Pre-proposal_conference_questions_22_Oct_19.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 43 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Aircraft Maintenance Enterprise Solution (ACES) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA3002-19-R-A001
About this file
This request for information (RFI) seeks information from vendors capable of providing aircraft maintenance and support services for an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity multiple award contract vehicle. Services will include organizational and intermediate level maintenance for aircraft ranging from 7,000 to 84,000 flying hours annually across Air Force major commands. Vendors must have the capability to provide services to all Air Force bases. Responses are due by January 4, 2019 and should include company information, experience, capabilities, teaming agreements, recommendations for small business goals and proposal periods, and any revisions to the performance work statement. An industry day will be held on January 15-16, 2019 at Joint Base San Antonio Randolph, Texas.
FA3002-19-R-A001 Q&A up to 1 Oct 19
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 36
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
Pre-proposal Conf.
| Reference | Question | Answer | ||
| Questions to Col Johnson | ||||
| 1 | Can Flexibility be incorporated into the contract? | There is an Over and Above CLIN available at the MAC level, which may provide the customers with desired flexibility but this will be determined at the Task Order level. | ||
| 2 | What is the current MC rate at Vance? | The specific metrics and work load on each Task Order will be determined by the customer. | ||
| Questions from Industry | ||||
| a | 3 | Pre-Proposal Conference slide 55 | If a prime offeror does not have any major/critical subcontractors, do I need to submit percentage breakouts (percentage and type of work the Offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner will conduct)? | No. |
| e | 4 | Pre-Proposal Conference slide 55 | For the six total contracts to be submitted (up to 3 prime and 3 major subcontractors), do we submit Past and Present Performance Info (PPI) on our major subcontractors? Concern is competition will be reduced significantly if this is limited to primes. | Yes, as a prime offeror, the Government requests you submit past performance information on up to three of your major subcontractors, teaming partners, and joint venture partners, if applicable. |
| a | 5 | Pre-Proposal Conference slide 55 | How do we determine what a major subcontractor is? With no dollar value associated with the MAC, it makes it difficult to determine what constitutes a major sub. | For past performance, the dollar value of the ACES MAC is irrelevant. According to DFARS 209.571-1 Definitions, a Major subcontractor means a subcontractor that is awarded a subcontract that equals or exceeds: (i) Both the certified cost or pricing data threshold and 10 percent of the value of the contract under which the subcontract is awarded; or (ii) $55 million. For the purposes of this Solicitation, the 10% could be based on the notional Task Order value of $100M/year. |
| b | 6 | Pre-Proposal Conference slide 55 and slide 61 | What is the purpose of the $30M annual contract value with respect to past performance Relevancy, expected magnitude of work and complexities? Many contractors would like to submit contracts they consider relevant but do not meet the $30M annual contract value requirement. | The $30M annual contract value as it applies to relevency will remain. This value relates to known requirements for this MAC and is therefore applicable. |
Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), no relevant or no meaningful past performance shall be determined to have neutral past performance, which is considered acceptable.
| e | 7 | Pre-Proposal Conference slide 57 | When including discussion of efforts to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts, should this be included in the narrative portion of the PPI tool? | Yes. IAW the PPI Tool instructions provided with the Solicitation, include that information under the Program Details Tab in the "Brief Description of Effort" explanation block. |
| a | 8 | Pre-Proposal Conference slide 55 | Since the cumulative total of 6 contractor references is limited to 3 primes and 3 major subcontractors, if a contractor has no major subcontractors, are we limited to submitting only 3 prime contracts? | Yes, offerors are limited to 3 contracts for the Prime and limited to 3 for the prime's major subcontractors. |
| m | 9 | Pre-Proposal Conference slide 59 | Since the scope of this MAC excludes rotary wing, tiltrotor, and Remotely Piloted Aircraft, can we submit past performance information on those types of contracts and still be considered relevant? | Yes, if you have previous contracts that include Organizational and/or Intermediate level maintenance, that will be considered in the evaluation. |
| a | 10 | Pre-Proposal Conference slide 58 | When submitting subcontractor letters of consent, do we only submit letters for subcontracts that we are submitting PPI for? | Yes. |
| g | 11 | Pre-Proposal Conference slide 58 | Will the Government be evaluating past performance at the Task Order level as well? | IAW with the Ordering Guide attached to RFP Amendment #3, "The Fair Opportunity Proposal Request [Task Order] will establish the selection factors and the order of importance for each Task Order. Task Order award decisions shall evaluate cost or price and quality of service. Quality of service evaluations will consider one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management capability, personnel qualifications, or prior experience. |
| e | 12 | General | Will the Government consider shifting the past performance due date past 8 Oct 2019? | The Government changed the Past Performance due date to 22 Oct 19. |
| d | 13 | Pre-Proposal Conference slide 58 | Will the Mission Capable (MC) rate be established at the Task Order level? How will this be assessed? | Yes. The performance standards are established and assessed IAW each individual Task Order. |
| c | 14 | Pre-Proposal Conference slide 66 | Is the CPARs category of "Small Business" going to be considered when determining eligibility for Incentive Option Periods (IOP)? | No; however, the Small Business CPARs category will still be assessed for overall contractor performance. |
| c | 15 | Pre-Proposal Conference slide 66 | If a contractor is not eligible for the 4th Incentive Option Period (IOP), are they automatically ineligible for the 5th IOP? Is the contractor still eligible to propose on the follow-on contract? | Yes, Per PWS Para 1.7, "If the Contractor is determined ineligible for the first IOP, then the Contractor is automatically ineligible for the second IOP." This will not however prevent the offeror from bidding on future Task Orders. |
| d | 16 | Pre-Proposal Conference slide 66 | Does the USG provide parts and how does that affect Mission Capable (MC) rate? | Yes, the Government will provide parts. If a parts supply issue is preventing a contractor from achieving performance standards (i.e. MC Rate), there is a waiver process in place to ensure the contractor is not held responsible for parts supply issues that are out of their control. |
| m | 17 | Will any of the Navy T1 and/or T6 requirements flow through the ACES contract? | No, the ACES MAC is limited to USAF only; however, if the Navy have aircraft that are being maintained at a USAF location, those aircraft will be allowed onto this MAC as long as they are attached to a Task Order specific location. | |
| 18 | Monetary Performance Incentive (MPI) CLIN is included. What activities will be incentivized? | This will be decided at the Task Order level; however, the Pre-Proposal Conference slide 66 outlines a few examples of what can be incentivized as far as improving fleet health. The Task Order customer will determine what aspects to incentivize. | ||
| m | 19 | Will the AF consider limited Depot Activities where it makes operational sense? | No, the ACES MAC specifically excludes all depot level activities. | |
| g | 20 | Will Government Observations be factored into future TO selection decisions? | Government observations feed into CPARs, which will be used for TO selection decisions. | |
| k | 21 | What will drive the Government's onboarding decision? | Per the H-Clause, the Government reserves the unilateral right to on-ramp additional contractors to maintain a competitive environment. The Government is not providing specific criteria at this time. | |
| e | 22 | Can contractor current and past performance on ACES Task Orders be substituted for Past Performance on future Task Order? | Any past performance that is relevant and recent, as defined in the Task Order solicitation, is applicable | |
| h | 23 | Would the USG consider allowing ACES primes to team with/under other ACES primes on future Task Order to deliver best value to the USG. | Teaming Agreements (aka Teaming Arrangements) and joint ventures must be established prior to proposing on the MAC. Therefore, two or more MAC Prime Awardees CANNOT be a "Team" or "Partners" on a Task Order. | |
| e | 24 | Please clarify the past performance requirment stating up to "3 Prime and 3 Major Subcontractors." Not allowing past performance of Major subs will significantly limit the competitive field. | Yes, as a prime offeror, the Government requests you submit past performance information on up to three of your major subcontractors, teaming partners, and joint venture partners, if applicable. | |
| e | 25 | Section M 2.4.6.2.2 | Past Performance: A company with no past performance will be evaluated as being "acceptable", even thought they have no aircraft maintenance experience. This allows for an ACES award to a very small who can write or hire a consultant to write an acceptable technical proposal. This situation introduces the possibility of Task Order award to a firm that cannot perform the requirement. Similarly, it potentially prevents award of an ACES contract and Task Orders to large and medium size companies who do not have past performance valued at $30M/ year. Both of these issues introduce significant performance risk to the ACES contract vehicle. Recommend the Government re-assess past performance evaluation criteria to address these issues and prevent potential domination of ACES Task Order by very large businesses. | The $30M annual contract value as it applies to relevency will remain. This value relates to known requirements for this MAC and is therefore applicable. |
Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), no relevant or no meaningful past performance shall be determined to have neutral past performance, which is considered acceptable.
| e | 26 | Section M 2.4.6.2.2 | Why can a company not submitting a past performance be rated neutral and be acceptable? They can win the ACES award but not be able to perform. | Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), no relevant or no meaningful past performance shall be determined to have neutral past performance, which is considered acceptable (slide 54). |
| b | 27 | Section M 2.4.6.2.2 | Why is there a $30M annual requirement? There are minimal companies that can meet the requirement, which limits competition from companies that can and currently perform similar contracts of smaller annual income. | The $30M annual contract value as it applies to relevency will remain. This value relates to known requirements for this MAC and is therefore applicable. |
Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), no relevant or no meaningful past performance shall be determined to have neutral past performance, which is considered acceptable.
b 28 Section M 2.4.6.2.2 Past Performance: The $30M or greater annual value used to measure past performance relevancy effectively restricts competition to 3-5 large companies. As demonstrated by a review of all contracts in NAICS Code 488190 and 336411 in the past 10 years, then elimination of any that did not meet/exceed the $30M annual threshold. The result was identification of ~32 contracts that meet the requirements, two of which were IDIQs (DOCAT & CFT). Of the remaining ~30 contracts, ~23 were awarded to five large businesses, with three of those companies having 19 awards between them, including efforts moving to ACES. The $30M annual contract value as it applies to relevency will remain. This value relates to known requirements for this MAC and is therefore applicable.
Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), no relevant or no meaningful past performance shall be determined to have neutral past performance, which is considered acceptable.
b 29 Section M 2.4.6.2.2 The use of a $30M dollar figure to determine whether or not past performance is relevant, effectively prevents large and medium size companies from being evaluated as "acceptable" even though they have the financial resources to execute the requirement. Recommend the Government relook [at] the requirement and reduce the relevancy dollar figure to $10M per year which will facilitate competition, resulting in the performance and innovation required. The $30M annual contract value as it applies to relevency will remain. This value relates to known requirements for this MAC and is therefore applicable.
Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), no relevant or no meaningful past performance shall be determined to have neutral past performance, which is considered acceptable.
| l | 30 | Section L Table L.2-1 | Page count: There was lots of discussion about proving offerors understand aircraft maintenance and how to do all the potential Tasks. If we are writing to cover both large and small fleets, we believe we should receive 5-10 extra pages in page count. Otherwise, we are diluting our specifics compared to a single scenario [strategy] offeror. If a rating of unacceptable in either scenario makes an offeror unawardable, we would appreciate a chance to provide a best proposal. Will the USAF consider increasing page count for 2 scenario [strategy] offerors? | RFP Amendment #2 increased Page count (as specified in Section L for Technical Subfactors 1-3 from 50 pages to 55 Pages for offerors who self-identify proposing program management strategies covering both large and small fleet (See Section L). If only proposing to one strategy, the page limit remains at 50 pages. |
| b | 31 | Closely Replicating Customer Requirements: We appreciate the dollar amount prerequisite (i.e. $30M) as a way to indicate scope. However, an offeror may pass the "bar" by having a large Base Operating Services (BOS), Information Technology (IT), or logistics contract and be rated acceptable. If you goal is, as stated, to find offerors who understand aircraft maintenance, recommend using experience in specific NAICS codes (488190, etc.), numbers of aircraft or sorties supported, etc. | Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), no relevant or no meaningful past performance shall be determined to have neutral past performance, which is considered acceptable (slide 54). |
Offerors are required demonstrate capability in aircraft maintenance through the Technical Factor.
| s | 32 | Facility Clearance: We originally appreciated the facility clearance requirement on the MAC due to customer requirements. Today we discussed the speed of awards on ACES and the short times before transition. If government facility clearances for new firms are taking longer, no FCL requirement on the MAC introduces timing risk. Will there be FCL requirements on the MAC or Task Order? | The requirement for an FCL will be based on each individual Task Order. |
| f | 33 | Small Business Content Rearrangement: Per Ms. Sanchez direction, she plans to move some element of Small Business into the technical. Will any arrangement come with additional page count. | There is no page count limitation for small business, per Section L Table L.2-1 |
| f | 34 | Subcontracted Areas: Please confirm TA, AFE and AM must be small business regardless of location. | TA, AFE and AM source is base specific and must remain with the current strategy. If these requirements are allowed on the MAC, they must be subcontracted to a small business. |
| l | 35 | Due Dates: We believe the draft documents and previous Industry days, etc. have given us insight and guidance to produce a successful proposal (assuming reasonable amendments). We recommend sticking with the original due dates. | In Amendments #3, the Government extended the Proposal submittal date to 20 Nov 19. |
| b | 36 | Request removal of the Past Performance relevancy requirement of $30M annual value. This will significantly limit the competitive field. | The $30M annual contract value as it applies to relevency will remain. This value relates to known requirements for this MAC and is therefore applicable. |
Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), no relevant or no meaningful past performance shall be determined to have neutral past performance, which is considered acceptable.
| c | 37 | PWS Para 1.7; Pre-Performance Briefing slide 65 | Incentive Option Periods - Please revise the statement: "ANY" CPAR ratings below Satisfactory…" to "Any CPAR rating in the category of Quality, Schedule, Management below Satisfactory" to eliminate Small Business and Cost. | Slide 65 from the Pre-Proposal Conference will be updated to remove the "Any" constraint. The PWS does not contain the restriction. However, the Small Business CPARs category will still be assessed for overall contractor performance. |
| l | 38 | Is the Government committed to an award date of May 2021 | The Government cannot commit to the date, but Feb 2021 is the Government's goal and the selection process is on track to meet it. | |
| l | 39 | Section L 6.1.2.2 | As a publically traded large business, would the Government accept SEC filed Annual reports (booklets) to satisfy Section L 6.1.2.2. | The SEC filed Annual Report is acceptable, as long as it meets the stated criteria in Section L 6.1.2.2 as being certified by an independent accounting firm by an independent accounting firm, if practicable, or at least by an authorized officer of the organization. |
| l | 40 | Section L 6.1.1 requires signed copies of each RFP Amendment. Amendment 1, dated 16 September 2019 did not include a solicitation page for signature. How should we satisfy this requirement? | The Government's intent is to have all amendments acknowledged in Block 14 of the original 5 Sep 19 Solicitation (Standard Form 33). In this instance the Offeror would complete Block 14 listing all solicitation amendments, and then submitting that page with the Offeror's signature. If the Offeror chooses to sign each individual amendment, these signature pages must be provided along with the original solicitation, which must also be signed by the Offeror. | |
| f | 41 | If you use your Master subcontracting plan how will you be able to mirror or correlate the SBPCD if the Master plan is already established? | The Master plan does not include the percentages for the particular requirements so additional information would have to be provided (an attachment and/or addendum may be attached to comply with the FAR and DFARS requirements) to acknowledge the SB goals in dollars/percentages. Then those will be used to correlate with the Small Business Participation Committment. RFP Amendment 3, clarifies this langugage. | |
| e | 42 | Slide 58 | Where is the PPI tool found? | As part of the Solicitiation posted in the FBO.gov |
| e | 43 | Does the PPI tool include Small Business in the description area or will it be included separately? | Under the Program Details Tab there are three narrative (freeform) blocks. The PPI Tool Instructions provided with the Solicitation provide explanations of the information expected in each block. Two of the blocks are associated with Small Business: |
1. Include relevant information concerning your compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, on the contract you are submitting, if applicable.
2. Identify whether a subcontracting plan was required for the contract you are submitting. If one was required, identify in percentage terms the planned versus achieved goals during contract performance. Explain why goals were not met, if applicable:
There isn't a specific block to check or input whether the past performance information being provided is from a small business.
| h | 44 | Will you submit Teaming arrangement and Letters of consent under the Past Performance or in both locations? | Teaming Agreements (aka Teaming Arrangements) are needed in the Technical Volume. This helps show the viability of the offerors technical approach. Letters of Consent are submitted under Past Performance. |
| e | 45 | If offerors submit PPI on the MAC will they be able to use on the 1st Task Order? | Yes, if the PPI still meets the definition of recency and relevancy under the Task Order, contractors may submit the same information. |
| b | 46 | The RFP requires contracts greater than $30M annual for past performance to show magnitude and complexity. Offerors may have relevant (scope) past performance that does not meet 30M annual requirement. The requirement parents submitted of otherwise relavant USAF marat, experience. Will the Government consider removing this $30M requirement? | The $30M annual contract value as it applies to relevency will remain. This value relates to known requirements for this MAC and is therefore applicable. |
Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), no relevant or no meaningful past performance shall be determined to have neutral past performance, which is considered acceptable.
| h | 47 | The RFP requires teaming arrangements letter of commitment, ect in 2 locations (volumes) past performance or contract volumes. Are these documents required in both places or is this a RFP error? | Teaming Arrangements are needed in the Technical Volume to show the viability of the offerors technical approach. Teaming Arrangements are also required in the Contract Volume IV to show the legal agreements associated with the Teaming Arrangement. | |
| z | 48 | What is Vance considered, a large fleet or small fleet? | Vance AFB is considered a large fleet | |
| f | 49 | Which goes into the contracting volume and which goes into the technical? The ACES team believes this is in reference to the Subcontracting Plan and the Small Business Participation Commitment Document. | With RFP Amendment 3, the Government modified Section L to only require the submittal of the Small Business Participation Commitment in the Technical Volume and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the Contract Volume. | |
| j | 50 | Wanting to confirm Minimum Team Compliment will be at TO? | Yes- We were just discussing it now as situational awareness. | |
| f | 51 | Will "Form" and subcontracting plan be placed on contract? | The Small Business POC clarified what "form" meant. Clarified that the word "form" in the question meant the Small Business Participation Commitment Document. With RFP Amendment 3, the Government modified Section L to only require the submittal of the Small Business Participation Commitment in the Technical Volume and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the Contract Volume. Note: The word, "Document" has been deleted to avoid confusion as to whether a specific "form" or "format" is required. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be placed on contract. | |
| l | 52 | Section L Para 2.8.8 and 4.2 | Paragraph 2.8.8 requires a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms for each volume. However, the volume outline instructions in paragraph 4.2 does not. Please advise if a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms are required in past performance section. | A glossary is required in each volume. Amendment will update language. |
| f | 53 | Section L Page 12 Para 3.6.3.1.2 | Can the Government provide a notional value for the offeror to utilize that represents subcontracted dollars? | See slide 16 and 17 from the Pre-Proposal Conference. Notional value is $100M. It's also in Section L. |
| 54 | Please confirm the fleet management small fleet scenario includes single MDS or multiple MDS. | The focus of element 3A under aspect 1, Fleet management in Section L is not so much how many MDS may be present. Rather the strategy to manage the complexities and dynamics associated with a smaller number of aircraft without an established flying hour. The multiple MDS is an example. | ||
| 55 | In the briefing today (last two slides) one of the items you stated that you needed from us was "the risks associated with our approach and associated mitigations." These specific instructions are not in section L. Please advise where in the technical proposal these will be placed. | Place any risks associated with your technical approach anywhere throughout the technical volume. | ||
| g | 56 | PWS Sec. 1 Paragraph 1.1 | Will the Government please provide the criteria used for awarding each individual Task Order? | This will be identified at the Task Order level. |
| g | 57 | PWS Sec. 1. Paragraph 1.3 | Will the Government please provide any additional information, besides cost, that will be needed for individual Task Orders? | This will be identified at the Task Order level. |
| g | 58 | PWS Sec. 1 Paragraph 1.3 | Will the Government please provide what process will be used for selecting offerors for each Task Order? | Amendment #3, Ordering Guide, provided additional Task Order selection information. |
| f | 59 | Sec L, Paragraph 3.6 | Will the Government please confirm that small businesses can be added later to fulfill Task Order requirements | To confirm, all small businesses do not need to be identified at the MAC level. Prime Contractors determine the subcontractors they include on their Task Order proposal, whether small business or large businesses, based on the Task Order requirements. |
| f | 60 | Sec L, Paragraph 3.6 | Will the Government please explain the process for adding small business later | To explain, all small businesses do not need to be identified at the MAC level. Prime Contractors determine the subcontractors they include on their Task Order proposal, whether small business or large businesses, based on the Task Order requirements. |
| f | 61 | Sec L, Paragraph 3.6 | Will the Government please clarify if we must ID all our Small Business Partners for the MAC or can we add small business partners for each Task Order | To clarify, all small businesses do not need to be identified at the MAC level. Prime Contractors determine the subcontractors they include on their Task Order proposal, whether small business or large businesses, based on the Task Order requirements. |
| i | 62 | Sec L Paragraph 3.5.3 | AFI 21-101 has a quality section and the RFP addresses using AS 9110. Will the Government please indicate which quality system takes priority | The Government does not believe there is a conflict between these two standards. AFI 21-101 is the minimum standard to which aircraft maintenance needs to be conducted, quality included. However, AS 9110 [QMS] - Aerospace - Requirements for Maintenance Organizations, is a higher-level quality management system and goes beyond quality requirements outlined in AFI 21-101. A higher-level QMS is necessary in a contract maintenance environment where the contractor has total responsibility for ensuring the quality of the product/service provided and where the Government Contracting Officer Representative (COR) responsibility is not to provide 'Over the Shoulder Quality Assurance' but to ensure the contractor follows the processes necessary to deliver quality products. |
In Amendment #3, the Government modified PWS Paragraph 3.1.3.8 to clarify Task Orders may require AS 9110 certification.
| f | 63 | PWS Sec. 8, 9 | The PWS directs that certain work will be done by small business, (Airfield Management, Life Support). Will the Gov clarify if we need to ID those small businesses on the MAC or when we bid for Task Order? | Will be required at Task Order. |
| g | 64 | PWS Sec. 1, Paragraph 1.1 | Will the Gov please clarify if we have to bid on a certain number of Task Orders to remain on the MAC? If so, how many Task Orders must we bid on | The Government has not set a minimum number of Task Orders each contractor needs to bid on. |
| f | 65 | Slide 14 | Is the participation document [Small Business Participation Commitment Document] a standard form or template? | The Small Business POC clarified what "form" meant at the Pre-Proposal Conference; the word "form" in the question meant the Small Business Participation Commitment Document. With RFP Amendment 3, the Government modified Section L to only require the submittal of the Small Business Participation Commitment in the Technical Volume and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the Contract Volume. Note: The word, "Document" has been deleted to avoid confusion as to whether a specific "form" or "format" is required. |
| j | 66 | Slide 20 | Minimum Team Complement was explained by Maj Ormaza. Contractor stated, "you mentioned this is unique to each Task Order location." | Yes, each location will have a different requirement for manning. |
| e | 67 | What is due by 8 Oct 19? Is it past performance information onlty or is it past performance information and contractor responsibility? | Past Performance information (only) is due by 22 Oct 19. | |
| 68 | Sec L paragraph 2.3.1. | Offerors are required to receive a capable, acceptable rating in each subfactor. If found unacceptable in any one subfactor, are you now "unacceptable" and eliminated from the MAC? | Section L Paragraph 2.3.1 states: "The Offeror is reminded the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions." Also, Section L Paragraph 3.1.2 states: "To be eligible for award, Offerors are required to receive an “Acceptable” rating in each Technical Subfactor. If an Offeror’s proposal has an “Unacceptable” rating for any Technical Subfactor, this proposal will be unawardable." | |
| f | 69 | Which Small Business form goes into the technical volume? | The Small Business POC clarified what "form" meant at the Pre-Proposal Conference; the word "form" in the question meant the Small Business Participation Commitment Document. With RFP Amendment 3, the Government modified Section L to only require the submittal of the Small Business Participation Commitment in the Technical Volume and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the Contract Volume. Note: The word, "Document" has been deleted to avoid confusion as to whether a specific "form" or "format" is required. | |
| f | 70 | If the master subcontracting plan is approved by whoever it is approved by, why are we required to submit a subcontracting plan at the contract level? | The Master plan does not include the percentages for the particular requirements so additional information would have to be provided (an attachment and/or addendum may be attached to comply with the FAR and DFARS requirements) to acknowledge the SB goals in dollars/percentages. Then those will be used to correlate with the Small Business Participation Committment. RFP Amendment 3, clarifies this langugage. | |
| l | 71 | Section I. Observation: The Solicitation does not contain the following clauses: FAR 52.251-1 and DFARS 252.251-7000. Question: Would the Government consider adding FAR 52.251-1 and DFARS 252.251-7000 to the Solicitation, especially in light that awardee(s) would likely seek Government supply sources to satisfy Solicitation cost-reimbursable CLINS X008, X011, and X012. | In RFP Amendment #3, Government included FAR 52.251-1 which refers to FAR 51.107. | |
| f | 72 | Section L, Par. 3.6.2.1.1 states “The Offeror must demonstrate adherence to the goals established in Table L.3.1 using Attachment 6 Small Business Subcontractor Plan Checklist.” This Small Business Subcontractor Plan Checklist appears to be a Government internal checklist. Question: Does the Government desire bidders to complete and submit this checklist? If so, what portions of checklist should be completed by bidders? If checklist is expected to be completed and submitted by bidders, in what proposal Volume should this checklist be included, Vol. I, Vol. IV, or both? | With RFP Amendment 3, the Government modified Section L to clarify Small Business aspects in the Offerors proposal. Section L now requires submittal of the Small Business Participation Commitment in the Technical Volume and the Subcontracting Plan in the Contract Volume. Section L Paragraph 6.12.1.1. now states, "The Offeror shall ensure the items in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan Checklist Template (Section 6.6 - Section J – Attachment 6, Individual Subcontracting Plan Checklist and Review) are incorporated in the Individual Subcontracting Plan or included in the Master Subcontracting Plan." | |
| h | 73 | Section L, Paragraph 3.2, subparagraph "h" lists "Proposed Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent" as an item to be included in the Technical Volume. There are no additional instructions in the Technical Volume. Section L, paragraph 6.9.3.2, in the Contract Documentation Volume also requires submission of Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent and provides instructions to provide "written contract teaming agreements, subcontractor letters of intent, and other necessary agreements...that clearly identify roles and responsibilities." Question: Does the Government require copies of Teaming Agreements and Letters or Intent per the instructions in Section L, paragraph 6.9.3.2 in both Volume I, Technical and Volume IV, Contract Documentation? | Teaming Agreements (aka Teaming Arrangements) are needed in the Technical Volume I to show the viability of the offerors technical approach. Teaming Arrangements are also required in the Contract Volume IV to show the legal agreements as part of Responsibility associated with the Teaming Arrangement. | |
| f | 74 | Section L, Paragraph 3.6.1, includes a note stating the Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted in Volume IV. Section L, Paragraph 3.6.2, Aspect I: Small Business Subcontracting Plan, describes the requirements to submit the SBSP. Question: Is the offerors Small Business Subcontracting Plan required to be submitted in both Volume I, Subfactor 4, Aspect I section, AND in Volume IV, Contract Documentation? | With RFP Amendment 3, the Government modified Section L to clarify Small Business aspects in the Offerors proposal. Section L now requires submittal of the Small Business Participation Commitment in the Technical Volume and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the Contract Volume. | |
| l | 75 | Section L, Paragraph 6.6, lists the Section J Attachments as part of the Volume IV, Contract Documentation proposal requirement. Question: Are bidders required to submit a printed copy of each Section J Attachment in Volume IV of their proposal per Section L, paragraph 6.6? | These attachments were provided to the Offerors for use in the preparation of proposals. Items 3 & 6 however, will be utilized and completed by the offeror and will be submitted as part of the applicable section in the offeror's proposal. Item 4 contains instructions for submittal of PPI. | |
| h | 76 | Section L, Paragraph 6.9.3.1 states "If applicable, Offerors shall complete Proposed Teaming/Subcontracting List." There is no solicitation attachment titled "Proposed Teaming/Subcontracting List." Question: Can the Government provide a Proposed Teaming/Subcontracting List template or provide details of the information required. | The Teaming/Subcontracting List is dependent on the offeror's strategy and no template is applicable or available. | |
| f | 77 | RFP Section H-4; RFP Section L, Paragraph 3.6.2.1, Table L.3-1; RFP Section M, Paragraph 2.3.5.1.2, Table M.2-2 | RFP Section H-4, Small Business 6 Aug 2019 338th SCONS, states: "...The Small Business (SB) goal is 12% of total contract dollars obligated and the Small Business subcategory goals for each of the following socioeconomic categories will be based on total subcontracting dollars: Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5%; Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5%; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HubZone) 3%; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 3%." |
Discussion: RFP Section H-4, Section L Table L.3-1, and Section M Table M.2-2 all identifiy that the Small Business participation [g]oal of 12% is a function of "Total Contract Dollars", whereas the goals for SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, and SDVOSB are a function of "Total Subcontracting Dollars".
| Question: Do we understand correctly that the Government's intent is for offerors to base their overall Small Business Goals on "Total Contract Value", while basing their socioeconomic catagory goals (SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, and SDVOSB) on "Total Subcontracting Dollars"? | An offeror's proposal for the MAC will be evaluated to determine if the proposed strategy meets the minimum 12% goal of Total Contracted Dollars, which for the ACES MAC Solicitation is based on a notional $100M per year Task Order, as well as the minimum socioeconomic catagory goals (SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, and SDVOSB) which are based on "Total Subcontracting Dollars" which is inclusive of both large and small subcontracts. It is the Government's intent is to evaluate each offeror's small business and subcontracted socioeconomic catagory goals percentages to determine acceptability at the Task Order level. | ||||
| s | 78 | PWS, para. 2.11.11 | Personnel may be allowed on the work site (no access to classified materials) without a final or interim clearance as long as validation of the Electronic Questionnaires for Investigation Processing (E-QIP) has been submitted and the investigation opened.” What documentation does the Contractor have to provide to substantiate this status? | Para 2.11.2 (which replaced the former 2.11.11) indicates this will be determined IAW each Task Order. Therefore, no personnel clearance information is required as part of the MAC. This information was provided so that offerors are aware that "All employees shall have an active or interim clearance prior to being given access to classified information or equipment." but that each specific customer, i.e., Task Order, can determine if interim clearances are acceptable to begin work. | |
| s | 79 | Section I, Paragraph 5352.242-9001 | Base access for supporting via Common Access Cards (CAC) for Contractor Personnel. Will contractors awarded a seat on the AFICA ACES Multi-Award IDIQ contract have the authroity to request and receive Common Access Cards? | No. Base and virtual access for which a CAC would be required, will only be applicable at the Task Order level. | |
| k | 80 | Secion H, H-1 Off Ramping | The Government reserves the unilateral right to Off-Ramp non-performing Contractors. Contractors that are Off-Ramped will not be eligible to compete for new TOs on the MAC. Can the Government provide a explaination with detailed measuring criteria for what would constitute invoking Off-Ramping? Is this just in reference to company debarment or is their program crieria? If a contractor receives a couple marginal and an unsatisfactory CPAR can this constitute a Off-Ramping action? Also, is there any recourse? | Per the H-Clause, the Government reserves the unilateral right to off-ramp non-performing contractors. The Government is not providing specific criteria at this time. | |
| k | 81 | Secion H, H-1 On Ramping | Can the Government provide a defiinition or specific criteria for reopenning competition to "On-Ramp" additional contractors? | Per the H-Clause, the Government reserves the unilateral right to on-ramp additional contractors to maintain a competitive environment. The Government is not providing specific criteria at this time. | |
| b | 82 | Section M, Paragraph 2.4.6.2.2 | Based on discussions during the 9/18/2019 Industry Day meeting, there was several challenges to the $30,000,000 annual contract value. If the government eliminates this criteria as an entry point, what accountability methods will be put in place to deem the contractor fiscally responsible and ensure performance. | The $30M annual contract value as it applies to relevency will remain. This value relates to known requirements for this MAC and is therefore applicable. |
Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), no relevant or no meaningful past performance shall be determined to have neutral past performance, which is considered acceptable.
l 83 Section L, Table L.2-1 Based on discussions during the 9/18/2019 Industry Day meeting, the Government is requesting a very detailed proposal to convince the government the contractor knows how to perform the aircraft maintenance work. Yet per Table L.2-1. Proposal Organization the Technical volume is allowed a total of 50 pages for Subfactors 1, 2 and 3. Will the government consider expanding the page limit to ensure adequate page count is available? A recommendation of 75 pages would help. Per RFP Amendment 2, posted on 26 Sep 19, page restrictions were modified to:
"When combined, Technical Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 shall have the following page restrictions:
- Offerors proposing to only one of the strategies described in Section L Paragraph 3.5.2.1 will be restricted to 50 pages.
- Offerors proposing to both strategies described in Section L Paragraph 3.5.2.1 will be restricted to 55 pages."
f 84 RFP Attachment 3 - SB Participation Commitment Doc Calculation; RFP Section L, Paragraph 3.6.3.1.2 RFP Section L, Paragraph 3.6.3.1.2, instructs offerors to use a yearly notional value of $100,000,000 for each of 10 years for proposal purposes.
Discussion: The Note at the top of the Government-provided Attachment 3, Participation Commitment Document Calculation, states: "Offerors only fill in the Yellow Highlighted areas and can change any % keeping in mind the RFP % for Subcontracting". The single * note at the bottom of the chart (line # 18) states: "Your Total Subcontracted Dollar amounts may be more than your small business amount because it can include large businesses. In recognition that there is not a pricing component for this IDIQ only proposal, the Government instructed offerors in Section L.3.6.3.1.2, to use the notional obligated value of $100,000,000 per year when filling out the yellow highlighted cells with the appropriate dollar amount and percentage. However, similar to the total obligated value, offerors are unable to fill-in the Total Subcontrtacted Dollar value for the IDIQ contract because specific requirements of future/awarded Task Orders are unknown. Without specific Task Order information, offerors can't determine what portion of the overall IDIQ may need to be subcontracted to large businesses.
We also identified a possible inaccuracy in the formula's input into the Attachment 3 Participation Commitment Document Calculation. Since RFP Section H-4, Section L Table L.3-1, and Section M Table M.2-2 instruct that the socioeconomic category (SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, and SDVOSB) goals are base on "Total Subcontracting Dollars". we believe the dollar values associated with SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB, VOSB, and HUBZone concerns are inapprpriately calculated on the "Small Business" Value (cells D9; F9; and H9) instead of the Total Subcontracted Dollar" (cells D8; F8; and H8).
Question:
A. Since offerors are unable to accurately determine the Total Subcontrated Dollar values on Attachment 3, Participation Commitment Document Calculation, at the IDIQ level, without specific Task Order information, will the Government consider providing a plug number for completion of the attachment, similar to what was provided for the Total Obligated Value?
B. Since this contract effort is an IDIQ contract without specific Task Order requirements, will the Government consider deleting the requirement to submit the completed Attachment 3 with offeror's IDIQ proposals, and reserve it for future Task Order proposals under this IDIQ?
C. Will the Goverment consider revising the formulas for the socioeconomic catogory (SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, and SDVOSB) dollar values to properly address the Total Subcontracted Dollar values (row 8) vice the Small Business values (row 9)? Questions A & B. The $100M notional Task Order value was provided so that offerors have a target upon which to base calculations for their small business and total subcontracting strategy (which includes both large and small businesses). Specific businesses in this category are not required to be provided at the MAC level, only the types of requirements that would be subcontracted.
Question C. The Small Business Participation Committment spreadsheet will be updated to calculate the socio-economic goals based upon Total Subcontracted Dollars which includes both small and large businesses.
l 85 Question on the subject solicitation. Section L requires completion of 52.204-8 (Jan 2018) but the FAR has been updated to 52.204-8 (Oct 2018). Can you provide a link to the Jan 2018 version for completion or advise if we should use the current Oct 2018 version.
"As prescribed in 4.1202 (a), insert the following provision:
6.7. SectionK - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors
| 6.7.1. Complete representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements. Offeror is required to fill out an online provision FAR Subpart 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications (Jan 2018). The Offeror shall insert “none” into FAR Subpart 52.204-8(d) [if applicable] to indicate that the fill-in was not missed." | The Oct 2018 version of 52.204-8 is now in the Solicatation | ||
| e | 86 | Reference 1: ppi_tool.accdb |
Reference 2: PPI_Tool_Instructions.docx
There is a discrepancy between the wording of the prompt in the actual PPI data base tool and the PPI Tool Instructions (2nd bullet under Program Details Tab, page 6). See below—italics added to highlight differences.
Ref 1: “Explain how your performance on this contract is relevant for each applicable factor or subfactor, as instructed under Past Performance in Section M of the RFP. Include any unique aspects that demonstrate relevancy in this effort. Provide evidence to support such relevance and the ability to perform the requirements as described in the RFP.”
Ref 2: “Explain how your performance on this contract is relevant, to the overall Aircraft Maintenance Enterprise Solution (ACES) effort as instructed under Past Performance in Section M of the RFP. Include any unique aspects that demonstrate relevancy in this effort. Provide evidence to support such relevance to the requirements as described in the RFP.”
The Past Performance instructions in Section M make no mention of applicable factor or subfactor, but they do define relevancy in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity.
| Question: To which criteria should the past performance relevancy analysis be performed? Each applicable factor/subfactor, or the overall ACES effort. | The PPI tool is a broad tool used by the majority of Air Force source selections for collecting past performance information and therefore the prompts are generic. As with any question, if you percieve there are conflicts, you should follow the instructions in the RFP and applicable amendments. Section L Paragraph 4.5.1. states: "Relevant performance is defined as efforts involving a similar scope and similar magnitude of effort and complexity as this solicitation requires, as described in the PWS and Sections L and M Evaluation Factors and Subfactors." | ||||
| l | 87 | What date determines the company’s size determination? Will size determination be determined at contract award or at proposal submittal? | Proposal submittal | ||
| h | 88 | An additional question for confirmation: It was stated during the pre-conference that Prime awardees on the ACES contract cannot team together on task orders. Does that mean if a large company is awarded as prime and a small company is awarded as prime on the MAC, these companies are restricted from teaming on individual task orders? | Correct. Teaming Agreements (aka Teaming Arrangements) and joint ventures must be established prior to proposing on the MAC. Therefore, two or more MAC Prime Awardees CANNOT be a "Team" or "Partners" on a Task Order. | ||
| f | 89 | Will companies be allowed to reclassify, from large to small, after proposal submission if they are able to meet the small size business standard? | The ACES MAC IDIQ is being awarded under full and open competition. Therefore, the size of the company is irrelevant in regards to the award. | ||
| z | 90 | What is Vance considered as large fleet or small fleet? | Vance AFB is considered a large fleet | ||
| g | 91 | Are you going to have a Pre Proposal Conference at each location? | The Government will decide that IAW each Task Order. | ||
| d | 92 | The Task Order will establish the MC rate correct? | Yes, that is correct. | ||
| d | 93 | What happens if the contractor is unable to meet MC rate due to government supply delays. | The Contractor can submit a waiver request if they deem a delay is outside of their control. | ||
| b | 94 | Amendment 2 | Am I correct that the questions asked concerning the $30M relevancy number found in Section M will be addressed in future Amendments? | The $30M annual contract value as it applies to relevency will remain. This value relates to known requirements for this MAC and is therefore applicable. No change to Section M (or L) will be made. |
Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), no relevant or no meaningful past performance shall be determined to have neutral past performance, which is considered acceptable.
| 95 | Section L, Paragraph 3.3.2.4 | What is the “approved Maintenance Information System” used by the Air Force and each of the current identified ACES Task Order Locations? Is this system used Air Force wide? Is there any plans in the next 5 years to replace this system with a new software product? | The language used in reference to an "approved Maintenance Information System" was specifically vague in the MAC PWS so that customers had the option to use whatever MIS is applicable at their particular location. The information was provided so that Offeror had an understanding that Data Integrity would involve use of a formal MIS. The Actual MIS will be specified in the Task Order. | |
| e | 96 | Section L 4.2.d, 4.2.5, 4.2.5.3 | Section L.4.2 provides organization information for Volume II – Factor 2: Past Performance Information. It clearly shows letter (d) as a separate and distinct section of the volume and L.4.2.5 provides instructions for what information should be contained in that section. The information requested in L.4.2.5 through L.4.2.5.3 asks for identical narrative information as is requested in the PPI Tool under the “Program Details” tab. |
Section L.4.2.5.1 ask for details on any problems encountered on the program and in the instructions for the PPI Tool fields, the Brief Description of Effort field provides almost identical instructions for providing information on problems.
Section L.4.2.5.2 asks the offeror to provide details on compliance with FAR Subpart 52.219-8, where the third box in the "Program Details" tab of the PPI Tool provides instructions to include information on compliance with FAR 52.219-8. However, the Section L.4.2.5.2 does instruct the offeror to provide supporting documentation to show compliance through eSRS reports.
L.4.2.5.3 asks the offeror to provide past information on FAR Subpart 52.219-9 Deviations 2018-O0018 and 2019-O0005, Small Business Subcontracting Plan compliance and explanation of goals that were not met, where the fourth box in the "Program Details" tab of the PPI Tool also ask whether a subcontracting plan was required by the submitted contract and explanation of goals not met.
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .