WOOKIE MACC_RFI Responses_20250219.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE

SPACE LAUNCH DELTA 30

19 Feb 2025

FROM: 30 CONTRACTING SQUADRON/PKA

1515 Iceland Ave.

Bldg. 8500, Rm 150 Vandenberg SFB, CA 93437-5212

SUBJECT: Response to Requests for Information (RFI): Simplified Acquisition of Base

Engineering Requirements (SABER) Program, Vandenberg SFB

1. Reading through the RFP the FARS are silent on Section 15.305 concerning DFARS Section

865. Stating, “The Federal Government has amended the DFARS to implement section 865 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 (Pub. L. 118- 31). Section 865 requires DoD contracting officers to consider relevant past performance of affiliate companies of small business concerns during the evaluation of past performance in response to a competitive solicitation.” Is it acceptable to assume that the above DFAR Section 865 is included in this RFP?

Gov. Response: Per FAR 15.304(3)(i) past performance is a required evaluation for requirements that exceed the SAT threshold that are negotiated and competitively awarded.

Within that section at FAR 15.304(3)(iii) it is stated that “Past performance need not be evaluated if the contracting officer documents the reason past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition.” The Contracting Officer determined that it is in the best interests of the Government to proceed without including past performance as an evaluation factor and documented the determination within the contract file.

2. Wasn’t sure you knew of this new change. The WOOKIE notes we are to have an SBA approved [joint venture] JV; however, it seems that they will only ‘review and approve’ to pursue sole source 8(a) sole source. (https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/joint-ventures)

Gov. Response: That is partially accurate but does not tell the full details. In accordance with 13 CFR 124.513(a)(2) “A joint venture agreement is permissible only where an 8(a) concern lacks the necessary capacity to perform the contract on its own, and the agreement is fair and equitable and will be of substantial benefit to the 8(a) concern. However, where SBA concludes that an 8(a) Participant brings very little to the joint venture in terms of resources and expertise other than its 8(a) status, SBA will not approve the joint venture to receive an 8(a) sole source contract and will find the joint venture to be ineligible for a competitive 8(a) award if it is determined to be the apparent successful offeror.” Given this, it is correct they will not approve an 8(a) JV on an 8(a) competitive set-aside, but they will still review the JV to ensure that the 8(a) brings something meaningful to the JV before determining it eligible for award.

3. Will the government consider adding a location category for Vandenberg SFB specifically, or award higher points for Santa Barbara County?

Gov Response: No, a specific location category for Vandenberg will not be added. However, in order to achieve maximum points work at Vandenberg would need to be included as it is the only military base within Santa Barbara County, and thus the only location that would meet all four (4) scoring elements within Section II for the Number of Design-Build Projects as Prime Contractor category.

4. Will the government consider awarding additional points (1,000-2,000) to Offerors who are not in a joint venture, or who are in a joint venture with another small business?

Gov Response: No additional points will be provided for offerors who are not in a joint venture.

5. If an individual is qualified for multiple positions, can their resume be submitted for more than one position, for example, PM and Superintendent?

Gov Response: Yes, as long as an individual meets the qualification requirements in the WOOKIE MACC Statement of Work paragraph 17.1 they may be used in more than position.

6. Due to the uniqueness of SCIF construction, can a SCIF be included as a relevant project if it is designed and construction has started?

Gov Response: Yes, SCIF projects could be included as relevant projects as long as they meet the requirements in Section L paragraph L-2 subparagraph 2.2.1.6

7. We do not see any references to Attachments J.10 through J.15 other than them being listed in Section J and included in the solicitation package. What is the purpose of these documents and do offerors need to submit any/all of them completed or acknowledged with the proposal?

Gov Response: Attachments 10-15 are attachments to the WOOKIE MACC Statement of Work (see page 40 of the SOW)

8. Regarding the limit of 80 pages for Volume II - Technical, we do not think that is enough space to include the materials necessary to substantiate the scoring of all projects. The contract documents, PWS, and other project documentation are all very long documents and do not lend themselves to simply 'excerpting' pertinent substantiation content. For example, to substantiate the cited project value and that it includes the given scope scoring element such as "Electrical" or "Mechanical" at a minimum requires 2 pages, and if there were modifications to the price, that requires additional pages to show those issued officially via a contract modification. Recommend, that to alleviate this issue, we recommend that the pages used to substantiate the self-scoring of the projects be exempt from page count. This would enable offerors to provide the backup information needed such that it is easily decipherable by the government reviewers that the score is valid.

Gov Response: The Government will not remove, expand or adjust the page count limitations. Two pages should be sufficient to allow for contractors to justify why a given project is applicable to the project category definitions, the locations of work, and the complexity in terms of quantities of tasks. Contractors should not be submitting the entirety of their contract documents, performance work statements (PWS), or other documentation, but rather narratives that explain and justify how the project meets the HTRO criteria and the contractor’s self scored rating.

9. We understand and appreciate that in Section I, a given project may be used to satisfy examples of experience across more than one category (e.g., mechanical and electrical).

However, in Section II, the instructions limit the number of projects that can be counted as performed in Santa Barbara County, the State of California, etc. to only the ones used in Section I. The Section II scoring uses multiplication, so if, for example, one offeror is able to meet all Section I requirements with 20 projects and another with the max of 30, then there is potential for unfair scoring in Section II.

As an example, in the above scenario, assume that all projects in Section I for each offeror were performed in the State of California, the offeror who was able to complete Section 1 with 20 projects could only score a max of 125 x 20 = 2500pts, whereas the offeror who used 30 projects to complete Section I could earn a max of 125 X 30 = 3750pts. Counting Section II points by only using Section I projects then puts some offerors whose projects are arguably more complex and/or larger in a position where they cannot possibly score the same amount of points as another offeror who uses 30 projects.

We recommend two potential ways to resolve this situation:

1.) Allow the offeror who is able to satisfy Section I requirements by "double-counting" projects to be able to do the same for the Section II scoring...so the max for everyone submitting would be 3750 points, which is a level playing field then.

2.) Allow offerors to count other projects performed that meet the same eligibility criteria of recent/relevant, etc. but that are not in Section I to go towards the Section II scoring and place a limit of 30 projects max since that is the max for the number of projects in Section I.

Gov. Response: It is the Government’s intent to limit the projects submitted for the self-scoring to 30, and for the submitted projects to be utilized for Sections I, II and III. This is in accordance with the Solicitation Section M, subparagraph 2.2.1.7 “The same projects listed in Section I: Relevant Experience Projects section of the Self-Scoring Worksheet shall be utilized for the offeror's response to Section II: Number of Design-Build Projects as Prime Contractor and Section III: Experience in Complex Projects sections of the Self-Scoring Worksheet.”

The Government is utilizing Section I to allow contractors to showcase the breadth of their project portfolio and how it meets key experience types relevant to Vandenberg Space Froce

Base (VSFB) requirement needs. The contractors must carefully consider what they use to meet these requirements as the projects are utilized for Sections II and III. While the contractor can submit less than 30 projects, that can impact their scoring for Sections II and III. The Government finds a larger breadth of experience/portfolio to be of higher value in this acquisition. The Government will not change these requirements.