CAStLE_QA_Responses_v1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 57 KB Posted
- Attached to
- The Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA700020F0002
About this file
This document contains a solicitation for engineering and research support services for the Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE) located at the United States Air Force Academy. The solicitation will result in a single-award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to provide analysis, tools, solutions and expertise to support the safe and economic sustainment of systems and structures for the Department of Defense and other government and non-government entities. Key details include that the solicitation is full and open competition under NAICS code 541715 with a size standard of 1,000 employees, proposals are due by November 20, 2020 at 1:00 PM MST, and the work will be performed on-site at USAFA and other government, academic and commercial sponsor locations. The contractor shall perform engineering and research activities related to material degradation and aging across the life cycle of aircraft and systems, including material testing, modeling, inspections, data analysis and education.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 34
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
QA_Reponses
USAF Academy Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE)
FA700020R0002 CAStLE Acquisition Industry Questions and Government Responses
| INDUSTRY DAY - 19 February 2020 | |||||
| Question# | Topic | Document | Comment/Suggested Change | Rationale | Government Response |
| 1 | Draft RFP | Draft RFP | Does the government anticipate issuing a draft RFP? | Industry involvement is encouraged when drafting solicitations (FAR 7.00 Acquisition Planning). | The government does not anticipate issuing a draft RFP. |
| 2 | Market Research | Draft RFP | The contracting officer stated a second round of market research might be used instead of draft RFP. Will it have enough information in it to create a good Q&A? | More so than having a draft RFP, are we going to have a good Q&A so we don’t eat up our 30 days to respond. | A draft RFP is one method to allow industry participation prior to issuing an RFP in order to develop and tailor contract requirements. The intent is to develop a solicitation that supports solid proposal submissions. |
| 3 | Collaborative Contracting | Proposal | How do you build a collaborative contracting team? How is that team built? | Clarification as to what stage in the acquisition does the contracting officer want to utilize collaborative contracting. | Prior to issuing an RFP for a task order, the government would work collaboratively with the contractor to refine the work statement. The notional process would be: Requirement comes from CAStLE>Send it out to Contractor> Pre-proposal team meeting>Refine worked statement>Issue task order. |
| 4 | Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) | Task Order (TO) | Will the government issue a task order based on Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM)? | Clarification needed on statement made by contracting officer regarding the use of a ROM. | The government will not issue a task order based on a ROM. |
| 5 | Funding | TO | Does an R&D contract imply only 3600 funding? | Understanding of funding types anticipated to be used on the contract. | The government uses several types of money, including 3600 and 3400 on the current CAStLE contract. |
| 6 | Contract Type | IDIQ | What type of IDIQ is being considered? Single or multiple award? | Clarification as to contract type being considered. | The government anticipates utilizing a single award IDIQ for this requirement. |
| 7 | Competition Type | RFP | Will the source selection be a small business set aside or full and open competition? | Understanding of whether the acquisition will be set aside for small business or if it will be full and open competition. | The competition type, set a side or full and open, will be determined by market research results. |
| 8 | Source Selection | RFP | If the government decides to go full and open under FAR 35, are there small business subcontracting requirements? | Clarification on subcontracting requirements. | The use of FAR Part 35 does not eliminate subcontracting requirements. |
| 9 | Solicitation | RFP | Will the next round of Market Research help identify capabilities and then you will decide who to issue the RFP? | IAW FAR 35.007(b): Solicit only apparently qualified sources. Proposals generally shall be solicited from technically qualified sources, including sources that become known as a result of synopses or other means of publicizing requirements. | The government has not made a decision, however FAR Part 35 gives us that option. |
| 10 | Past Performance | Contracting Briefing, slide 20 | Charts on Past Performance (PP), slide 20; the Past Performance Volume was crossed out. Are you not using Past Performance? Has a decision been made on how to evaluate past performance? | None Stated | FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii) states that past performance shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. However, past performance alternatives to the use of a past performance volume are available and are being considered by the government to include: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), information from government agencies - DCMA, DCAA and end users , customer surveys, interviews or questionnaires. Past performance acceptability can also be used with Technical Risk evaluation factor. |
| 11 | Source Selection | RFP | What do you hope to learn in the second round of Market Research? | None Stated | The intent would be for the government to gain industry input on contract type, CLIN structure, and ordering process options to reduce time and administrative burden for issuance of task orders. |
| 12 | Source Selection | RFP | Would Total Evaluated (TEP price be under specific TO for the Source Selection? | None Stated | The government has not determined what will be included in TEP and is considering the use of scenarios instead of likely awardable task orders as was used in the previous source selection. The notional approach would be to use Government provided numbers for transportation and shipping (using historical data): those would not be evaluated for TEP. |
| 13 | Source Selection | RFP | Previous source selection, evaluation factors were past fail and some were graded. Have you considered this? | None Stated | The government has not made a final decision; however may consider using Pass/Fail for past performance evaluation criteria utilizing. |
| 14 | Key Milestones | Contracting Briefing, slide 25 | Are you comfortable with that schedule? 30 days is pretty tight. | None Stated | The government is anticipating 30- 45 days for proposal submission. |
| 15 | Source Selection | RFP | If one-on-ones are conducted, will you post answers? | None Stated | If the government conducts one-on-ones, questions and answers will be posted to beta.SAM, however the company name will not be included. |
| 16 | Source Selection | RFP | Is part of Market Research involve touring other facilities? | None Stated | The government has considered conducting contractor facility visits by the CAStLE team (reference Sources Sought, par 6. d.). |
| 17 | Source Selection | RFP | Is the intent to award without discussions? | None Stated | The government always intents to award without discussions; however that decision has not been made. |
| 18 | Sources Sought | List of Interested Parties | Will a List of Interested Parties be posted from the Sources Sought responses? | Question 2 in the Sources Sought stated, "Indicate if the company point of contact information is to be released in a future posting to promote dissemination of information for subcontracting purposes." | The government will post a list of interested parties from the Sources Sought responses on beta.SAM. |
| 19 | Key Milestones | Contracting Briefing, slide 25 | If a formal Draft RFP will not be released, can you release drafts of the key elements, such as evaluation criteria, scenarios (formerly called potentially awardable task orders), section L Proposal Instructions and section M Evaluation Criteria? | With the short source selection timeline, it would be very helpful to have at least draft information early on to begin determining labor hours, labor categories, and pricing; collecting quotes; and drafting the technical volume and other volumes based on the Section L & M requirements. | The government will release the RFP in its entirety. |
| 20 | Past Performance | Contracting Briefing, slides 19-20 | How will past performance be evaluated? Will relevancy and recentness criteria be included? | The 2015 RFP emphasized relevancy and recentness. | The government is considering alternatives to the use of a past performance volume (see response to number 10) and will include relevancy and recentness as appropriate and IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures. |
| 21 | Past Performance | Contracting Briefing, slide 20 | If a company does not have a lot of CPARS from prior contracts, how will that be accounted for? | Slide 20 shows CPARS as an input to the government's Past Performance evaluation team. | The government is required to evaluate Past Performance, however methods have not yet been determined. CPAR is one alternative method. |
| 22 | Past Performance | Contracting Briefing, slide 20 | What types of "Customer Surveys, Questionnaires and Interviews" do you envision? Will sample documents be in the RFP? | A Past Performance Information tool with very specific format and content requirements has been used previously and provides an even playing field. | The government is required to evaluate Past Performance, however methods have not yet been determined. |
| 23 | FAR 35 Solicitations | Contracting Briefing, slide 15 | How will you determine if a vendor is a "technically qualified source"? | Per slide 15, this is a key element of solicitations. | The government would Solicit only apparently qualified sources. Proposals generally shall be solicited from technically qualified sources, including sources that become known as a result of synopses or other means of publicizing requirements. |
| 24 | Key Milestones | Contracting Briefing, slide 25 | Do you think the proposed Key Milestone timeframe is realistic? | The Key Milestone timeframe is much shorter than a typical, government source selection timeline. | The government recognizes this timeline is atypical for a source selection timeline for a new acquisition under a traditional FAR Part 37 Service Acquisition. The timeline included in the Industry Day Briefing was developed with consideration of the DoD Source Selection procedure and guidance found in FAR Part 35. |
| 25 | Key Milestones | Contracting Briefing, slide 25 | If a draft RFP is not released, will there be a Q&A period after a final RFP is issued? | A Q&A period after RFP release can improve understanding of Government requirements. | The government agrees that communications with industry after RFP release and before submission of proposals utilizing pre-proposal conferences improves an understanding of requirements and the quality of proposals. |
| 26 | Contracting Strategy | FARs | Under what scenarios is Full and Open competition a possibility for this CAStLE effort? Under what scenarios would a Small Business Set-Aside scenario for this effort be required? | Contracting Officer discussed possible Full and Open competition after Market Research. | The competition type, set a side or full and open, will be determined by market research results. |
| 27 | Past Performance | Contracting Briefing, slide 20 | On the slide 20 diagram, the "Offeror Past Performance Volume" has been crossed out. Has it been decided to not have a Past Performance Volume? | None Stated | FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii) states that past performance shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. However, past performance alternatives to the use of a past performance volume are available and are being considered by the government to include: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), information from government agencies - DCMA, DCAA and end users , customer surveys, interviews or questionnaires. Past performance acceptability can also be used with Technical Risk evaluation factor. |
| 28 | Past Performance | Past Performance Volume | Can a Past Performance volume without a questionnaire be considered? Or can recent Past Performance examples of relevancy be a Subfactor in the technical for evaluation? | Very relevant past performance experience as opposed to somewhat or no relevancy could be an evaluation factor under a Best Value award as opposed to technically qualified low bidder wins approach. | The Past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services. As is stated in the response to question number 10, the government is considering alternative approaches. |
| 29 | Evaluation Criteria | Contracting Briefing, slide 15 | The 2015 RFP had certain pass/fail criteria and other rated criteria. Have you thought about what the criteria will be for this source selection? Would a FAR 35 RFP differ from a FAR 37 RFP? | None Stated | The government has not made a final decision; however may consider using Pass/Fail for past performance evaluation criteria utilizing past performance acceptability with Technical Risk evaluation factor. |
| 30 | Award | Contracting Briefing, slide 25 | Is the intent to award without discussion? | None Stated | The government always intents to award without discussions; however that decision has not been made. |
| 31 | TEP | RFP | What will be the basis for the Total Evaluated Price? Specific scenarios or task orders? Will a rate table with labor categories for FFP and LOE be evaluated? | None Stated | The government has not determined what will be included in TEP and is considering the use of scenarios instead of likely awardable task orders as was used in the previous source selection. Notional approach would be to use Government provided numbers for transportation and shipping (using historical data): those would not be evaluated for TEP. |
| 32 | Contract Term | RFP | Will the Government consider a long term award? Seven to 10 years? | None Stated | IAW DFARS 217.204(e) the ordering period of a task order or delivery order may be up to five years and would require a determination in writing by the head of the agency that exceptional circumstances required a longer period. As such, it is anticipated that the PoP would not exceed a five-year ordering period. |
| This announcement serves to provide questions and answers for Pre-Soliciation questions submitted by industry following the posting of the Pre-solicitation Notice posted on beta.SAM. Questions and answers from industry day have been written to provide clarity. Questions submitted by industry have been included as submitted | |||||
| PRE-SOLICITATION - 12 May 2020 | |||||
| Question# | Topic | Document | Comment/Suggested Change | Rationale | Government Response |
| 33 | Solicitation | RFP | I was hoping to learn if the solicitation has been released? If so, may I know the solicitation number and when proposals are due? If not, what are the updated procurement schedules? Has the acquisition strategy been determined for this requirement? | ||
| 34 | Solicitation | RFP | It appears there has been a small slip to the anticipated schedule given during the industry day? Is that correct? | There was a small slip in the anticipated schedule. Please refer to beta.SAM; the Pre-solicitation notice was posted on 12 May 2020 with details of anticipated solicitation posting by mid-June 2020. Please refer to beta.SAM site for any updates and amendments. | |
| 35 | NAICS code is 541715 | In reviewing FBO, we noticed that the NAICS code is 541715 which has an SBA size standard of 1,000 employees. We would like to confirm that this means that no company, along with any of its affiliated entities, with 1,000 or more employees can bid on this RFP as a prime? This is not to say they can't be a subcontractor, but for bidding and award purposes, they must certify that they, along with affiliates IAW 2.101, have less than 1,000 employees? | The purpose of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is to classify establishments by economic activity to promote uniformity and comparability in describing the North American economy. FAR 19.102(b) requires the inclusion of an appropriate NAICS in solicitations to describe the principal purpose of the supply or service being acquired. Neither FAR 4.11 or the provision/clause at FAR 52.204-7, System for Award Management require that a firm be registered under a specific NAICS code in order to be eligible for a contract award. It is therefore reasonable that the NACIS code would also not prohibit the submission of a proposal. | ||
| 36 | As preparations continue for the CAStLE solicitation, we are wondering if there is interest in receiving any in additional industry questions or should we hold them until after you formally release the RFP? | We encourage submission of questions and in addition to replying directly to you will post questions and answers on beta.SAM in order to share information with other interested parties. | |||
| 37 | Solicitation | RFP | Based on the information provided in the 14 May 2020 Pre-Solicitation Notice, we understand your goal is an RFP release in mid-June. Can the Government confirm mid-June remains the projected RFP release date? Is the Government considering a possible extension to the current contract potentially delaying award of the follow-on contract? We understand you may not be able to respond to this specific timeline-related question, but thought we should present it for consideration. | ||
| 38 | 1. Are there other planned events that I might be able to attend in the near future? |
2. If there is any sort of mailing list of organizations that are actively linked to this opportunity?
3. Is there a way that I can register our organization or speak with you or another contact regarding my interest in this opportunity?
| SOLICITATION - 16 September 2020 | |||||
| Question# | Topic | Document | Comment/Suggested Change | Rationale | Government Response |
| 39 | Proposal Due Date | Solicitaion | Can the proposal due date be clarified please. The due date on the solicitation SF 33, block 9 is 12 November 2020 at 2 pm MST and the proposal due date posted in beta.SAM is 20 November 2020 at 1 pm MST | Correct submission date. | The due date on the solicitation SF 33, block 9 is 12 November 2020 at 2 pm MST is incorrect. The correct proposal due date posted in beta.SAM is 20 November 2020 at 1 pm MST. |
| 40 | Performace Location | Work Statement | I wanted to clarify the intent of this solicitation. Is the goal to have contractors performing work on site at the USAFA? Or is work to be performed at contractor’s own location?" | Performance work location | The intent of the solicitation is to have the contractor fulfill the requirements in the work statement (WS). In order to fulfil the two-fold mission, work performance may be at various Government, academic or commercial sponsor locations and/or at USAFA. WS para addresses USAFA On-Site Presence requirements. |
| 41 | Requirements | Work Statement | "… is any need/desire for a predictive accelerated aging capability? Although I didn’t see any information speaking to this specifically, I did infer a materials aging need in general." | Requirements clarification | Now that the solicitation has been issued, https://beta.sam.gov/, I would guide you to review the work statement and both Sections L and M in order to gain an answer to your question. |
| 42 | Clauses | Solicitaion | Reference Solicitation FA700020R0002, Section I – Contract Clauses Page 29 of 82, FAR 52.219-14 Limitation on Subcontracting MAR 2020. Question – FAR 19.507(e) prescription states FAR 52.219-14 shall be included if any portion of the requirement is to be set aside for small business. Should the clause be removed from this solicitation? | Correction to clauses | Clause 52.219-14 should not have been included in the solicitation as this solicitation has not been set-aside for small business and will be removed from the soliciation. |
| 43 | Appendix Reference | Section L | Attachment 9, Section L page 16 of 31, paragraph 3.1.2 Technical Prior Experience. Clarification - This section identifies the Prior Experience Form in Appendix A. The form on page 28 of 31 is Appendix B and Appendix A is the Cross reference Matrix. | Correction to document reference | Prior Experience Form Appendix reference on 28 of 31 was referenced incorrectly. Prior Experience Form is Appendix B. |
| 44 | Travel | Scenario Work Statsement | Scenario 1 Work Statement under 5.1 states because travel is prescribed and is a cost-reimbursable expense, the Contractor is not required to propose travel for the T-XX Task and its evaluation. Both Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 state the Contractor shall propose travel. Would the Scenario 1 rule apply to Scenario 2 and 3? Also, the Scenario proposal template includes Travel at para 5.1. | Requirements clarification | The offeror is not required to propose travel for Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3. |
| 45 | Work Statement | Section M | 4. Section M paragraph 3.2.1.4.2 states, “Identify by each basic Work Statement tasks the work you intend to perform in-house and the work you intend to subcontract.” By ‘basic Work Statement’, do you mean the Attachment 1 IDIQ basic Work Statement or does this refer to the work described in the three different scenarios. | Requirements clarification | Please propose as instructed. |
| 46 | Scenario Clarification | Scenario 2 Work Statement | 5. Attachment 12, scenario 2, page 18 of 26, paragraph 2.2.5, please specify the total number of holes to be inspected that are located in each of the structures listed in the 3 bullets. | Requirements clarification | Please propose as instructed. |
FA700020R002 - CAStLE Industry Days Question Submission image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .