Q&A_-_78-90.pdf

Q78 RFP Section L of the RFP calls for one original and four copies of Parts 1,2,and 3 of the proposal. The question that we have is: if there are attachments such as the

Form8s, proofs of contacts, QCP, RMP, ESH, FOPs, GOPs, MPP, Strike Plan, etc, is it required to provide four copies of each of the attachments, some of which are in excess of 100 pages? Or could we provide one original and one copy of each attachment along with the one original and four copies of each proposal part 1,2 and 3.?

Per the RFP, please provide an original and four copies of each attachment.

Q79 Sec M, Sub-factor 1 - Discussion: a: the RFP requires each offeror to produce a minimum number of contacts within the last 60 days with qualified F-15E or F-

15SG Instructor-Pilots and Instructor-FSOs. In addition, it requires offerors to obtain a Form 8 from each contact. In order to be “qualified,” the contact must be current in the F-15E at the time of submission. b: For example, in order to be considered “Acceptable”, the RFP requires each offeror to produce a minimum number of contacts within the last 60 days with qualified F-15E or F-15SG

Instructor-Pilots and Instructor-FSOs. In addition, it requires offerors to obtain a

Form 8 from each contact. In order to be “qualified,” the contact must be current in the F-15E at the time of submission. c: Your RFP does not allow for an otherwise-qualified candidate to obtain currencies prior to beginning work.

As proposed, the incumbent contractor is capable of rendering these requirements impossible to meet. The incumbent may disallow its employees from discussing the ongoing contract with prospective offerors. How is this equitable if the incumbent effectively “locks out” competition under the restrictive terms of this

RFP thus creating unequal access to information?

Please explain the contracting office’s apparent unduly burdensome requirements included in the RFP. As presented they render it impossible for any bidder other than the incumbent to produce a technically acceptable proposal without violating applicable Federal regulations.

The incumbent confirmed it has not disallowed any contact with its employees. In fact, the incumbent contractor has voluntarily met the

Government’s requests for making its employees’ information available, with the employees’ consent. The incumbent, at the

Government’s request, also has posted notice to its employees about a possible successor contractor and the right of first refusal. To the

Government’s knowledge, there is nothing inequitable about access to employee information, as requested. The

RFP requires only that the prospective offeror provide evidence that it has made contact with individuals who have the appropriate currencies for certain positions. It is not unduly burdensome in ensuring that potential offerors are aware of the requirements for these positions, and have made contact with a minimal number of qualified candidates.

Q80 Sec M, Sub-factor 1 - Discussion: a: the RFP requires each offeror to produce a minimum number of contacts within the last 60 days with qualified F-15E or F-

15SG Instructor-Pilots and Instructor-FSOs. In addition, it requires offerors to obtain a Form 8 from each contact. In order to be “qualified,” the contact must be current in the F-15E at the time of submission. b: For example, in order to be considered “Acceptable”, the RFP requires each offeror to produce a minimum number of contacts within the last 60 days with qualified F-15E or F-15SG

Instructor-Pilots and Instructor-FSOs. In addition, it requires offerors to obtain a

Form 8 from each contact. In order to be “qualified,” the contact must be current in the F-15E at the time of submission. c: Your RFP does not allow for an otherwise-qualified candidate to obtain currencies prior to beginning work.

As proposed, the incumbent contractor is capable of rendering these requirements impossible to meet. The incumbent may disallow its employees from discussing the ongoing contract with prospective offerors. How is this equitable if the incumbent effectively “locks out” competition under the restrictive terms of this

RFP thus creating unequal access to information?

How is this consistent with prevailing USAF process to bring a qualified rated officer back to currency?

The same process should be applied to any offeror who presents a qualified but not current candidate.

The requirement for current, qualified F-15E or SG personnel under the RFP contemplates that the prevailing contractor will have a number of contacts who would be able to fill any vacant pilot or WSO position.

USAF re-qualification, though contemplated in the PWS, can be a lengthy process. To the extent possible, the RFP attempts to ensure that the offeror has made sufficient contacts who can immediately, or almost immediately, fulfill

PWS requirements to mitigate any break in service.

Q81 Sec M, Sub-factor 1 - Discussion: a: the RFP requires each offeror to produce a minimum number of contacts within the last 60 days with qualified F-15E or F-

15SG Instructor-Pilots and Instructor-FSOs. In addition, it requires offerors to obtain a Form 8 from each contact. In order to be “qualified,” the contact must be current in the F-15E at the time of submission. b: For example, in order to be considered “Acceptable”, the RFP requires each offeror to produce a minimum number of contacts within the last 60 days with qualified F-15E or F-15SG

Instructor-Pilots and Instructor-FSOs. In addition, it requires offerors to obtain a

Form 8 from each contact. In order to be “qualified,” the contact must be current in

Why doesn’t the RFP allow non-incumbent offerors to submit a plan to retain the currently-filled

IP/IWSO positions?

The FAR requires a successful offeror to provide a right of first refusal to the positions for which qualified contacts are requested. Retention is not the primary driver behind the

“qualified contacts” requirement of the RFP. The

“qualified contacts” the F-15E at the time of submission. c: Your RFP does not allow for an otherwise-qualified candidate to obtain currencies prior to beginning work.

As proposed, the incumbent contractor is capable of rendering these requirements impossible to meet. The incumbent may disallow its employees from discussing the ongoing contract with prospective offerors. How is this equitable if the incumbent effectively “locks out” competition under the restrictive terms of this

RFP thus creating unequal access to information?

requirement addresses a situation where a position is vacant. The RFP requires only submission of evidence that offerors have made a small number of contacts with qualified personnel to fill certain positions, should a vacancy occur.

Q82 Sec M, Sub-factor 1 - Discussion: a: the RFP requires each offeror to produce a minimum number of contacts within the last 60 days with qualified F-15E or F-

15SG Instructor-Pilots and Instructor-FSOs. In addition, it requires offerors to obtain a Form 8 from each contact. In order to be “qualified,” the contact must be current in the F-15E at the time of submission. b: For example, in order to be considered “Acceptable”, the RFP requires each offeror to produce a minimum number of contacts within the last 60 days with qualified F-15E or F-15SG

Instructor-Pilots and Instructor-FSOs. In addition, it requires offerors to obtain a

Form 8 from each contact. In order to be “qualified,” the contact must be current in the F-15E at the time of submission. c: Your RFP does not allow for an otherwise-qualified candidate to obtain currencies prior to beginning work.

As proposed, the incumbent contractor is capable of rendering these requirements impossible to meet. The incumbent may disallow its employees from discussing the ongoing contract with prospective offerors. How is this equitable if the incumbent effectively “locks out” competition under the restrictive terms of this

RFP thus creating unequal access to information?

The only way for prospective offerors to overcome this “lock out” is to identify new candidates.

While this approach seems plausible, it overlooks the

RFP requirement (and federal law requirement) of

FAR 52.222-17, Non-displacement of Qualified

Workers. How can this be

FAR compliant?

There is no evidence of “lock out.” Please see answer to

Q79, describing the actions the incumbent contractor has taken to make employee contacts possible. The RFP complies with FAR 52.222-

17.

Q83 Sec M, Sub-factor 1 - Discussion: a: the RFP requires each offeror to produce a minimum number of contacts within the last 60 days with qualified F-15E or F-

15SG Instructor-Pilots and Instructor-FSOs. In addition, it requires offerors to obtain a Form 8 from each contact. In order to be “qualified,” the contact must be current in the F-15E at the time of submission. b: For example, in order to be considered “Acceptable”, the RFP requires each offeror to produce a minimum number of contacts within the last 60 days with qualified F-15E or F-15SG

Instructor-Pilots and Instructor-FSOs. In addition, it requires offerors to obtain a

Form 8 from each contact. In order to be “qualified,” the contact must be current in the F-15E at the time of submission. c: Your RFP does not allow for an otherwise-qualified candidate to obtain currencies prior to beginning work.

As proposed, the incumbent contractor is capable of rendering these requirements impossible to meet. The incumbent may disallow its employees from discussing the ongoing contract with prospective offerors. How is this equitable if the

The FAR requires successor contractors to offer the right-of-first-refusal to incumbent employees. How can applying this FAR to the restrictive terms of the

RFP, as it mandates potential offerors to obtain a burdensome level of documentation without so much as the ability to offer the potential candidate a job after award (at best, the offeror will be able to

As previously stated in Q79 and Q82, the Government will not intercede in pre-employment negotiations between potential employees and an offeror. The incumbent has made its employees available and has notified its employees of the first right of refusal. The government is seeking a contractor who can demonstrate contact with qualified personnel who may be available quickly to fill a vacancy. Nothing in the incumbent effectively “locks out” competition under the restrictive terms of this

RFP thus creating unequal access to information?

extend a right-of-second-refusal, which is essentially meaningless)?

requirement is unduly burdensome.

Q84 Sec M, Sub-factor 1 - Discussion: The RFP requires the offeror to identify three qualified Training Instructor/Manager candidates, while only one is required.

As proposed, the incumbent contractor is capable of rendering these requirements impossible to meet. The incumbent may disallow its employees from discussing the ongoing contract with prospective offerors. How is this equitable if the incumbent effectively “locks out” competition under the restrictive terms of this

RFP thus creating unequal access to information?

Why does the RFP require the offeror to identify three qualified Training

Instructor/Manager candidates, when the PWS specifies only one position? These three candidates must provide a

DD-214 as well as all of their training records and

EPR/OPR. It appears the

GOV is asking the contractor to go find, recruit and make offer to positions they have no intention of filling nor the money to fund.

Please see response to Q21.

The Government requires that the potential offeror make contact with a number of qualified personnel to fulfill a specific position, should it become vacant. There is no requirement that any contractor offer employment to the qualified contacts whose information is requested.

Q85 Sec M, Sub-factor 1 - Discussion: The RFP requires the offeror to identify three qualified Training Instructor/Manager candidates, while only one is required.

As proposed, the incumbent contractor is capable of rendering these requirements impossible to meet. The incumbent may disallow its employees from discussing the ongoing contract with prospective offerors. How is this equitable if the incumbent effectively “locks out” competition under the restrictive terms of this

RFP thus creating unequal access to information?

The only way for prospective offerors to overcome this “lock out” is to identify new candidates.

While this approach seems plausible, it overlooks the

RFP requirement (and federal law requirement) of

FAR 52.222-17, Non-displacement of Qualified

Workers. How can this be

FAR compliant?

Please see responses to Q79, Q82, and Q83.

Q86 Sec M, Sub-factor 1 - Discussion: The RFP requires the offeror to identify three qualified Training Instructor/Manager candidates, while only one is required.

As proposed, the incumbent contractor is capable of rendering these requirements impossible to meet. The incumbent may disallow its employees from discussing the ongoing contract with prospective offerors. How is this equitable if the incumbent effectively “locks out” competition under the restrictive terms of this

RFP thus creating unequal access to information?

The FAR requires successor contractors to offer the right-of-first-refusal to incumbent employees. How can applying this FAR to the restrictive terms of the

RFP, as it mandates

As previously stated in Q83, the Government will not intercede in pre-employment negotiations between potential employees and an offeror.

Nothing in the requirement is unduly burdensome.

potential offerors to obtain a burdensome level of documentation without so much as the ability to offer the potential candidate a job after award (at best, the offeror will be able to extend a right-of-second-refusal, which is essentially meaningless)?

Q87 PWS, Sec L and Sec M - Discussion: Citing 10 U.S.C. § 2305(a)(1), the GAO has stated, “In preparing a solicitation, a contracting agency is required to specify its needs in a manner designed to achieve full and open competition, and may include restrictive requirements only to the extent necessary to satisfy the agency's legitimate needs.” (Total Health Resources, B-403209, 2010 CPD 226 (October

04, 2010)). There is no legitimate need for the offerors to identify new candidates.

As stated above, the new candidates are unlikely to be offered a job because the positions are likely to be filled by the incumbent contractor’s employees. This is especially true in the case of the Training/Instructor Manager, where the

Government is requiring extensive paperwork to show the ability to fill at least two positions that literally do not exist. Similarly, requiring IP/IWSO candidates to be qualified and current at the time of submission, rather than prior to beginning work, restricts competition without having any actual impact on the prospective offeror’s ability to perform.

In Total Health Resources, the GAO ruled: “Where a protester challenges a specification as unduly restrictive, the procuring agency has the responsibility of establishing that the specification is reasonably necessary to meet its needs. We will examine the adequacy of the agency's justification for a restrictive solicitation provision to ensure that it is rational and can withstand logical scrutiny.”

Nothing on the face of this RFP identifies a rational requirement for the identification of new candidates (rather than a thorough retention plan) or the provision of detailed paperwork regarding specific, currently qualified, individuals

(rather than a specific recruitment plan).

While the contracting office admits the “relative scarcity of qualified F-15 pilot-instructors and WSO instructors,” how are we not to conclude the restrictiveness of this RFP has the result of limiting full and open competition in violation of regulatory mandate?

The scarcity of qualified F-15 pilot-instructors and WSO instructors is only relative to the availability of other personnel with the qualifications to fulfill other positions under the PWS, i.e.

most maintenance positions.

An open instructor-pilot or instructor-WSO position is more likely to have an immediate negative effect on the combined USAF/RSAF mission than nearly any other open position on the contract.

There is a legitimate need for the offerors to identify new candidates for those Ops positions in particular, in order to mitigate any break in service as a result of a potential vacancy occurring in those positions. A break in service or inability to fully provide services, occurring as a result of a contractor’s reliance only on current/incumbent employees and lack of preparation for a vacancy, would negatively affect both USAF and RSAF operations. Both the incumbent and any offerors must comply with the RFP requirements.

Q88 PWS, Sec L and Sec M - Discussion: Citing 10 U.S.C. § 2305(a)(1), the GAO has stated, “In preparing a solicitation, a contracting agency is required to specify its needs in a manner designed to achieve full and open competition, and may include restrictive requirements only to the extent necessary to satisfy the agency's legitimate needs.” (Total Health Resources, B-403209, 2010 CPD 226 (October

04, 2010)). There is no legitimate need for the offerors to identify new candidates.

As stated above, the new candidates are unlikely to be offered a job because the positions are likely to be filled by the incumbent contractor’s employees. This is especially true in the case of the Training/Instructor Manager, where the

Government is requiring extensive paperwork to show the ability to fill at least two positions that literally do not exist. Similarly, requiring IP/IWSO candidates to be qualified and current at the time of submission, rather than prior to beginning work, restricts competition without having any actual impact on the prospective offeror’s ability to perform.

In Total Health Resources, the GAO ruled: “Where a protester challenges a specification as unduly restrictive, the procuring agency has the responsibility of establishing that the specification is reasonably necessary to meet its needs. We will examine the adequacy of the agency's justification for a restrictive solicitation provision to ensure that it is rational and can withstand logical scrutiny.”

Nothing on the face of this RFP identifies a rational requirement for the identification of new candidates (rather than a thorough retention plan) or the provision of detailed paperwork regarding specific, currently qualified, individuals

(rather than a specific recruitment plan).

We ask the procurement officials to explain their logic, amend the solicitation accordingly to allow for full and open competition.

The RFP allows for full and open competition, without unduly restrictive specifications, as it is written.

Q89 Are there any of the current employees considered to be, or have previously been identified as, exempt under the SCA?

Yes.

Q90 Do any employee positions required [sic] a conformance under the

SCA clause of the current contract, and if so, would the Government provide copies? Any conformance

No, no positions require a conformance.

would be considered part of the wage determination applicable to the current contract.