NAVTAC II Questions and Answers Part 3.pdf

# Question SIR No SIR Volume RFP Section Page No.

1 Can the government tell us what tools they are using to track documentation and deliverables?

C C3.7.1 C-15 The FAA uses but not limited to, in-house developed tools.

2 Are copies of the documents listed on C-15 and C-16 available?

C C.3.7.1 C-15 The documents listed in this section reflect examples that may require review during the life of the contract.

3 Can the government tell us what EVM software they are using

C C.3.8.4 C-19 The FAA uses but not limited to MPM and WinSight

4. Duplicate Heading C.3.6.2 C C.3.6.2 C-12 Document will updated accordingly.

5 Please clarify what are the “three screening criteria” referred to in this Section.

L L.4.2, Item f L-6 Please see revised Section L.4.2. There are two screening criteria. All proposals will be reviewed for completeness and accuracy.

6 Will the table of contents, cover page, acronym list, compliance matrix and executive summary be included in the page count?

L L.6.1, Table L-

L-10 No

7 The government states “….specifically address the capabilities, methodologies, special skill sets, and tools the team brings to each SOW area. Please provide the list of current tools used by the FAA and the

L L.6.2.1.1, 2nd Bullet, 1st Sentence

L-11 The government is requesting the Offerors to describe the capabilities, methodologies, special skill sets, and tools the team brings to each SOW area.

incumbent contractor?

8 The statement:

“The offeror must demonstrate their experience in delivering the full range and scope of services required” is overly restrictive and would only allow the incumbent contractor to meet this requirement. We suggest replacing this statement as follows: “the offeror must demonstrate their ability to deliver the full range and scope of services required”

L L.6.2.1.1, 2nd Bullet, 3rd Sentence

L-11 Please see revised Section L.6.2.1.1

9.

The SIR states “Provide detailed examples supporting your team’s experience. Include a description of the work performed and its relevance to the SOW, problems encountered, innovative/creative solutions applied, and significant accomplishments. This requirement seems to favor the current incumbent contractor and request rewording of the same. No other offeror or competitor would have the specific

L L.6.2.1.1, 2nd Bullet, 5th Sentence

L-11 Please see revised Section L.6.2.1.1

NAVTAC experience.

10 The statement: “The offeror must discuss the extent to which the members of the offerors team have previously collaborated on relevant efforts and highlight how such previous efforts will be leveraged to reduce performance risk” is overly restrictive in favor of the incumbent prime contractor who has collaborated with current team members over last 5 to 20 years. We request that this requirement be removed and not penalize non-incumbent teams in the evaluation process.

L L.6.2.1.1, 2nd Bullet, 6th Sentence

L-11 Please see revised Section L.6.2.1.1

11 Please clarify the criteria the government is planning to use in evaluating and correlating NAVTAC II with contracts of same size and complexity?

L L.6.2.1.1 L-11 The government will review contracts to see if it is relevant to NAVTAC in terms of their functional scope and complexity.

12 The government is requested to submit three

(3) Past Performance Summaries as part of their proposal submission for step one and at least two Past Performance

L L.6.2.4 L-16 The Past Performance Summaries are independent from the Past Performance Questionnaires. Offerors may have more than one major subcontractor as

Questionnaire’s must be submitted by the prime and at least one from each major subcontractor but the total of Past Performance Questionnaire’s submitted to the FAA shall not exceed a total of ten submissions combined. Please clarify.

Also, is Step one a subset of the questionaries’ in step two, OR are or can they be independent of one another?

part of their team. The submission requirements provide the minimum and maximum number of responses in order to satisfy Volume IV.

13 This statement,” The degree to which the offeror demonstrates the experience in delivering the full range and scope of services required by the SOW.” is overly restrictive and in favor of the incumbent. To assess the offerors “ability to perform the SOW” and not just the “experience in performing the subject SOW” we request suggested wording, such as, “The degree to which the offeror demonstrates their ability to deliver the full range and scope of services required

M M.6.1, Sub-factor 1.2, 3rd Sentence

M-4 Please see revised Section M.6.1.

by the SOW.”

14 The statement “The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the extent to which members of the Offeror’s team have previously collaborated on similar efforts and highlight how such previous efforts will be leveraged to reduce performance risk.” Should be reworded or removed because this requirement is overly restrictive in favor of the incumbent contractor and will penalize non-incumbent Primes and their teams.

M M.6.1, Sub-factor 1.2, 4th Sentence

M-4 Please see revised M.6.1, Subfactor 1.2.