DRAFT RFP N6134021R0001_Att L-10 FTSS V Solicitation_QA 1-31_8.26.21.xlsx

Q&A

DRAFT SOLICITATION FTSS V MAC N6134021R0001 Q&A #1-31

Will the Government increase the three (3) year past performance recency requirement to five (5) years for Lot 2 in order to open the opportunity up to additional small business principal entities?

FTSS V Draft RFP:

o Page 131, L.2.2.1.2 o Page 135, L.2.3.1.1.2 a) 2) o Page 135, L.2.4 c) o Page 136, L.2.4 f) o Page 158, M.3.1.3 Att L-7 Military Aircraft Flight Training Devices (Lot2)

With respect to Joint Ventures (JV), the previous solicitation requested evaluation factor information from both the JV and its partner companies. But in the above-described situation with multiple affiliated business units under a common corporate parent, it is unclear whether the affiliated business units can respond in a consolidated manner to the solicitation. In our experience, prior solicitations navigated this arrangement via a Letter of Support among the relevant affiliated business units to confirm (a) their ability to coordinate with each other and (b) each business unit’s commitment to performance under the Task Orders.

Would you consider clarifying the solicitation so that affiliated business units under common parental control may submit for evaluation relevant information from more than one business unit and effectively participate in this competition, similar to what is permitted for JVs?"

For example 14.c.ii lists an average FTSS TO requirement - 18 Aircraft Flight Simulators, while L.2.3.1.1.1 a) 3) lists a requirement for experience performing COMS maintenance on ten (10) or more Military Aircraft Flight Simulators.

Att L-3a and Section L.2.3.1.1.1 No, Sections L.2.3.1.1.1 and L.2.3.1.1.2 are the Technical (Experience) factor evaluation requirements, not the Relevancy requirements. The contract reference submissions will first be assessed for Relevancy by the government. The M.3.1.3 Relevant definition identifies that only performance on Relevant contracts will be considered in the Technical(Experience) and Past Performance evaluations. Section M3.1.3 defines Relevant in part as "Contract Reference that involved similar scope, and magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires. A Relevant Contract Reference may have COMS scope, CIS scope, or COMS and CIS scope in comparison to the L-3a (Lot 1) and L-3b (Lot 2) scope criteria. For the purposes of Magnitude similarity, only the Annualized Dollar Value of the Contract Reference will be evaluated. A Relevant Contract Reference must also demonstrate “similar” performance as the solicitation requires in a majority of the eight complexity criteria listed in L-3a (Lot 1), and in the one complexity criteria listed in L-3b (Lot 2). The Government will also consider the contract type." Please see M.3.1.3 for the full Relevant definition.

Based on the Relevant definition you can see that there may be differences between contracts that have been deemed Relevant, depending on, for example, which of the Lot 1 complexity criteria were similar. In the L-3a, 14.c.ii lists an average FTSS TO requirement of 18 Aircraft Flight Simulators. 18 Aircraft Flight Simulators will be the Relevancy point of comparison for similarity for that complexity criteria. If this overall contract submission is determined to be Relevant, the contract reference will be used in the Technical Experience evaluation, and the 14.c.ii information will be used in determining whether or not the offeror satisfies the minimum experience requirement in L.2.3.1.1.1 a) 3).

Table G-2 states that the Cover Letter be submitted as .docx indicating a Word document. The Cover Letter is a signed document.

Question: Would the Government amend the table to show the Cover Letter as a .pdf? Draft RFP

L.1.1.2.1.2 -OPERATING SYSTEM AND APPLICATIONS

a)

Paragraph M.2.4.d states, “Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed similar work before. As such, the term “performance record” in the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating definition is referring to qualitative records that indicate how well the Offeror has performed on similar work (e.g., CPARs and questionnaires).”

Question: In the event the Past Performance POCs are unresponsive to the offeror or to NAWC TSD, will the offeror’s Performance Confidence Assessment Rating (CAR) outlined in Paragraph M.2.4 (d) be adversely affected? Draft RFP L.2.4(g) Pg. 136

M.2.4 – PAST PERFORMANCE

d) Pg. 156 RFP L.2.4.g provides instruction on Attachment L-9 CPARS Update Questionnaire. The paragraph concludes by saying "The Offeror shall not conduct follow-up actions with regard to this questionnaire, other than to confirm receipt by the recipient." L.2.4.i states that "The Government may contact customers identified by the Offeror to obtain follow-up Past Performance Information as needed." In accordance with L.2.4.3.a, the Offeror shall document in Attachment L-3a or L-3b in sections 18 and 19 for each contract reference submission any CPARS Update Questionnaires (CUQ Attachment L-9) and any Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaires (CPAQ Attachment L-2) that have been sent, when they were sent, and to whom so that the Government may follow up to obtain Past performance information as needed. The RFP requirements for the contractor to forward CUQ's or CPAQ's t the appropriate POC's may be found in L.2.4.g and L.2.4.h respectively.

No, in the event Past Performance POCs are unresponsive to the government's follow-up on any CUQ's or CPAQ's, the Offeror's Performance Confidence Rating will not be negatively affected. Worst case scenario is that there is no record of Past Performance for the offeror for any of the contract references submitted, which would result in an unknown performance record. An unknown performance record is included in the M.3.1.2.a Past Performance Confidence Acceptable Rating.

Industry Day Slide 65 Contract Relevancy states, for offerors to receive a relevancy rating of R, each contract reference must “…demonstrate “similar” performance as the solicitation requires…”. Slide 65 also states that Lot I CIS scope includes “C/D Military Aircraft FFS.”

Industry Day Slide 15 lists Surface and Submarine commands as potential customers for this contract.

Questions:

a: Would the Government please clarify what is meant by “similar” performance on Slide 65?

b. Are Military Aircraft FFS which are accredited under different programs (i.e., Army) and considered Level C/D equivalents considered to be “similar” and therefore receive a relevancy rating of R?

c: Has the government changed the requirements of the Draft SOW?

d: Is it the Government’s intent to exclude potential offerors who serve the Surface and Submarine commands customers from the opportunity to compete for a FTSS V contract award? Or is the work performed for these commands considered to be “similar” performance for evaluation purposes? Draft RFP Att BC1, Draft SOW Para. 1.3 Contractor Instructional Services (CIS) Pg. 3

Industry Day Presentation Slides 15 and 65 a. Pre-Solicitation Conference Slide 65 summarized some salient Draft RFP points on Relevancy for Scope for Lots 1 and 2 and for COMS and CIS Scope. Much of your question is centered around Lot 1 CIS Scope, so the answer will be targeted accordingly. The summary on slide 65 was abbreviated to fit Relevancy on one screen. Slide 65 indicates that Lot 1 CIS performance will be compared to the following for similarity: contractor instructional services performed on Level C/D Military Aircraft FFS; conducting aircrew training for tactical military aircraft in combat; and compliance with military-specific annual training requirements. The abbreviated statement "Level C/D Military Aircraft FFS" applies to proposed non-Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) Military Aircraft Flight Simulators. Please see L-3a 14.a.2 and 14.a.1.i for the full set of criteria to which performance will be compared for CIS Scope similarity. L-3a 14.a.1.i identifies, in part, that for device Scope, performance was conducted on applicable Military Aircraft Flight Simulators. A listing of Lot 1 qualifying devices that are historically maintained under the Naval Aviation Enterprise's (NAE) FTSS program is provided in Attachment L-6. If the proposed device is not listed in Attachment L-6, it is incumbent on the Offeror to communicate in its proposal the similarity of any proposed Military Aircraft Flight Simulator to a Level C/D Aircraft FFS, with regard to how that device would compare to FAA qualification performance standards. Though most often not operated under FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) auspices, qualifying, non-NAE, Military Aircraft Flight Simulators are those assessed to be similar to Level C/D FFSs with collimated visual systems, as described in 14 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. Please note that device scope criteria the same as L-3a 14.a.1.i will be added in 14.a.2.i in the final RFP to give the contractor the opportunity to address device CIS performance. Also see Draft RFP Q&A #12.

b. The government will evaluate similarity based on the information provided in response to the criteria in L.3a 14.a.1.i which includes performance on a simulator identified in Attachment L-6, or High-level documentation supporting a proposed simulators similarity to a Level C/D FFS would be a FAA Technical Letter of Equivalency (TLOE) or USAF SIMCERT, or detailed description and documentation of how the proposed Military Aircraft Flight Simulator would meet 14 CFR 60, Appendix A, minimum simulator Qualification Performance Standards (QPSs) Requirements for a Level C FFS.

c. No, the government has not changed the requirements in Attachment L-4 Representative Historical Requirement PWS A (COMS) or Attachment L-5 Representative Historical Requirement PWS B (CIS). These are representative only. Actual PWS's will be provided at the task order level.

d. The primary focus of the FTSS work, and the majority of the recurring requirements, consist of meeting the needs of the Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) by providing COMS and CIS support on aviation simulators. Through the FTSS series of Multiple Award Contracts (MACs), NAWCTSD responds to the intent and direction of the OPNAVINST 1551.11 series titled “POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR FIELDED TRAINING SYSTEMS SUPPORT OF FIELDED AVIATION TRAINING SYSTEMS.” Non-NAE COMS and CIS efforts, and other types of work, are sometimes contracted for under the FTSS series of Multiple award contracts (see the FTSS V Scope document Attachment BC-1), but this is the exception and not the rule.

Military Aircraft Flight Simulators, as described in the listing provided, are vastly different than non-aviation devices. Outside of the obvious (and critically important) differentials in training purposes, there are several key systemic differences.

• Military Aircraft Flight Simulators visual systems have display systems that are collimated (i.e. have infinite focal lengths)

• Instructional Operating Stations have the ability to insert a myriad of different initial conditions, operating airports, weather, aircraft faults, etc.,

• Motion and motion cueing systems provide individualized input to the tactical flight crew that model aircraft maneuvering and, in some cases, supply G-force indications

• Many host computing systems must connect to the Navy Continuous Training Environment for highly classified Live, Virtual, and Constructed training events Non-aviation training devices do not have these, or other, relevant capabilities. The Relevancy criteria listed represent the preponderance of the work in each respective Lot. The government will evaluate similarity to the Relevancy criteria in the L-3a (Lot 1) and L-3b (Lot 2). Non-aviation work does not conform to the Relevancy aviation criteria for Lot 1.

Att BC1, Draft SOW Para. 1.1 The contract reference submissions will first be assessed for Relevancy by the Government. The M.3.1.3 Relevant definition identifies that only performance on Relevant contracts will be considered in the Technical(Experience) and Past Performance evaluations. Section M3.1.3 defines Relevant in part as "Contract Reference that involved similar scope, and magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires. A Relevant Contract Reference may have COMS scope OR CIS scope OR COMS and CIS scope in comparison to the L-3a (Lot 1) and L-3b (Lot 2) scope criteria.

Once Relevancy has been assessed, only the Relevant contract references will be utilized in the Technical (Experience) evaluation to determine if the minimum Experience criteria have been met. Both Lot 1 and Lot2 include CIS minimum Experience criteria (see L.2.3.1.1.1 and L.2.3.1.1.2). Per M.2.3.e an UNACCEPTABLE rating in one or more Technical (Experience) evaluation element(s) for the Lot proposed, will render the whole Technical (Experience) factor rating UNACCEPTABLE, and in turn will result in the entire proposal being found UNACCEPTABLE. An UNACCEPTABLE proposal will be eliminated from this competition without further evaluation.

Offerors with an Acceptable Technical(Experience) rating will move on to the Past Performance assessment. The Past Performance evaluation will only utilize Relevant contract references and will assess how well the Relevant work was performed to determine the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort in accordance with M.2.4 and M.3.1.2. M.3.1.3, L.2.3.1.1.1, L.2.3.1.1.2, M.2.4, M.3.1.2

&"Arial,Bold"&12N61340-15-R-0052, FTSS IV

Attachment L-9

Attachment L-10 RFP Question and Answer Form This spreadsheet shall be used to submit RFP questions .

image1.png image2.emf