The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
RFP Q&A
| Questions | RFP Page OR Pre-Proposal Conference OR Site Visit GFP/GFE/Review/Inspection | RFP Para Reference (If question relates to RFP) | Answers |
| 1 | Question - The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that was effective January 1, 2019 is not included in the solicitation. Can the government please provide a copy of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement applicable to this solicitation? | RFP Page 54, List of Attachments and Attachment 2 | RFP Page 54, List of Attachments and Attachment 2 | January 1 2019 CBA will be added via amendment 01. |
| 2 | Discussion: The Base Year of the Price File indicates "OPTIONAL BID SHEET" and the top and tabs OY1 thru OY4 indicate "BID SHEET". | | | |
| Question: Will the Government Clarify whether this sheet is an Optional Bid Sheet or a "regular" Bid Sheet like all other Periods.? | Base Year tab, row 2 | Atch+7+Price+Sheet.xlsx | Base year sheet is like all other periods. See revised attachment 7. |
| 3 | Discussion: There is a more current SCA WD available, Rev19, dated 25Jul23 | |
| Question: Will the Government revise the RFP to include the latest SCA WD? | Top of file | Atch+3+SCA+WD+2015-5647+Rev+18+dtd+20221227.pdf | SCA WD Rev 19 will be added via amendment 01. |
| 4 | Discussion: PWS Paragraph 1.1.1 states "The contractor shall provide all management, planning, programming, administration, supplies, vehicles and labor necessary to perform launch support services such as Launch Facility (LF) refurbishment, corrosion control services, vehicle issue and control, equipment issue and control, environmental management, program management and training management services for the 377 Flight Test Missile Maintenance Squadron (FTMMXS) Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB), California in accordance with (IAW) standards set forth in this Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS)." | |
| Question: As written, the PWS limits services to the 377 FTMMXS. Will Contractor services stated in PWS 1.1.1 be extendend to 377 TEG, 377 TSS, and 576 FLTS? Please clarify, | RFP Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement | PWS paragraph 1.1.1 | Changed FTMMXS to 377th Test and Evaluation Group (TEG) | |
| 5 | Discussion: The Facility Manager services included under PWS 1.4.3 Maintenance Programs Management, Facility Manager adds substantial work scope when compared to predecessor Launch Support Services Contracts. Appendix C We believe there is insufficient workload data information to accurately scope the level of effort required to perform this new work. | RFP Attachment 1, PWS | PWS paragraph 1.4.3, relevant subparagraphs cited below, and PWS Appendix C, page 38 of 44. |
| 5.1 | Question: Request the government provide the following historical projected workload data in the Programs Management Services section of PWS Appendix C. | | | Question 1: Workload data consists of guidance from Space Launch Delta 32-1001 and 32-2001 instruction guidance |
| 5.2 | Question: Are we correct in our understanding that it is the government's requirement that the contractor fulfill all Facility Manager duties for all 41 customer facilities cited in Appendix C? | | | Question 2: Yes, actual number of facilities will be 39 with possibility number may increase to 41 |
| 5.3 | Question: If the answer is yes, request the government provide a complete listing of all facilities for which the contractor is responsible for providing these services in order for the contractor to fully understand the scope of this work. | | | Question 3: Please see attached listing, 377 TEG Facilities |
| 5.4 | Question: Additionally, request the government provide a map depicting all 41 facilities and their distance from the contractor's primary work location in building 6601? | | | Question 4: Map is not available. However, all facilities are within general proximity and maximum distance drive time would be approximately 30 minutes to furthest facility |
| 5.5 | Question: Who is responsible for providing and replacing common facility consumable materials such as light bulbs, HVAC filters, etc.? | | | Question 5: Contractor personnel will not be expected to purchase consumable items but will be responsible for obtaining them via government channels and issue materials to applicable work centers |
| 6 | Discussion: PWS Para 1.4.3-1.4.3.8 appears to be a direct copy of the FM requirements in SLD30I 32-1001 which were developed primarily for individuals who were regular occupants and/or users of buildings ( for maintenance/storage facilities) this is particulary true for PWS 1.4.3.5 escort requirements 1.4.3.8 Emergency Management Representative, 1.4.4 Safety, and 1.4.5 Security. Request the goverment to consider and clarify the following with respect to these new requirements for the LSS Contractor. For example, in Appendix C, the workload data for the Maintenance Programs Management function simply states "41 facilities" which as written would include providing escort duties for all 41 facilities whenever they are needed. It is our understanding that this is a very frequent requirement often requiring multiple escorts at the same time. We also understand that there are several long-term facility projects projected for the 377 TEG facilities in the near future. | RFP Attachment 1, PWS | PWS paragraph 1.4.3.5 and Appendix C, page 38 of 44 | |
| 6.1 | Question: Are we correct in our understanding that the LSS Contractor will be required to provide Full Time escort duties for all activities associated with building modifications including planning visits, construction, etc.? | Question 1: Government work centers will provide escort for the facilities requiring work in their area of responsibility. FM will coordinate escort duties, not provide actual escort, with work centers |
| 6.2 | Question: Are we also correct in our understanding that the LSS Contractor will be required to provide escort duties for all facility tours of any nature, type, or duration? | Question 2: FM will not have to coordinate escort for all facility tours. |
| 6.3 | Question: What is the historical frequency of providing escort duties (daily, weekly monthly, and concurrently). | Question 3: Facility manager will devote approximately one hour per week to coordinating/scheduling of escort duties with applicable work centers. |
| 6.4 | Question: Please provide the projected workload data for all escort requirements including quantities, duration, and timeframes)? | Question 4: N/A |
| 6.5 | Question: If workload data cannot be provided, we believe this requirement should be changed to an IDIQ or T&M line item? Please clarify. | Question 5: N/A |
| 6.6 | Question: In the case where a government occupant must respond to an emergency or provide access to a secure area, e.g. Munitions Storage Area, MPF, etc., what is the purpose of the contractor providing an escort? What specifically would be the FM's responsibilities? | Question 6: Facility Manager would only be notified by base agencies of emergency/security situation and work with unit Emergency Management representative and applicable work centers to provide escort into affected facilities |
| 6.7 | Question: Will FM entry into facilities containing explosives be allowed? | |
| | Question 7: Yes, FM would be allowed entry into facilities only under escort. | |
| 6.8 | Question: If yes, what additional training will be required to include security clearance level requirements? | | Question 8: N/A, FM will not be handling explosives and will be under escort of trained personnel. |
| 6.9 | Question: Also, what specifically would be the FM escort responsibilities in these instances as those facilities have controlled access and require government presence/assistance & monitoring for entry? | | Question 9: N/A, FM will not perform escort actions. |
| 6.10 | Question: If the facility listing includes the 377 TEG launch facilities and missile alert facilities, it is the government's requirement that the contractor provide escorts for LF and MAF tours, CE Maintenance, and other LF/MAF visits? If so, does the government understand that this would require FMs be cleared at the Secret level as well as being trained and qualified on LF/MAF Penetration, Backout, and Emergency Procedures? | | Question 10: N/A, refer to question 1 justification |
| 6.11 | Question: This requirement forces a Facility Management workforce of qualified and cleared Minuteman III Maintenance Technicians as opposed to building managers, leading to an increase in the level of effort, training, and clearance requirements as well as the added cost of this requirement. Will the government please clarify this requirement and is the government aware that an increase in cost because of this requirement is likely? | | Question 11: N/A |
| 7 | Discussion: PWS 1.4.3.8 "…Emergency Management" requires the the Facility Manager respond to, and escort response personnel in the event of an emergency. We believe this is an intentional requirement for the occupant/user of the facility be present at the emergency location to provide vital information to 1st responders. | | |
| Question: Is it the government's expectation that the contractor FM personnel have detailed knowledge at all times of a all 41 buildings contents, operations in progress, or other information that could be critical to 1st responder safety? | RFP Attachment 1, PWS | PWS paragraph 1.4.3.8 | No, FM should have general knowledge of facility type/purpose. However, Missile Maintenance Operations Center (MMOC) or Production/Scheduling work centers are available to contact for real-time facility status | |
| 8 | Discussion: PWS 1.4.5.1 states "Unsecured building during non-duty hours, the FM will be called to secure the facility" | RFP Attachment 1, PWS | PWS paragraph 1.4.5.1 |
| 8.1 | Question: Will the contractor be required to have personnel on call 24/7/365 to respond to after-hours request to secure facilities? | Question 1: SF will contact FM to respond to unsecured facilities |
| 8.2 | Question: Please provide historical workload data for after-hours recall events. | Question 2: FM will need to be on call 24/7 for after hour event responses |
| 8.3 | Question: Will after-hours response be reimbursed under CLINs X002? | Question 3: According to current FM, after hours calls to respond to unsecured facilities are rare (on average once or twice a year). Approved after-hours support will be billed against CLIN X002 (ref PWS 1.10.1) |
| 8.4 | Question: Is it not the responsibility of the occupant/users of the facility to ensure it is secure when exited IAW established exit checklists, governing procedures such as technical data, etc.? | Question 4: Yes |
| 9 | Discussion: IAW PWS 1.4.5.2, Anti-terrorism/Force Protection states "during times of heightened FPCON Levels, the facility manager is responsible for ensuring the facility meets all requirements outlined in the appropriate FPCON checklist including reporting completion to the Unit Control Center (UCC). | |
| Question: Is the contractor FM workforce responsible for this requirement for all 41 facilities listed? This does not seem feasible nor responsive to the intended security response requirement. Will the government bear responsibility for preparing their facilities in response to FPCON level elevations and degradations? Please clarify. | RFP Attachment 1, PWS | PWS paragraph 1.4.5.2 | FM will be responsible for understanding requirements of FPCON levels. Yes, government will bear responsibilities for preparing their facilities in response to FPCON level elevations and degradations. |
| 10 | Discussion: PWS 1.7.1.7. states that the UTTM will "manage and oversee all technical training program applications." | |
| Question: Please clarify what specific "applications" are being referenced in this requirement. | RFP Attachment 1, PWS | PWS paragraph 1.7.1.7 | Systems include: Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS); (Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS); MyLearning; MyTraining | | |
| 11 | Discussion PWS 1.7.1.10 states "Contractor shall assume role as Maintenance Training Supervisor Chief (MTS Chief) and per AFI, review the monthly training plan. | RFP Attachment 1 PWS | PWS paragraph 1.7.1.10 and Appendix B, page 36 of 44 | Deleted 1.7.1.10. Requirements changed, can now be found in DAFMAN 36-2689 |
| 11.1 | Question: There is only one (1) directive reference included at Appendix B for Training Management Services which is AFI 36-2670. Which "AFI" is the MTS Chief required to be in compliance with? Please clarify with the specific requirement and include it in Appendix B | | | |
| 11.2 | Question: Who is responsible to prepare and present the "Monthly Training Plan" to the MTS Chief referenced in this requirement? | | | |
| 11.3 | Question: If not a technical expert in all the numerous specialities within the 377 TEG, how is the MTS Chief expected to determine the effectiveness of the Monthly Training Plan implementation? | | | |
| 11.4 | Question: Exactly what is the Monthly Training Plan content criteria that the MTS Chief is required to utilize while reviewing the plan? | | | |
| 12 | Discussion: As indicated by the approximate 750 lesson plans cited in PWS Appendix C, the ICBM maintenance workforce consists of numerous Air Force Specialty Codes and substantially more specific production work centers each with different and highly specialized skill sets, training requirements, and technical order procedures. | RFP Attachment 1, PWS | PWS paragraph 1.7.1.11 | |
| 12.1 | Question: Is the MTS Chief expected to be a subject matter expert (SME) in all aspects of ICBM maintenance? Or any aspects of missile maintenance? Please clarify. | | | Question 1: No, DAFMAN 36-2689, para 5.2.8.2 states, "Learn the mission of the unit and how each work center contributes to mission accomplishment". Contractor does not have to be an expert, but should familiarize themselves |
| 12.2 | Question: How many instructors are being referred to in PWS 1.7.1.11? | | | Question 2: Paragraph deleted from PWS, not applicable to 377 TEG |
| 12.3 | Question: What criteria is the MTS Chief required to utilize to determine if a given instructor's training was effective? Please clarify. | | | Question 3: Paragraph deleted from PWS, not applicable to 377 TEG |
| 13 | Discussion: PWS 1.7.1.12 further validates that the MTS Chief is expected to be a seasoned expert in ICBM maintenance. | RFP Attachment 1, PWS | PWS paragraphs 1.7.1.12, 1.7.1.12.1 & 1.7.1.12.2 and Appendix F | PWS paragraph 1.7.1.12 deleted, not applicable to 377 TEG |
| 13.1 | Question: Please clarify how a contractor MTS Chief is expected to list specific items the trainer will train to meet objectives or the "how and why" procedures are performed, or recommend maintenance practices? | | | |
| 13.2 | Question: Is it the government's intent that this position be filled by a seasoned and highly qualified Minuteman III missile maintainer? If so, shouldn't Appendix F of the PWS include very specific and specialized criteria for filling the UTTM/MTS Chief position? | | | |
| 14 | Data Request: Please provide workload data (monthly occurrences) for the contractor to provide CPR and TCC Course training. Do the instructors for these courses require any specialized training and/or certifications? None are listed in Appendix F. Please clarify. | RFP Attachment 1, PWS | PWS paragraph 1.7.6.1, Appendix C and Appendix F | Data request: monthly occurrences listed in Appendix C |
Question: CPR instructors are required to be certified to train course by the American Red Cross, TCCC instructors are certified by on base Medical Group
| 14.1 | Question: Do the instructors for these courses require any specialized training and/or certifications? None are listed in Appendix F. Please clarify. | | | |
| 15 | Question: Please clarify who is responsible to conduct Team Chief, Maintenance Instructor Techniques, and the ICBM Evaluator courses? Can the government confirm that the requirement to "administrate and oversee" these course means to schedule and track them? Please clarify. | RFP Attachment 1, PWS | PWS paragraph 1.7.6.2 | Question 1a: Government personnel conduct actual training |
Question 1b: Contractor will be responsible for scheduling the courses and tracking qualification levels/curriculum and government will instruct courses 16 Discussion: PWS paragraph 1.7.7 states: Administratively manage the Maintenance Trainer Program IAW documents and tech orders listed in Appendix B. Prepare and submit Trainer Maintainer Status Report IAW Appendix D, (Required Report A004).
| Question: We believe this requirement should be removed. The Maintenance Trainer equipment assets now fall under the work center trainer IAW AFMAN21-202. Also, the Trainer Maintainer Status Report is no longer required IAW AFMAN21-202. Does the government concur? Please clarify. | RFP Attachment 1, PWS | PWS paragraph 1.7.7 | Concur, requirement deleted |
| 17 | Discussion - PWS Paragraph 1.11.1 states: The contractor shall appoint a facility manager and alternate for each facility assigned to, or occupied by, the contractor as either sole or pre-dominant user. Appendix C - Program Management Services states a task frequency of ~41 facilities along with the task of performing overall Facility Program Management. | |
| Question: While we believe we have raised substantial questions regarding the wholesale shifting of FM responsibilities to the LSS contractor, if the requirements of 1.4.3 are not changed then PWS 1.11.1 becomes a duplicate requirement. Please clarify. | RFP Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement, Paragraph 1.11.1, Page 21 of 44 | PWS paragraph 1.11.1 | Concur, deleted paragraph 1.11.1 |
| 18 | Discussion: PWS paragraph 3.8. states: "The government will provide facilities that include utilities, restroom janitorial service, and pest control services. Access will be provided to VSFB computer networks to include email, Internet and intranet." Please clarify other support. | |
| Question: Will the government confirm that security force, fire protection, rescue, emergency, and mail services will be provided to the contractor? | RFP Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement, Paragraph 3.8, Page 27 of 44 | PWS paragraph 3.8 | Yes, services are provided by government agencies |
| 19 | Discussion - Appendix C: Vehicle Issue and Control Services states: Perform Facility Manager Duties for Bldg. 6607. | |
| Question: While we believe we have raised substantial questions regarding the wholesale shifting of FM responsibilities to the LSS contractor, if the requirements of 1.4.3 are not changed then this requirement in Appendix C for Vehicle Issue and Control Services in building 6607 becomes a duplicate requirement. Please clarify. | RFP Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement, Appendix C, Page 39 of 44 | Appendix C, Vehicles & Control Services | Concur, this verbiage deleted from Appendix C | | |
| 20 | Discussion - Appendix C Workload Estimates under Training Management Services and Task Frequency states, "Monthly Commander meeting, Quarterly training & instructor meetings". As written, the PWS limits services to the 377 FTMMXS. | RFP Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement, Appendix C, Page 39 of 44 | Appendix C, Training Management Services | This verbiage should not be interpreted as limiting services to 377 FTMMXS. Contractor will be expected to provide Training Management services to all 377 TEG units and commanders to include the 377 TEG, 377 FTMMXS, 377 TSS and 576 FLTS and applicable work centers |
| 20.1 | Question: Will the government please confirm all Training Management Services briefing/meeting requirements and update task frequency to reflect the specific service requirements for the 377 TEG, 377 FTMMXS, 377 TSS and 576 FLTS, due to establishment of the 377 TEG? | | | |
| 21 | Discussion - Appendix C Workload Estimates, Training Management Services, Task Frequency states: "Monthly report on ancillary & upgrade training and CDC status". | | | |
| Question: As written, Task Frequency is not clearly defined as to which Commander and/or group/squadron will be recieving the montly report? Please clarify, | RFP Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement, Appendix C, Page 39 of 44 | Appendix C, Training Management Services | Monthly report will need to be sent to all commanders |
| 22 | Discussion: It is our understanding with establishment of the 377 TEG there may be additional course requirements that must be taught by the contractor. The workload data sites: Instruction of CPR and other courses as need arise and ~ 3ea. per month. It is important for the contractor to know what qualifications and certifications are needed to teach all courses. | |
| Question: Will the government please provide updated workload data and all course requirements including course title and frequency? | RFP Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement, Appendix C, Page 39 of 44 | Appendix C, Training Management Services | Contractor will need to become certified through the American Red Cross to teach 3 monthly CPR courses. Each course will take approximately 2 hours to complete. Contractor will also need to become certified to teach TCCC course through on base Medical Group. TCCC is a one-time training requirement for Group personnel and training will require instruction on a case-by-case basis. TCCC is approximately one hour long and government anticipates anywhere from 1-4 classes to be taught annually. |
| 23 | Discussion: REF - The SBA regulation reads as follows: | |
13CFR 121.103
(h)(4) Facility security clearances. A joint venture may be awarded a contract requiring a facility security clearance where either the joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the joint venture that will perform the necessary security work has (have) a facility security clearance.
(i) Where a facility security clearance is required to perform primary and vital requirements of a contract, the lead small business partner to the joint venture must possess the required facility security clearance.
(ii) Where the security portion of the contract requiring a facility security clearance is ancillary to the principal purpose of the procurement, the partner to the joint venture that will perform that work must possess the required facility security clearance.
The 2020 NDAA prohibited DOD agencies from requiring that a JV itself possess an FCL:
Specifically, section 1629 of the 2020 NDAA states: TERMINATION OF REQUIREMENT FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FACILITY ACCESS CLEARANCES FOR JOINT VENTURES COMPOSED OF PREVIOUSLY-CLEARED ENTITIES. A clearance for access to a Department of Defense installation or facility may not be required for a joint venture if that joint venture is composed entirely of entities that are currently cleared for access to such installation or facility. Pub. L. No. 116-92, tit. XVI, § 1629; 133 Stat. 1198, 1741 (2019) U.S. Small Business Administration: 13CFR 121.103 Section (h)(4), (i) and (II) If the joint venture is established as a legal business entity (e.g. limited liability company, corporation, or partnership), then they would not need a separate FCL.
Question: Will the government please confirm, in accordance with 13 C.F.R. 121.103 and Section 1629 of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. No. 116-92, tit. XVI, § 1629; 133 Stat. 1198, 1741), a joint venture without its own facility clearance may be awarded this contract so long as the individual partners to that joint venture that will perform the necessary security work have a facility security clearance.
24 Discussion: PWS Para 1.9.1: The contractor shall comply with all security requirements outlined in the DD Form 254 and comply with all controlled area procedures and instructions.
| Question: Should a JV FCL may be required, a separate FCL from the JV forming cleared companies, will the government consider sponsoring the contractor for an FCL prior to award? | RFP Attachment 1, PWS | PWS 1.9.1 | see answer above |
| 25 | Discussion: Attachment 5 – Past and Present Performance Questionnaire. Due to attachment 5 being signed, the form can not be edited. | |
| Question: Will the government please make all entries on attachment 5 fillable? | Attachment 5 – Past and Present Performance Questionnaire | Attachment 5 – Past and Present Performance Questionnaire | Yes, see revised attachment 5. | | |
| 26 | Discussion: Considering the Mission Essential nature of the work under PWS 1.2, as well as the complexity of the work under 1.2 and 1.3, the unique maintenance tasks performed on silo-based launch facilities, and the time required to train the workforce, specifically to perform PWS 1.2 and 1.3, has the Government given any consideration to requiring offerors to provide Key Personnel Resumes, Ability to provide a qualified technician workforce and adequate total staffing approach. | RFP 52.212.1 and Attachment 1, PWS | RFP Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters, FAR 52.212-1, Part 1, Factor 1, Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan, Page 85 of 94 and PWS 1.2 and 1.3 | Staffing Plan is not required. Key Personnel will not be evaluated in this Source Selection. |
Question: Based on the criticality, will the Government request a staffing plan to include Key Personnel resumes and technician workforce letters of commitment from the offerors to provide the level of confidence necessary to ensure critical mission success.
| 27 | Question: For offerors with current recent and highly relevant past performance, would the government consider accepting copies of CPARS in lieu of the Past and Present Performance Questionnaire forms? | RFP Attachment 5 – Past and Present Performance Questionnaire | Attachment 5 – Past and Present Performance Questionnaire | The questionnaire is required per FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, para 2.8. As mentioned in Far 52.212-2 Evaluation, para C3, CPARS will be used to assess the quality of relevant performance. |
| 28 | Discussion: RFP 52.212-2 Factor 3, Performance Confidence Assessment in part states "Contract Submissions for Subcontractors, Teaming, and Joint Venture (JV) will not be treated as highly as the submissions for the prime offeror." | | | |
Further, 13 CFR § 125.8(e) states the following, "Capabilities, past performance and experience. When evaluating the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems and certifications of an entity submitting an offer for a contract set aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. A procuring activity may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract."
The evaluation criteria as written conflicts with the guidance in the CFR/SBA because it does not evaluate past performance of a Joint Venture (i.e. mentor protege) with equal weight as that of a prime offeror. RFP 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors for Award RFP 52.212-2, C., Factor 3: Performance Confindence Assessment, page 90 of 94 13 CFR § 125.8€ is applicable.
Each proposal is rated against the evaluation criteria, not against each other.
The Prime Offeror is the business entity that is submitting the proposal. The Prime Offeror may be in a business arrangement or partnership with a subcontractor, or JV. Contract Submissions may be submitted against such partners. Those submissions will not be treated as highly as the submissions for the prime offeror.
| 28.1 | Question: In light of 13 C.F.R. s. 125.8(e) which regulates small businesses government contracting programs, is it not a requirement that a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the Joint Venture as well as any work done by the Joint Venture itself previously? | |
| 28.2 | Question: What is the basis for not treating the submission of a Joint Venture as highly as the submission of a Prime Offeror? | see answer above |
| 28.3 | Question: Using the grading scale for Factor 3. How will the Performance of an experienced member of a Joint Venture with current recency and 100% relevant experience related to this solicitation be weighted relative to that of a Prime offeror? | see answer above |
| 28.4 | Question: If they are differennt, what is the reason the past performance of a Prime Offeror is granted greater weight than that of the past performance of the experienced member, with current recency and 100% relevant performance, of a Joint Venture? | see answer above |
| 28.5 | Question: Is the performance of an affiliate (parent, sister, or predecessor) of a Joint Venture's member granted equal weight to that of prime offeror's affiliate? | see answer above |
| 28.6 | Question: If the answer to the above is no, please explain why. | see answer above |
| 28.7 | Question: Based on the discussion information above, will the government consider revising the past performance evaluation criteria so that an offeror with directly applicable recent and relevant past performance does not receive a lower evaluation score based solely on the fact they are members of a Joint Venture ensuring that each entity type is evaluated with equal weight? | see answer above |