CAStLE_QA_Responses_v3.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 60 KB Posted
- Attached to
- The Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA700020F0002
About this file
This solicitation notice is for engineering and research activities support at the United States Air Force Academy's Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension. The contractor shall perform work related to the degradation of systems and materials over time, initiated by external DoD and government customers or by CAStLE itself. Efforts include material characterization, structural analysis and testing, nondestructive inspection, life cycle management, and other aging-related activities across aircraft and systems. The opportunity is a full and open competition under NAICS code 541715 with a size standard of 1,000 employees. Offerors must register in the System for Award Management to be considered. The Department of the Air Force is the contracting office. Questions shall be directed to the named contracting specialist and contract officer.
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 | Performance 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 | Solicitation | 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 solicitation. |
| 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 Statement | 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 | 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 | 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. |
| 47 | Extension Request | Proposal | Requests a 10-business day extension for the subject solicitation to December 8, 2020 . |
First, it will allow more time to incorporate the recent updates released on 26 October 2020.
Second, the notification on 15 October 2020 to stop accepting questions without prior warning left us with a few questions that will not be answered.
Third, it is taking longer than anticipated to gather responses from some of our team members.
Finally, working remotely and not being able to meet with team members due to pandemic restrictions has slowed the process for developing a competitive proposal.
| Proposal due date extension | The Government has considered the request for an extension to the proposal submission date; however, no compelling rationale was found to approve the request. Amendments 1, 2, and 3 were generated to correct clerical errors, which did not change the technical aspects of the solicitation. A compare report generated through Adobe is provided as a reference showing the corrections/revisions from the initial solicitation to Amendment 3. Please note: the compare report did not pick up the date change on Amendment 1. Also attached are compare reports for Section L and the Scenario Work Statements. Proposal should be submitted using the latest revision of the Solicitation (Amendment 3) and attached documents. | ||
| 48 | Extension Request | Proposal | Requesting the date be extended two weeks to Friday December 4, 2020. |
At issue are the three amendment files posted to beta.SAM. This has left bidders with only 3 ½ weeks from the 3rd amendment to submit a proposal. The additional time to review the full solicitation with each amendment to ensure we provide the correct revisions to our teaming partner’s requirements was not anticipated. Do we include the solicitation issued when the RFP was released in addition to the three solicitations issued as the amendments?
The COVID-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented impact to Offerors responding to the subject solicitation. With both employees and teaming partners teleworking in remote locations, standard proposal preparation processes have been impacted with unanticipated delays beyond our control.
Our teaming partners and subs have requested additional time to respond to us (or have not met their original internal timelines) due to the same reasons outlined above. This compounds the ability to effectively respond with a quality proposal under the original timeline.
| Proposal due date extension | The Government has considered the request for an extension to the proposal submission date; however, no compelling rationale was found to approve the request. Amendments 1, 2, and 3 were generated to correct clerical errors, which did not change the technical aspects of the solicitation. A compare report generated through Adobe is provided as a reference showing the corrections/revisions from the initial solicitation to Amendment 3. Please note: the compare report did not pick up the date change on Amendment 1. Also attached are compare reports for Section L and the Scenario Work Statements. Proposal should be submitted using the latest revision of the Solicitation (Amendment 3) and attached documents. | ||
| 49 | Extension Request | Proposal | Request an extension of two weeks from the due date to meet the requirements of this large and in depth submission to this solicitation. Currently ,industry is being affected to respond timely to the solicitation due to COVID and the distresses to our affiliated partners of this pandemic, which overall affects our responsiveness. |
Proposal due date extension Industry has submitted requests to extend the proposal due date because the COVID-19 pandemic impacts have caused proposal preparation delays. In accordance with (IAW) FAR 5.203(e) agencies must allow at least a 45-day (IAW FAR 2.101 Day means a calendar day) response time for receipt of proposals from the solicitation publication notice. Solicitation FA700020R0002 has allowed for a 65-calendar day response time. The government’s position is that 65 calendar days (20 additional days) is fair consideration for proposal preparation. The government has considered the COVID impacts for industry, impact to acquisition schedule, proposal quality, and current award period of performance. In order to accomplish a timely award the schedule only allows for two additional days. Amendment 4 will be issued to extend proposal due date from 20 November 2020, 1:00 p.m. MST to 23 November 2020, 1:00 p.m. MST.
50 Extension Request Proposal We have reviewed the government response to the proposal due date extension request posted to beta.SAM and it appears there was no consideration given to the proposal impact and delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We respectfully request you reconsider granting a time extension of two weeks from 20 November to 4 December based on the above. Just as COVID-19 appears to have had an impact on the solicitation release date it also has an impact on the proposal process. We believe the impact and delays due to the pandemic, most notable the increased virus spread this Fall, are a compelling reason to grant the extension request. We believe two weeks is a reasonable and fair request, allowing offerors to work through Thanksgiving week and the first week in December to deliver to 10CONS the best possible proposal in response to the CAStLE customer requirements:
• Industry Day target solicitation release date of 28 April 2020. Industry requested a draft RFP. Government responded that a draft would not be issued.
• Since a draft RFP would not be issued, industry requested drafts of key documents such as evaluation criteria and technical Scenarios Work Statements. Previous CAStLE solicitations included potential awardable Task Orders. Using Scenarios was a new process to offerors. Government stated only the final RFP would be issued.
• Presolicitation notice with an anticipated solicitation release date of mid-June.
• Presolicitation notice with an anticipated solicitation release date of early August.
• Presolicitation notice with an anticipated solicitation release date of mid-September.
• The solicitation was released 16 September 2020, almost five months after 28 April 2020 government target release date.
• Subsequent to the solicitation release, the upswing in COVID-19 virus spread this Fall has impacted both our employees and team members.
• Both the offeror and our teaming partners have had key employees quarantine due to virus exposure.
• Both the offeror and teaming partners teleworking in remote locations; standard proposal preparation processes have been impacted with unanticipated delays beyond our control.
• Teaming partners have requested additional time to Prepare their proposal.
• In the Q&A posted to beta.SAM on 4 November, two offerors requested a proposal due date extension. Our request, Question 48 and another offeror’s request, Question 47 requested an extension to 8 December. Both extension requests had more than one reason for extending the proposal due date, but the government answer, identical for both requests, only responded to the additional time for amendment review Proposal due date extension Industry has submitted requests to extend the proposal due date because the COVID-19 pandemic impacts have caused proposal preparation delays. In accordance with (IAW) FAR 5.203(e) agencies must allow at least a 45-day (IAW FAR 2.101 Day means a calendar day) response time for receipt of proposals from the solicitation publication notice. Solicitation FA700020R0002 has allowed for a 65-calendar day response time. The government’s position is that 65 calendar days (20 additional days) is fair consideration for proposal preparation. The government has considered the COVID impacts for industry, impact to acquisition schedule, proposal quality, and current award period of performance. In order to accomplish a timely award the schedule only allows for two additional days. Amendment 4 will be issued to extend proposal due date from 20 November 2020, 1:00 p.m. MST to 23 November 2020, 1:00 p.m. MST.
FA700020R002 - CAStLE Industry Days Question Submission image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .