime to create tab for Subcontractor data within UPT.

10 ITO 17.2.3.2.2 13 17.2.3.2.2

From ITO: Offerors are required to fill-in the indirect ceiling rate(s) within Section H, EGLIN-H015, Indirect Ceiling Rates (Jan 20), for each team member. Will the Government allow each Team Member to submit a separate sealed Section H, EGLIN-H015 package with their indirect ceiling rates?

Yes, the Government will allow sealed package submittal of the team member information. With regards to the H- Clause, the Prime is required to submit for all team members, as these rates are intended to go on contract.

The buildup of these rates (within UPT) can be sent directly to the Government by the subcontractor for evaluation purposes.

11 ITO 17.2.3.2 & 17.2.4.2 16

17.2.3.2 & 17.2.4.2

From ITO: "The Government requires Offerors (Primes and Subcontractors in accordance with Paragraph 17.2.2.1) to objectively prove/verify/substantiate the realism/reasonableness of all proposed rates" and "The Offeror shall propose a direct labor rate and any indirect rates for every labor category" Please clarify if the intent is for the Prime and Subcontractors to submit a single rate? Or if the requirement is for both the Prime and Subcontractors to show a rate buildup? If the build up for both Prime and Subcontractors are required how will the offeror provide the build up for both Prime and Subcontractor if the subcontractor’s indirect rates are proprietary and not available to the Prime?

Prime should utilize the higher of the burden rates with no pass-through. Supporting information is required. The subcontractor can submit their rate build up directly to the Government. Highest FBLR that will result in final TEP.

Attachment 3 - Draft AEDC LOE Matrix All All Will the government provide this attachment in Excel format, either instead of or in addition to the PDF document The Government will consider. Look to final FOPR for decision.

Attachment 4 - Draft ITO

Attachment 3 - Draft AEDC LOE Matrix

17.2.3.2.1

N/A

Please clarify the purpose of the Government representative rates in Attachment 3, and how they will be used for evaluation of price realism and reasonableness.

Also, please clarify whether the "Standard" rates are equivalent to GS Salary Table base pay only, or to GS Salary Table base pay plus the REST OF UNITED STATES locality pay factored in.

Rates provided are expected base salary inclusive of locality adjustments. These rates have no ties to the GS Salary Tables.

Attachment 5 - Draft Eval Criteria 1 1.1

We respectfully request the government reconsider using the HTRO self-scoring system as the sole basis for determining which proposal will be selected for assessment of price realism and reasonableness (and, ultimately, for award). We recommend a more comprehensive evaluation that considers not only an offeror's relevant performance on prior contracts, but also the offeror's approach to specific requirements and challenges associated with the customer's mission and operating environment going forward.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Attachment 5 - Draft Eval Criteria 3 3

Please modify the statement that "The Offeror shall select a maximum of five (5) work samples . . . To submit as substantiating evidence for the self-score point system." We recommend this be changed to "The Offeror shall select a maximum of five (5) work samples per technical category . . . To submit as substantiating evidence for the self-score point system."

(NOTE: This same comment applies to Attachment 4 - Draft ITO, Page 1, Paragraph 1.1)

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Attachment 5 - Draft Eval Criteria 11 3.4 We recommend the Government augment its evaluation of CPAR ratings to evaluate offerors' past performance. The Draft RFP includes Attachment 15, Draft Past Performance Rating Form, so no new document would need to be generated. We suggest Attachment 15 be used for all work samples; not just when no CPAR is available.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Attachment 5 - Draft Eval Criteria 14 4.1.2 We recommend the Government identify the $50,000 not-to-exceed transition amount as a Most Probable Cost (MPC) and evaluate the realism of offerors' proposals against this

MPC

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Attachment 17 - Draft AEDC Self- Scoring Matrix N/A Technical

Category We recommend modifying the Max Count on selected subfactors so that offerors are able to achieve maximum points even if fewer than 100% of work samples satisfy the subfactor definition

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Attachment 5 Draft Eval Criteria - AEDC 10-Jul SF 3.2

Recommend conducting an assessment of the Technical criteria to merge categories into broader categories such as acquisition support, engineering, and logistics. The ability to recruit and retain personnel in these broader categories (with higher numbers of personnel) more closely reflects the OASIS IDIQ RFP categories and will serve as better indicators of an offeror's capability to succees in performance of this contract.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2

Attachment 17 Draft AEDC Self- Scoring Matrix

Self Score Sheet SF 3.2

Recommend reducing the maximum score of technical sections to 2 work samples to reflect the maximum number of subcontractor work samples allowed on the contract.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Attachment 5 Draft Eval Criteria - AEDC 3 para 3 Consider allowing offerors to use a maximum of five (5) work samples per category. This encourages proposal flexibility without impacting the Government’s workload to validate scores and review substantiation. We do not believe that this will increase the documentation provided, since the same number of performance validation will be required.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Attachment 17 Draft AEDC Self- Scoring Matrix

Self Score Sheet SF 3.3.1

Will the Government consider allowing maximum points for a Commendable or Superior rating?

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Attachment 17 Draft AEDC Self- Scoring Matrix

Self Score Sheet SF 3.3.1

We greatly appreciate the idea and intent to incorporate a measure of corporate performance into the HTRO type solicitation. However, we recommend more detailed discussions with industry to determine what a meaningful evaluation criteria might be.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

24 Attachment #5 Evaluation Criteria 5 3.1 Recommend including the restriction to "DoD contracts/TOs" for all General/Prime Only criteria items as was done for the section 3.2 items.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

25 Attachment #5 Evaluation Criteria 7 3.2

Recommend tailoring this technical criteria to reflect the requirement for personnel based scoring vice Contract/Task Order. Suggest updated language such as “Across the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the highest number of positions whose purpose is performing ….”

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

26 Attachment #5 Evaluation Criteria 8 3.2.2

Recommend tailoring this technical criteria item to reflect the unique nature of the DoD experience required for this task order. Suggest updated language such as "Across the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the highest number of positions whose purpose is performing direct technical support for DoD air breathing propulsion testing".

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced

27 Attachment #5 Evaluation Criteria 8 3.2.3

Recommend tailoring this technical criteria item to reflect the unique nature of the DoD experience required for this task order. Suggest updated language such as "Across the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the highest number of positions whose purpose is performing direct technical support for DoD hypersonic vehicle testing".

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

28 Attachment #5 Evaluation Criteria 8 3.2.4

Recommend tailoring this technical criteria item to reflect the unique nature of the DoD experience required for this task order. Suggest updated language such as "Across the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the highest number of employees who operate as part of a DoD multifunctional team consisting of government civilians, military members, and other contractors".

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

29 Attachment #5 Evaluation Criteria 9 3.2.5

Recommend tailoring this technical criteria item to reflect the specific nature of the technical performance required for this task order. Suggest updated language such as "Across the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the highest number of positions whose purpose is performing support to a DoD Lead Developmental Test Organization".

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

30 Attachment #5 Evaluation Criteria 9 3.2.6

Recommend tailoring this technical criteria item to reflect the specific nature of the technical performance required for this task order. Suggest updated language such as "Across the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the highest number of positions whose purpose is performing direct technical support for testing of DoD high-altitude/space environmental effects and sensors".

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

31 Attachment #5 Evaluation Criteria 9 3.2.11

Recommend tailoring this technical criteria item to reflect the specific nature of the technical performance required for this task order. Suggest updated language such as "Across the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the highest number of positions whose purpose is performing DoD mission-focused ID&C operations support and strategic planning".

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

32 Attachment #6/ UPT

Standard and Premium Tabs

Column I, Fixed Fee

In the Sample examples in these tabs, a reasonable Fixed Fee percentage of 8% is used in the calculation. Recommend modification of the Fixed Fee limitation in Attachment 4, ITO, page 14, paragraph 17.2.3.5 to allow for 8% fixed fee limit.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

33 Attachment #10 CDRLs/A001 1 Block 12 Initial approval of CDRL item is required. Update block 8 to reflect an "A" approval code updated

34 Attachment #10 CDRLs/A002 1 Block 12 Initial approval of CDRL item is required. Update block 8 to reflect an "A" approval code updated

Attachment 5 ‐ EVALUATION

CRITERIA pg. 3

3.0 Task

Order

Selection Process

The criteria states, "All work samples must meet these minimum qualifications.

The individual criteria in Paragraph 3.1 may add additional restrictions in addition to these minimums: 1. Must be a federal (United States Government) contract. 2. Must fall into one (1) of the following categories:

Category 1: At a minimum three (3) of the five (5) work samples must have be from the prime offeror, one (1) can be as a subcontractor."

Comment/Recommendation: Request the Government consider increasing the number of subcontract work samples in Category 1 from 1 to 2 subcontract work samples from the prime offeror?

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Atch 04 - INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS (ITO) 17.2.3.2.1

Direct Labor Rates. This para states: "The Government assumes that the Government representative rates attached will be appropriate for positions on this task order. " If an Offeror uses the Government representative direct labor rates, must substantiation (labor market surveys, etc.) be provided for the Government-provided rates?

No additional data is required, unless deviating from provided rates.

Atch 05 - EVALUATION CRITERIA 1 1.1 Tie Breakers. Highly recommend CPAR scores (worth ~44% of the total points) be moved to the number 1 tie breaker since it has the most points associated with it and offers the best representation of Offeror past performance.

The Government will consider. Look to final FOPR for decision.

Atch 05 - EVALUATION

CRITERIA 6 3.1.3

Number of Incumbent Positions Transitioned in a 90 Day Span comments follow:

1. We highly recommend clarifying that “employees of the incumbent contractor” apply to work samples re-won by the incumbent contractor. This allows criterion scoring for a prime work sample where the incumbent company performed well for the Government, so much so that they were properly postured to re-win the work - the exact behavior the Government would like every contractor to strive for during contract performance.

Allowing “employees of the incumbent contractor” to apply to a work samples re-won by the incumbent contractor will provide fair treatment of re-won work samples for this criterion, thus, enhancing competition. If this recommendation is not acceptable to the Government, we then recommend allowing transition statistics from the initial work sample win, regardless of when it occurred, providing fair treatment to re-won work samples for this criterion to enhance competition.

2. Due to the high number required to max this criterion (220 positions), recommend allowing the prime offeror to use multiple work samples or reduce the number to 150 positions. This will enhance competition since there are not many relevant single contracts that required 220 incumbent position transitions.

Will look at clarifing within Eval Criteria. It is the Governments intent, that "employees of the incumbent contractor" apply to work samples re-won by the incumbent contractor.

Atch 05 - EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 Subfactor

3.1.4

Number of Non-Incumbent Engineering Support Positions Hired in a 30 day Span.

Highly recommend this criterion be mapped more closely to the TMAS 2 labor category "Scientist & Engineer" by requiring proof (e.g., degree) that non-incumbent engineering positions were filled with engineers.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced

Atch 05 - EVALUATION

CRITERIA 8 - 10

Subfactor 3.2

(General)

Task Element 1: TST Division - Specific Technical Requirements (PWS para 3.1.9).

Please note that 7 of the 12 Technical Evaluation Criteria come from this specific PWS para which addresses only Task Element 1 . These criteria are very specific and most likely only answerable by the incumbent. Highly recommend that several of the more specific, unique criteria that reference para 3.1.9 be replaced with criteria from Task Element 2 (Test Technology, Capital Improvements and Test Support), Task Element 3 (704th Test Group) and para 3.4 (Studies and Analyses). This will increase the breadth of the AEDC PWS required covered by the technical evaluation criteria, and also open up competition for this somewhat unique and complex TO.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Atch 05 - EVALUATION CRITERIA 9 Subfactor

3.2.6

Number of Contracts/TOs that Provide Direct Technical Support for Testing of High- Altitude/Space Environmental Effects and Sensors. This is a very specific Task Element 1 evaluation criterion from PWS para 3.1.9.4. Recommend removing the requirement for "High-Altitude/Space" so that more contracts will have relevant Environmental Effects and Sensors experience. This will result in increased competition.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Atch 05 - EVALUATION CRITERIA 9 Subfactor

3.2.7

Number of Contracts/TOs that Provide Direct Technical Support for Testing High Altitude Rocket Propulsion. This is a very specific Task Element 1 evaluation criterion from PWS para 3.1.9.5. Recommend removing the requirement for "High Altitude" so that more contracts will have relevant Rocket Propulsion experience. This will result in increased competition.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Atch 05 - EVALUATION CRITERIA 7 Subfactor

3.2.10

Number of Contracts/TOs that Provide Direct Technical Support for Captive Trajectory Testing of DoD Weapon Systems. Since this is related to the wind tunnel testing criterion (Subfactor 3.2.9), recommend replacing it with a criterion from another PWS Task Element like Capital Improvement support.

Criteria remains unchanged. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Atch 05 - EVALUATION CRITERIA 10 Subfactors

3.4.1-3.4.5

CPARs. The first para states: "Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based off of the total percent of CPARs categories that were rated “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Marginal”, or “Unsatisfactory” for the CPAR categories of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management and Regulatory Compliance on all CPARs that were received on all work samples within the last five (5) years from the FOPR release date. " Limiting work sample CPARs to within five years of FOPR release will eliminate scoring of CPARs that capture transitions for relevant work samples that had transitions before the five year window. Highly recommend that work sample CPARs for all years of performance be scored to capture the initial contract transition and all years of performance. Offerors can be required to submit copies of the CPARs that are no longer obtainable by the Government in PPIRS, and subsequent Government verification can be made by contacting the referenced Government POCs.

The Government will consider. Look to final FOPR for decision.

Atch 05 - EVALUATION

CRITERIA 10

3.4.1- 3.4.5, Second Para

This para states: "If CPARs are not available, the Offeror may use a Past Performance Rating Form (Attachment 15) to request comparable ratings from their Government customer. If utilized, Past Performance Rating Forms must be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. " Please clarify the number of PPRFs for a single work sample that will be allowed to score on the self-scoring matrix (e.g., are multiple PPRFs allowed to address all years of performance for a single work sample?).

The Government will consider. Look to final FOPR for decision.

Atch 18 - WORK SAMPLE COVER SHEET 1 Recommend adding a box to identify SA IDIQ contract work samples to avoid confusion with other "D" multiple award IDIQ contracts.

The Government will consider. Look to final FOPR for decision.