Additional QA_GovernmentResponse_11June.pdf

Question/Comment# Question(s)/Comments Govnerment Response

Based on past feedback and my research it appears that the RFP is anticipated to be released around May 2024, with an award occurring around April 2025, with this effort being procured through SAM.gov, as a full and open competition and a small business set-aside, under NAICS code 336411, as a task order, with an estimated value of $8B, and a period of performance of 10-years. Is that accurate as of now?

This is a multiple award IDIQ and the estimated ceiling value of the IDIQ is $7.009B. Task orders will be competed. All other information appears correct.

The Q+A indicates a June/July RFP release, but the SAM.gov Presolicitation Inactive Date seems to suggest a release on May

12. Can you confirm if this inference is correct?

The Agency most recently Synopsized the requirement IAW FAR 5.203, which states that the notice “must be published at least 15 days before issuance of a solicitation…”. The anticipated RFP release date from the most recent Q&A is still anticipated for June/July.

The Agency does not anticipate another Q&A at RFP release currently.

Does the AS9100D certification need to be in the name of the Joint Venture, or is it acceptable if it's issued in the name of the Protege/Managing Member only?

The requirement for evaluation criteria designated as “PRIME ONLY” is intended to be Prime Only. The AS9100D Certification is required to be held by the Prime offeror. In this case, it would be in the name of the Joint Venture or both individual members.

Are work sample references from either the Mentor or the Protégé acceptable for evaluation criteria designated as "PRIME

ONLY"?

Work Samples and Relevant Work Sample Narratives supporting “Prime Only” evaluation criteria in the HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix would have to be in the form of the entity performing as a prime contractor. For instance, work samples and narratives performed by the joint venture would have to be in the role of prime. If the joint venture cannot demonstrate experience itself, each member would have to demonstrate the experience in the aggregate in order to support their self-score.

5 If we submit as an SBA MPP JV, does the AS9100D certification need to be in the name of the Joint Venture itself? Or is it acceptable if the AS9100D certification is issued in the name of the Protege (Managing Member) only?

The AS9100D certification will in fact need to be held by Joint Venture or certifications will need to be held by each individual member.

If we submit as an SBA MPP JV, for the rows on the HRTO Matrix that are designated as "PRIME ONLY" (e.g. "# of FTEs on largest DoD/Non-DoD/Commercial Contract/TO administered as Prime in last 5 years", "Max # of FTEs transitioned within 30 days", # of DoD/Non-DoD/Commercial Contracts/TOs administered in the last 5 years (prime only) at multiple Geographic Locations , etc.)... Is it acceptable to use work sample references from either of the companies that comprise the SBAMPP JV? Can work sample references from either the Mentor or Protege be used?

Work Samples and Relevant Work Sample Narratives supporting “Prime Only” evaluation criteria in the HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix would have to be in the form of the entity performing as a prime contractor. For instance, work samples and narratives performed by the joint venture would have to be in the role of prime. If the joint venture cannot demonstrate experience itself, each member would have to demonstrate the experience in the aggregate in order to support their self-score.

Do you plan to release Sample Scenario Task Orders similar to the 2016 solicitation? We’ve reviewed the draft ordering guide, but a sample task order would be helpful.

At this time, the Government does not anticipate providing sample scenario task orders with the release of the RFP.

We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number?

The requirement is a follow-on multiple award IDIQ. The award numbers are… FA8108-17-D-0001 through FA8108-17-D-0017

Can Government please provide estimated timeline for upcoming subject RFP release?

The Government is currently targeting a June/July release time frame. Thank you.

Our current certificate states AS9100:2016, which is completely synonymous with AS9100D. Our main concern is that the USG evaluation team understands these are synonymous and recognizes our certificate AS9100:2016 as such and not being shown as non-compliant or unqualified. If the requirement is that the certificate show AS9100D, would the evaluation team accept a letter from the our third party certification company stating that AS9100:2016 is compliant with AS9100D?

Thank you for your question. The Government confirms that third party certifications differ to a degree. A letter from the third party confirming that AS9100:2016 and AS9100D are the same would be acceptable.

From my understanding, this effort remains in pre-RFP, and might be solicited at some point around June or July 2024 on SAM.gov, but I'm just making sure that I'm correct on these details and am not behind the times?

Correct

Will the Government please confirm that "specific technical factor" refers to the evaluation criteria number listed in Column A of Attachment 6_HTROSelfScoringMatrix (Draft)? If not, will the Government please clarify what its means by "specific technical factor?"

This refers to the location within the technical factor of the proposal. This information should be included in Volume II as referenced in Tabe 2.2.2.1. The information in the Work Sample Narratives should explain the Work Sample and how it is deemed relevant to the proposed effort and which evaluation criteria in the HTRO Self Scoring Matrix is supported.

Due to the nature of Depot-level maintenance and modifications, many contracts are IDIQ with individual task orders for each aircraft inducted. While a contractor may have held a contract for five years or more, none of the task orders, individually, may span more than six months. Based on the current requirement, the contractor would be unable to use their 5+ year Depot-level maintenance contract as a work sample in any capacity. Would the USG please consider allowing for the use of a Single Award IDIQ as a work sample?

The Government is still finalizing the solicitation requirements and takes the question into consideration. The RFP will be released in the June/July timeframe. Please refer to the final RFP upon it’s release for all solicitation requirements.

Due to the nature of Depot-level maintenance and modifications, many contracts are IDIQ with individual task orders for each aircraft inducted. While a contractor may have held a contract for five years or more, none of the task orders, individually, may span more than six months. Based on the current requirement, the contractor would be unable to use their 5+ year Depot-level maintenance contract as a work sample in any capacity. Would the USG please consider allowing contractors to use task orders with a period of performance less than six months as work samples if the contractor has performed more than six months of similar work on the same

IDIQ contract (on other task orders)?

The Government is still finalizing the solicitation requirements and takes the question into consideration. The RFP will be released in the June/July timeframe. Please refer to the final RFP upon it’s release for all solicitation requirements.

Draft RFP Questions