PostRFPQ As_3-21_07Oct09.pdf

Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE) Aging Structures Acquisition Request for Proposal (FA7000‐09‐R‐0059) Questions and Answers (Numbered 3‐21)

Question Number

FBO

Posted Date

FBO

Posting Number

Question Answer

3 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

The Government has stated that there is no incumbent on this program. However, KC‐ 135 aircraft teardown and analysis is currently being performed under another contract. Please describe how the Government will level the playing field given the apparent competitive advantage the current contractor on KC‐135 teardown has regarding Past Performance Relevancy and subsequent Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

There is no incumbent contractor for this CAStLE Aging Structures program. There are no previous contracts awarded by the USAFA for a CAStLE program of this magnitude for either the technical requirements or the contract value. The appearance of competitive advantage can be perceived for any acquisition where similar work has been performed under a prior or existing contract vehicle(s). The Contracting Officer reviewed the immediate acquisition in accordance with FAR 9.5.

No actual or potential conflicts of interest have been identified.

The RFP was developed to promote an environment where full and open competition related to this acquisition would thrive.

If potential offerors have any concerns related to specific elements of the RFP or acquisition, such as perceived restrictive requirements or OCI issues, they are asked to bring those to the attention of the Contracting Officer as immediately as practicable. The PPT guide (IG 5315.101‐1) provides information on Performance Price Trade‐off acquisitions.

4 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

Section M Paragraph 2.2.1 (g) wording has been changed in the RFP to reflect the 50% Small Business Prime work requirement. The parenthetical phrase "… (inclusive of TOs 0001, 0002 and 0003)…" appears to indicate the Government will require 50% of the work on TOs 0001, 0002 and 0003 to be performed by the Small Business prime contractor.

Please confirm.

Section L (4.3.2(f)) and M (2.2.1(g)) describe the manner in which this criteria will be evaluated. In the performance of the contract, at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the small business concern. This applies to the contract as a whole, regardless of contract type. (Ref. FAR 52.219‐14(b)(1) and GAO Decision File(s) B‐298364.6 and B‐ 298364.7) The government's intent is to ensure the prime contractor rigorously manages this requirement. Again, this requirement applies to the contract as a whole, regardless of contract type; the 50% measure does not apply to each TO, but over the anticipated life of the contract.

5 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

3. Section M Paragraph 2.2.1 has been modified in the RFP.

The following previous measures of merit have been deleted:

Draft RFP Paragraph 2.2.1 (b) "Your plan for transporting and storing KC‐135 aircraft lots, teardown sections and teardown parts for one complete KC‐135 under T0001…."

Draft RFP Paragraph 2.2.1 (d) "Your plan for transporting and storing KC‐135 aircraft lots, teardown sections and teardown parts for two complete KC‐135 aircraft non‐ simultaneously (but with potentially overlapping

The remaining measure of merit, pertaining to "Your plan for transporting and storing KC‐135 aircraft lots, teardown sections and teardown parts for one complete KC‐135 under T0001….", demonstrate the most complex scenario of the three measures of merit originally identified.

schedules) under T0001 and T0003…."

Please advise the reason for these deletions.

6 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

Section L, page 112i, Section 4.3.2, Sub‐factor: Program Management – plan for transporting and storing previous teardown aircraft does not state where lots, sections, and parts are located. Please define where the teardown lots/sections/parts are located and the quantities of each.

Reference Section L, page 112i. Subsection 4.3.2(a) states “Describe your plan for transporting and storing…..that has undergone teardown in a previous contract, under this Contract’s TO 0001.” The location of the lots, sections, and parts pertaining to this criteria are located at a facility in Colorado Springs, CO.

7 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

Why are CLINS 0001‐0006 (3400) repeated as CLINS 0007‐0012 (3600)? No definitions are provided for (3400) and (3600).

3400 (O&M) and 3600 (R&D) are types of funds/money. There is currently no anticipated award of 3600 money on the initial task orders. The government's contract writing system requires the separation of different types of funds/monies to be on different contract line item number(s) (CLINs) on the contract.

Provisions are made in the CLIN structure to accommodate both types of funds/money.

8 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

TOs 0001, 0002 and 0003 define the total number of contractor personnel at CAStLE to be 10 engineers and 2 laboratory technicians.

Please describe the desired professional level for these personnel.

This is left up to the discretion of the offeror; the offeror must determine the appropriate professional level(s) necessary to meet the “Facilitate Cadet Learning” requirement as described in Attachment 4 of the RFP, while the individuals concurrently accomplish their daily contractual activities.

9 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

The Government stated at Industry day that the contractor will be required to provide all the general services identified by them.

These are described partially in Section L under 1.0 and the General SOW (subsequently supplied by the Government on 14 September) and include, besides teardown activities, structural analysis, flight data acquisition, full scale testing just to name a few. Section M paragraph 2.1 (Tech Performance) says that the Government will evaluate the contractor’s approach to meeting the requirement of the teardown and analysis in the base SOO/SOW and tasks 1,2 and 3. The measures of merit (section 2.1.1) do not contain criteria to evaluate the contractor’s ability to provide ALL the services

The factors listed in sections L and M (reference FA7000‐09‐R‐ 0059) were selected as a representation of the contract scope of work.

Section L, 4.3.1a, b, c, d, e, f, and g address the requirements in the over‐arching SOW. Section L 4.3.1h addresses the teardown tasks in over‐arching SOW and TO 0001, 0002, and 0003. Section L, 4.3.2f, g address the requirements in the over‐ arching SOW. Section L 4.3.2a, b, c, d, e addresses the teardown tasks in over‐arching SOW and TO 0001, 0002, and 0003.

Section M, 2.1.1a, b, c, d, e, f, and g address the requirements in the over‐arching SOW. Section M2.1.1h addresses the teardown tasks in over‐arching SOW and TO 0001, 0002, and 0003. Section M, 2.2.1f, g, and h address the requirements in the over‐arching SOW. Section M, 2.2.1a, b, c, d, and e address the teardown tasks in over‐arching SOW and TO 0001, 0002, and 0003.

specified in Section L and the basic SOO/SOW. Section M contains mostly criteria for teardown analysis ONLY.

Please clarify.

10 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

Section M sub‐factor 2 (Program Management) Section 2.2 requires an evaluation of contractor performance to meet the basic SOO/SOW and tasks 0001, 0002 and 0003.

However, the measure of merit (2.2.1) only addresses requirements for teardown analysis and not the requirements for the contractor to manage ALL tasks that are identified in Section L and the basic SOO/SOW. Please clarify.

See answer to question #9 above.

11 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

Section L 4.3.2 Sub‐factor 2 Program Management only provides for management activities relating to teardown inspection ONLY and not for the specific overall management of all required technical tasks. How will this be evaluated?

See answer to question #9 above. Evaluation criteria are listed in Section M.

12 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

If work is intended to be performed at CAStLE or other Air Force facilities, will the Government make provisions for on site and off site rates for the contractor?

Separate categories for on and off‐site rates are not part of the RFP and will not be accepted. The fully‐burdened composite labor rates/categories required by RFP FA7000‐09‐R‐0059 will be consistent for each labor category, without regard to site location. The manner in which those composite labor rates are developed is left up to the discretion of the contractor.

13 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

Will consultants be allowed to be used in the resulting contract and used to develop rates?

Use of consultants is the decision of the prime and will be considered as subcontractors. See answer to question #12 above.

14 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

If organizations like S&K and NIAR have been involved in the development of requirements for teardown is the Government going to address Conflict of Interest (COI) as a requirement in the

RFP?

SKT and NIAR have not been involved in developing the requirements for this RFP. All offerors must follow the same procedures in the protocols, and protocols are available to all bidders. The government determined there is no conflict of interest. If potential offerors have any specific concerns related to specific elements of the RFP or acquisition, such as perceived restrictive requirements or OCI issues, they are asked to bring those to the attention of the Contracting Officer as immediately as practicable.

15 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

Section M Paragraph 2.2.1 Measures of Merit subparagraph (a) states "Your plan for transporting and storing…parts for one complete KC‐135 aircraft (torn down under a previous contract…" How does the Government intend to

The appearance of competitive advantages can be perceived for any acquisition where similar work has been performed under a prior or existing contract vehicle(s). See answer to question #1 above.

Related to “Your plan for transporting…parts for one complete KC‐135 aircraft (torn down under a previous contract…", the government will issue a separate task order after contract award for the movement of the KC‐135 aircraft torn down under a previous contract from its location at the eliminate the competitive advantage the current KC‐135 teardown contractor has regarding storage of those items from the previous contract?

previous contractor’s facility to the awardee’s facility.

16 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

Reference Section M:

Evaluation Factors for Award.

Section 2.0 states technical proposals will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis assigning ratings as described in section

2.5. Section 2.5 defines an

acceptable rating as, “The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.”

What are the specific minimum requirements that would be deemed acceptable in evaluation for each of the technical performance sub‐ factors?

The RFP, Section M, 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 describe measure(s) of merit and state, “This subfactor is met when:…”.

17 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

Section L Table 2.2 ‐ proposal Organization states "Page count limited to the hard copy print outs generated from the PPI tool described in Section L, Sub‐section 2.10."

Section L Paragraph 2.10 Electronic Offers states "Hard copies of the pages generated from this tool shall be used in the hard copy of the past performance volume subject to the limitations outlined in this RFP and should be Tab 1 of the past performance volume. The page count is limited to that described in Section 2.2 of this document for the printout generated by this tool."

Section L Paragraph 6.1 states "The Offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter, executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information."

QUESTION: Inclusion of consent letters would appear

The inclusion of consent letters will not be included in the page count limitation described in Section L, Table 2.2. The RFP will be amended to recognize this answer in a subsequent posting to FBO.

to conflict with the required page count limitation. The reference to tabs in Paragraph 2.10 implies additional pages are required.

Please clarify.

18 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

Section L Paragraph 6.2.2 states "To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company."

QUESTION: Inclusion of Organizational Structure Change Histories would appear to conflict with the page count limitation.

Please clarify.

The inclusion of “Organizational Structure Change Histories” is to be submitted in the Past Performance Information (PPI) tool (reference the Set‐Up Business Relationships subsection, Responsibilities block) described in Section L, 2.10(d).

19 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

Section L Paragraph 6.3 states " Each Offeror is responsible for providing the questionnaire, Attachment 7, to each reference (Prime and subcontractors) listed by the Offeror, and ensuring that they are completed and returned directly to the Contractor Officer…" QUESTION: Does this instruction mean the questionnaires are not to be included in Volume III, but solely as separate submissions to the Contracting Officer? If they are to be included in Volume III, how is this to be accomplished given the page count limitation?

The questionnaires are to be submitted solely as separate submissions to the Contracting Officer. These submissions will be provided by the third party that completes the questionnaire.

20 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

The word “complete” within Program Management questions 1, 2, and 3 (reference Section L, Attachment 7) could discount what should be relevant past performance on the part of offerors.

Section L, Attachment 7, Program Management line items 1, 2, and 3, will be revised. The word “complete”, found in each of the line items 1‐3, will be replaced with “a substantial portion of”. The RFP will be amended to recognize this answer in a subsequent posting to FBO.

If potential offerors have any concerns related to specific elements of the RFP or acquisition, they are asked to bring those to the attention of the Contracting Officer as immediately as practicable. The Government thoroughly reviews all such concerns. Where it is reasonable and appropriate to do so, the Government may make amendments to the RFP, such as the one described in the answer to this question 20.

21 7Oct2009 FA7000‐ 09‐R‐

Can you extend the due date for the submittal of completed past performance questionnaires?

The Section L, Attachment 7 due date for completed past performance questionnaires identified on page 1 of the attachment has been changed from 23 October 2009 to 6 November 2009. The RFP will be amended to recognize this answer in a subsequent posting to FBO.