CFTLASR_RFP_Amendment0002_QAGovernmentResponse.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 71 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Contract Field Teams (CFT) Labor Augmentation Support Requirements (LASR) Multiple Award IDIQ
- Solicitation number
- FA810824RB001RFP
About this file
This document is a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Contract Field Teams (CFT) Labor Augmentation Support Requirements (LASR) Multiple Award Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The CFT LASR program supports multiple government customers by providing maintenance augmentation for active weapon systems worldwide, including aircraft, vehicles, aerospace equipment, missile systems, and ground support equipment. The contract will be a combination of Firm Fixed Price, Cost Reimbursement, and Time & Materials. The estimated period of performance is one 5-year basic ordering period and one 5-year option period, for a potential total of up to ten years. The acquisition will use the Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO) Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) approach for best value. This solicitation includes a partial set-aside for small businesses for task orders requiring less than 100 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in the CONUS or less than 50 FTEs OCONUS. Proposals are due by 5:00PM CST on July 25, 2024.
View the file
Other files
Show all 38
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Draft RFP Questions
| NOTE TO OFFERORS: Changes to the solicitation are highlighted in RED | |||
| Question/Comment# | Question(s)/Comments | Govnerment Response | |
| 1 | 2.2.2 Identifies a 1 Page Max Limit for the Cross Reference Matrix. Will Government consider raising this limit to 3-pages OR Unlimited? | Cross Reference Matrix has been updated to include an unlimited page amount. | |
| 2 | Attachment 2.2 directs offerors to complete the Cross Reference Matrix as provided. Will Government consider allowing offerors to customize the table, edit headers, etc.? If not, are offerors permitted to submit multiple Cross Reference Matrixes (one for solicitation compliance, and one in offeror’s preferred format)? | Offerors are to utilize the format provided in Attachment 2.2. | |
| 3 | Comment: RFP Section L.5.1.1 in 5.0 Volume III Factor 3-Past Performance states that "each offeror shall submit a Past Performance volume with its proposal, containing Past Performance Information (PPI) IAW the format contained in Attachment 1.1 of the ITO." However, Section L.5.0 does not mention the Placement of PPI Report within Volume III, Past Performance. Furthermore, the table provided in RFP Section L.2.2.2, Proposal Organization Table, does not list the PPI Report as a part of Volume III, ITO paragraph 5.0, Factor 3- Past Performance. | ||
| Question: Will the Government specify the location within Volume III for the required PPI Report? | The Government acknowledges you are correct in the table provided in RFP Section L 2.2.2; Proposal Organization Table does not list PPI for Offerors as part of Volume III. However, on page 25 of the Attachment 4- ITO states, “pages generated from this tool shall be used in the submission of the past performance volume as outlined in this RFP.” Therefore, the Government will accept the PPI for Offerors ITO Attachment 1.1 as long as they are included in Volume III. Offerors are not required to submit them in any specific order in the Volume. They just need to be included. | ||
| 4 | Is the Straight Time and Overtime $ per hour to be filled in and submitted with the Proposal Response or is this action to be taken during Contract Negotiations or at the Task Order level? | Pricing to be filled in at the Task Order Level | |
| 5 | Would the Government consider an extended period beyond the proposal date to provide the required AS9100D certification? Would the Government consider the approach of “At time of Award” the required current AS9100D certification be submitted? This would be consistent with the statement in the PWS. | AS9100D Certification must be provided with proposal submission. | |
| 6 | We understand the prescriptive nature of “certifications”. Why not add an additional certification AS9110C as an “and or” certification requirement. AS9110C is intended specifically for aircraft maintenance organizations, of which approximately 90% of the CFT Task Orders over the past 5 years were focused mainly on O and I level aircraft maintenance. While AS9100D addresses the unique requirements of aerospace manufacturers and supplier, adding AS9110C as an option to AS9100D will increase the pool of industry partners offering your customers a larger pool of capability with the certified Quality Management System to support mission and contract requirements. Next steps notify industry of the “and or certification requirement”. | The Government is not considering alternative forms of certifications for this requirement. | |
| 7 | The PWS states “The Contractor shall have a Certification as AS9100D compliant and a Quality Management System (QMS) at the time of Basic contract award. The Contractor shall utilize this QMS and maintain their Certification throughout the entire contract period”. This is a conflict with Section L. Section L states “The Offeror’s proposal will first be evaluated by their ability to meet an initial technical standard by providing a current electronic copy of the offerors AS9100D certification as a prime contractor as part of the proposal”. Which one is correct? | Offerors are required to submit a current AS9100D Certification as part of their proposal to be considered for award. PWS section 4.6.1 has been updated to reflect the requirements for AS9100D. | |
| 8 | The AS Standard cited as a requirement AS9100 Rev. D is typically applicable for manufacturers of products. AS9110 seems more appropriate for activities associated with Contract Field Team’s activities. Why was AS9100 chosen? | AS9100D is the successor requirement to AS9100C from the current effort. | |
| 9 | The requirement in the Model Contract states “The offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract, including Sections A through J.” The Solicitation includes Section B – Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs. The RFP does not include any pricing instructions or pricing requirements. What is the requirement for Section B CLIN pricing table provided? Are contractors to input pricing? If so, would the Government provide additional instructions regarding what each CLIN is representing and requesting? | CLIN pricing table shall be left blank Information such as Quantity, Unit, Unit Price, Amount, for the CLIN structure as found in Section B shall be left blank. Section B is included for informational purposes at the IDIQ basic contract level. | |
| 10 | Section L 5.1.3 states "For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall submit a client authorization letter." If the offeror was a subcontractor to a commercial company on a Government contract, is the relationship between the offeror and the prime company considered "commercial" and therefore requires a Client Authorization Letter? | The Client Authorization Letter is for commercial, non-government contracts. In this scenario, the effort is within a Government contract and thus a Client Authorization Letter is not needed. | |
| 11 | Section L 5.1.1 states "Each offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume with its proposal containing the PPI IAW the format contained in Attachment 1.1 of the ITO." The Proposal Organization Table (L 2.2.2.1) does not identify where in the Past Performance Volume we are to put the printed citations from the PPI tool. Please clarify. | See answer to Question 3. | |
| 12 | Section L 5.1.1 states "The Past Performance Volume shall include a team list, which includes the prime contractor, all significant subcontractors, teaming partners and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform the work outlined in the solicitation." Is this the Team List identified in Volume I or is there also a requirement to have the Team List in Volume III? Is the Team List the printed pages of "Business Relationships" input into the PPI tool? | The Government would like to clarify that during its evaluation of an Offeror's proposal, the Government will have different evaluation teams reviewing the Offeror's Technical Volume, Past Performance Volume and Contract Documentation Volume. As stated in Section L, the Technical Volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Section L also describes that the Past Performance Volume evaluation may also utilize information from other volumes, however, Offerors shall comply with the requirements defined for each volume in regards to what information is being requested. Additionally, the Government would anticipate that the Team List provided in one volume would be consistent for other volumes. Volume III also includes the requirement for the Business Relationship information as it relates to the PPI Tool. The Government would anticipate the Team List provided in Volume III and the Business Relationship requirement to contain the same list of information regarding proposed prime, subcontractors, joint ventures, etc. | |
| 13 | The PPI tool requires both Business Relationships and Past Performance Information. If a subcontractor's Past Performance is not being used, do we still input their information in the Business Relationships? | All business relationships in relation to the performance of the contract should be input into the Business Relationships tab of the PPI Tool. Please refer to Section L 5.1.1. | |
| 14 | ITO 1.1 Step 10 requires input of "Place of Work." Please clarify how we should handle this as CFT Task Orders are performed in various locations worldwide. |
The ITO 1.1, Step 10 is refering to the same work samples that Offeror's are including as part of the Volume I – Technical. The Offerors shall submit work samples (contracts/orders and accompanying attachments) which demonstrate their past technical experience in the required elements listed within the HTRO Scoring Matrix. Therefore, the Government anticipates the Offeror to be able to describe the place(s) of work for each work sample.
15 Do subcontractor's submit their PPQ to the Prime contractor or the Government customer?
Section L 5.2.1 states in part: "As soon as practicable, offerors shall complete Section 1 of the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 1.2) and e-mail it and the Performance Questionnaire Letter (Attachment 1.3) to all points of contacts (POCs) the offeror has listed in the Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) (Attachment 1.1)." Additionally, ITO 1.1. page 23 states "Note: For government contracts provide current information on Program Manager, Contracting Officer, and Admin POC, if available. For commercial contracts provide points of contact fulfilling these same roles, if available." Therefore, the Government anticipates the customer (ie. as described in the note on page 23) to be the one completing Sections 2-5 of the attached PPQ (Attachment 1.3). The Government requests Primes/Subcontractors to only fill out Section 1 of the PPQ as stated in Section L 5.2.1.
| 16 | Does the text inside tables need to be space at 1.5? | 1.5 spacing does not apply to tables. |
| 17 | ITO Attachment 2.0 "Proposed Team List" asks for the DUNS number. Should this form be edited to include UEI in place of DUNS? |
For purposes of this acquisition, any references to DUNS and Unique Entity ID generated by SAM.gov will be used interchangeably/synonymously.
18 Please clarify what the Government wants presented as "Work Samples" in Volume II, as per Table 2.2.2.1 and L.4.4.2.
* Are the "Work Samples" Section of Volume 2 where the PPI Tool Print-outs are located in the proposal?
* Are the PPI Tool Print-outs what is referred to in L.4.4.2 when it says "Offerors shall submit work samples (contracts/orders and accompanying attachments"?
Table 2.2.2.1 and L.4.4.2 provide specific instructions regarding the order and information Offerors shall follow in regards to Volume II submission of Work Samples. Section L.4.4.2 states "Work samples demonstrating technical experience for multiple required elements in the HTRO Scoring Matrix are only required to be submitted once."
Conversly, any information that the PPI Tool Instructions Attachment 1.1 describe are related to how the Government is requesting the information for the Past Performance Volume, which is related to Volume III. Specifically L.5.1.1 states: "The requirement of submitting work samples in Volume II shall be used to validate past performance. Offerors shall not provide additional work samples not identified in Volume II." Therefore, the PPI Tool is requesting general information of the same work samples as previously provided in Volume II. It is not the intention for Offerors to repeat or dupliacte the narratives. See page ITO 1.1 for specific details and screenshots regarding what level of detail is being requested regarding the work samples as provided in the PPI Tool.
| 19 | Please confirm that the Work Sample Narratives are a separate Section of Volume 2, which follows the identification of the work samples. | Confirmed. |
| 20 | The PPI tool requires "Program/Site Manager" to be input in the POC and Key Individuals tab. Please confirm if the Contracting Officer's Representative's (COR) contact information is what is required in that data field. |
The Government would like to clarify that there is a difference between the Key Individuals and Customer Points of Contacts. As shown on ITO 1.1 page 23 the instructions request Offerors to specify any key individual(s) who participated in this program or who may support the proposed acquisition. ITO 1.1. page 23 also describes the defaulted Customer Points of Contact of Program/Site Manager, Contracting Officer or Admin POC. The Government is willing to accept information regarding an assigned COR within the Admin POC category.
| 21 | The PPI tool requires "Admin POC" to be input in the POC and Key Individuals tab. Please confirm if the Admin POC is the same as the Administrative Contracting Officer. | As described above in question 20, the PPI Tool describes the defaulted Customer Points of Contact of Program/Site Manager, Contracting Officer or Admin POC. The Government is willing to accept information regarding an assigned COR within the Admin POC category. The Government is also willing to accept information regarding an assigned Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) within the Admin POC category. |
| 22 | Given that the Government has included in this aircraft maintenance services Solicitation the AS9100D quality standard intended for design and manufacturing services while excluding AS9110C - the more appropriate and objectively precise industry standard for aviation maintenance services, creating an unreasonable barrier to entry and an arbitrary constraint on competition, will the Government consider revising the Solicitation to allow either AS9100D or AS9110C as an acceptable Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement for this Solicitation? If not, please explain why? | The Government is not considering alternative forms of certifications for this requirement. |
| 23 | Alternatively, will the Government consider revising the Solicitation to allow bidders until contract award to satisfy the Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement contained in Solicitation Sect. E, FAR 52.246-11? | The AS9100D certification must be provided as part of the offerors proposal submission as stated in the solicitation. |
| 24 | Solicitation Sect. L, par. 4.3, Attachment 2.2, Factor 1, and Sect. M, pars. 1.2, 2.1, and 2.2 all require bidders to provide proof that they satisfy the Solicitation Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement of AS9100D within their proposal submission. However, the Solicitation PWS (Attachment 1, pars. 4.6.1) states “Government will validate the Contractor’s AS9100D compliance for the CFT Program at Basic contract award…” (underline added). Can the Government revise the Solicitation Sects. L and M to be consistent with the PWS? | Offerors are required to submit a current AS9100D Certification as part of their proposal to be considered for award. PWS section 4.6.1 has been updated to reflect the requirements for AS9100D. |
| 25 | PWS 4.6.2.1 makes reference to DFARS Clause 252.228-7001, Ground and Flight Risk Clause, but the DFARS Clause is not listed in Section I Contract Clauses. Will the Government please add the DFARS Clause 252.228-7001 to Section I? | The solicitation has been amended to include DFARS Clause 252.228-7001. |
| 26 | Attachment 1, HTRO Cross reference Matrix. For criteria item #8, possession of Facility Clearance, if the Prime contract has a facility clearance, will the Government verify the facility clearance through Government resources since the Facility Clearance is not contract or Task Order specific, or does the contractor need to include a substantiation document from DSCA in the Work Samples? | The offeror should present any substantiation documentation necessary to support it's score for evaluation critiera in the self-scoring matrix. Scores will be verified and validated by the Government. |
| 27 | Attachment 1, HTRO Cross reference Matrix. For criteria # 6 & 7, Max # of FTEs “transitioned” within 30 or 90 days, is the criteria intended to be the maximum number of FTEs transitioned on Contracts/Task Orders that have a 30-day transition period, or the maximum number of FTEs a Prime bidder has transitioned in any given 30-day period? | Maximum number transistioned in a 30 day period for CONUS and 90 days for OCONUS. |
| 28 | Attachment 1, HTRO Cross reference Matrix. Please clarify what documentation is acceptable to substantiate FTE count. | Substantiating information in the way of work samples/work sample narratives IAW Section L, 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 should support the offerors HTRO-Self Score which will be verified by the Government. |
| 29 | Attachment 4, Section L-ITO, page 4, Table 2.2.2.1, Proposal Organization, and page 9, par 4.4.1 and 4.4.2. Table 2.2.2.1 describes the Page limit for ITO paragraph 4.4.2 as “not to exceed the number in Column C of the HTRO Matrix.” ITO Paragraph 4.4.1 states that offerors should “only provide relevant pages of documents used to fully validate Offeror self-scores.” Considering bidders will need to reference multiple contracts and submit multiple contract documents to validate self-scoring, can the Government clarify the preferred submission format of the Work Sample electronic documentation for Volume II? For example, would the Government prefer separate, individually identified “work sample” documents for each evaluation criteria, or can bidders consolidate the documents into a single “work sample” PDF with a table of contents and/or description? | Section L 2.4, last paragraph specifically states in part: "All electronic documents and files submitted shall contain the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, required plans, exhibits, appendices, and attachments, if any. The Offeror shall submit volumes I through IV in electronic format. Each volume shall be submitted as a separate file. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 365, MS Excel 365, MS-Power Point 365, and Adobe PDF. Note PDF files must be searchable and able to copy and paste." |
| 30 | In the Self Scoring Matrix, evaluation factors 6 and 7 now allow the offeror to submit an unlimited number of work samples. Should the offeror combine the FTE count across all submitted work samples (related to each evaluation factor) to determine a total FTE count and subsequent score? | If the maxiumum number transitioned in a 30 or 90 day period was across multiple contracts/ task orders submit the Contracts/task orders substnatiating the transitions |
| 31 | Section L, 6.1 states "The subcontracting plan itself will be based on the offeror’s projection of the combined total value of anticipated orders, identifying the percentage of total subcontracted dollars to be performed with each of the following small business socioeconomic categories. . ." |
Because the solicitation process is intended to result in multiple awards, with the total number of awards unknown, and subsequent efforts will further be competed, it is difficult for offerors to project the combined total value of anticipated orders.
Can the government please advise as to whether it is acceptable to submit plans based on percentages, rather than whole dollars?
| If not, can the government please clarify whether Offerors should base plans on the IDIQ max ceiling for consistency? | Plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section L, 6.1. Offerors should anticipate the combined value of anticipated orders. | |||
| 32 | ITO Attachment 2.2 - Cross Reference Matrix notes that "Offerors shall indicate the paragraph number within Volume II which addresses the corresponding requirement. For example, Factor 1, offerors shall indicate the location within the Volume II Technical Proposal which addresses the requirement. Include this matrix as part of Volume II." Is it acceptable for Offerors to submit our various work samples and narratives as attachments referenced within our volume II submission and referenced as such on the cross-reference matrix? For example, would it be acceptable for us to reference a file named "Category 1 Work Sample.pdf" and "Category 1 Work Sample Narrative.pdf" within the Cross-Reference Matrix and within our volume II document, noting page and paragraph numbers of relevant information within that document? o | This same question for the various other volumes required. | Please see answer to question 29. The Cross-Reference matrix should indicate the page/paragraph number within Volume II that addresses the requirement. | |
| 33 | For proof of facility clearance, would a report from NBIS or equivalent Government facility tracking system be acceptable? If yes, would it be acceptable for the report to show within 30 days of solicitation due date as the date our FSO runs the report to produce the proof of facility clearance information requested? | The offeror should present any substantiation documentation necessary to support it's score for evaluation critiera in the self-scoring matrix. | ||
| 34 | Is there a specific file naming scheme that is required for attachments? For example, the scoring matrix is an excel file and will need to be referenced as an attachment within the Volume II submission. Would a naming scheme of "Offeror Name_HTRO Scoring Matrix.xlsx" be acceptable? | All electronic documents shall contain the volume number and title as indicated by Section L, 2.4. | ||
| 35 | On Page Page 3 of 67 of the SF33 document, it notes three checkbox areas in which it notes for the first selection: "Check here if your proposal applies to the Full and Open (F&O) Competition Pool", the second selection: "Check here if your proposal applies to the Small Business (SB) Competition Pool" and the third selection: "Check here if you are a Small Business proposing for both Competition Pools (Required to submit separate proposals)". If an offeror is to proposal on both the full and open as well as the small business competition pool, it is our understanding that we would submit two proposals, one with the first and third checkbox selected, and one with the second and third checkbox selected. Is this correct, or would each proposal only need the third checkbox selected? | Confirmed. | ||
| 36 | Are any fill-ins required for Section B of the SF33 documentation, or should this be left blank? | Boxes indicating which pools the offeror is proposing for shall be completed. Information such as Quantity, Unit, Unit Price, Amount, for the CLIN structure as found in Section B shall be left blank. | ||
| 37 | Would it be acceptable for a small business to submit our Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) attachment noting ourselves as a small providing 100% of the work to satisfy the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) requirement? | Confirmed. | ||
| 38 | Section L 4.3 notes: "For a Prime/subcontractor teaming arrangement, the Government requires the AS9100D certification from the Prime only". For clarification, if our subcontractor does not have an AS9100D certification, this would be acceptable? | Confirmed. | ||
| 39 | If a submitted subcontractor is deemed as not acceptable, would that disqualify the prime's proposal submission from being evaluated and/or awarded? | The Government is unsure of the Offeror's question and if it relates to a specific factor. Also, the Government does not intend to answer hypothetical scenarios. The Government's evalation will be based on the information provided in each Offeror's proposal where the Government intends to follow the evaluation methodology as described for each factor as defined in in Section M. | ||
| 40 | Section L 5.4 notes: "The primary offering entity must demonstrate that the affiliate will perform significant and critical aspects of the contract if awarded. Specifically, for an agency to properly attribute the experience or past performance of a parent, subsidiary or affiliated company to an offeror, the offeror shall provide sufficient documentation that describes the types of resources the parent, subsidiary or affiliated company -its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources – will provide or rely upon for contract performance, such that the parent, subsidiary or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance." If our affiliate is proposed as performing administrative duties in support of the prime, with expectation of gaining AS9100D certification during period of performance of the IDIQ to assist directly on task orders, would that be an acceptable demonstration of performing significant and critical aspects of the contract if awarded? | Please see Section L, 4.3 for AS9100D requirements for specific teaming arrangements. Also, Section L.5.4 provides general guidelines of what information the Government requires in order to properly attribute the experience or past performance of a parent, subsidiary or affiliated company to an offeror. The Government does not intend to answer hypothetical scenarios. The Government's evalation will be based on the information provided in each Offeror's proposal where the Government intends to follow the evaluation methodology as described for each factor as defined in in Section M. | ||
| 41 | Section L 6.1 notes: "Other than small businesses shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that adequately responds to each of the required elements of FAR clause 52.219-9(d) paragraphs (1) through (15) and DFARS clause 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219- 7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan) and a Small Business Subcontracting Plan reflective of and consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document." For clarification, if a small business is proposing on both the large and small pools, is a small business contracting plan required for either or both submissions? | Small Businesses are not required to submit Subcontracting Plans as indicated by Section L, 6.1. | ||
| 42 | The ITO Attachment 2.0 Proposed Team List lists the following designation codes: Teaming Partner: T, Joint Venture: JV, Informal Joint Venture: IJV, Prime/Sub: PS, and Mentor/Protégé: MP. What is the difference between a "Teaming Partner" and a "Prime/Sub" designation code for the purposes of our proposed team list? | The Government has revised the Section L Attachment 2.0 Proposed Team List template and Attachment 2 H-Clause, H9 to remove the designation code Teaming Partner: T from the Teaming Lists. The other applicable designation codes represent various types of teaming partner arrangements. | ||
| 43 | ITO Attachment 3.0 Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) notes within the Small Business Participants section a heading labeled as "Nature of Commitment". Can clarification be provided what is expected to be provided to the Government under this heading for a proposed small business participant (other than prime)? (Example: Is this to note if this is a teaming agreement or joint venture?) | This indicates the type of teaming arrangement such as a joint venture, mentor/proteges, etc. | ||
| 44 | Section L 1.0 notes: "HTRO will best achieve the objective of awarding contracts to Offerors meeting the LASR program’s primary goals and objectives by providing rapid labor augmentation capability for all levels of maintenance." Is there a maximum amount of contracts that will be awarded, or will all offerors who exceed the HTRO, with verification, be awarded contracts? | All offerors meeting the criteria of the solicitation will be eligible for award. Please refer to Sections L and M for the evaluation criteria. | ||
| 45 | Section L 1.0 notes: "This solicitation is subject to a Partial Set-Aside of task orders that the Government estimates will require the contractor to provide less than 100 full-time equivalents (FTEs) of personnel per task order in the CONUS or less than 50 FTEs OCONUS." Is this true also of the full and open competition pool? | Task orders of less than 100 full-time equivalents (FTEs) of personnel per task order in the CONUS or less than 50 FTEs OCONUS, are to be set aside for SB with potential socioeconomic set-asides. Task orders above this size will be competed among the full and open pool. | ||
| 46 | Section L 2.3.1 notes: "Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume." If offerors are providing referenced attachments with our submission (for example within the technical volume, referencing an attachment for work samples), would these files also need to be numered sequentially as they are referenced within the volume, continuing the page numbers from where they are referenced? o | If referenced attachments are required to be numbered sequentially along with the base volume, will it be acceptable to include blank pages within the volume itself such that the page numbering is maintained or will offerors have to manually adjust page numbering to match referenced attachments (Example: Volume runs through page 5, then referenced attachments included totaling 5 pages but referenced via a PDF file with page numbering starting at 6, would the next page of the Volume itself start on 11?) | The Government agrees that Section L 2.3.1 describes instructions that pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. However, the RFP is silent regarding how an offeror shall number its volume attachments in relation to the base volume itself. The Government has provided throughout Section L clear instructions regarding what documents or portions of documents will be included in the page count. It is in an Offeror's best interest to ensure the proposal is organized in a manner that is clear and legible for the Government to utilize in its evaluation activities. | |
| 47 | Section L 2.4 notes: "Each volume shall be submitted as a separate file." If a volume contains referenced attachments, would it be acceptable to submit these referenced attachments as separate files as well? | Yes. | ||
| 48 | Section L 2.4 notes: "The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 365, MS Excel 365, MS-Power Point 365, and Adobe PDF.", the Past Performance Information (PPI) procudes a file with the file extension of "accdb". Would this be acceptable, as it is not included within the file types noted as acceptable for electronic submission? | Yes, the file extension of "accdb" for the PPI Tool is acceptable/mandatory. The PPI Tool will be the only documented to be permitted to be submitted as an "accdb" file type. All other documents provided within an offeror's proposal must comply with the Section L 2.4 instructions. | ||
| 49 | The HTRO Matrix is listed as Attachment 6 in Sections L and M, and it should be Attachment 7. | This has been corrected and included in the latest amendment. | ||
| 50 | Is the Team List (ITO Attachment 2.0) required in Volume 1 and Volume 3 (as it's not listed in Table 2.2.2.1 under Vol 3 but included in L.5.1.1 instructions)? | Refer to question and answer 12. | ||
| 51 | In Table 2.2.2.1, is the "Proposal Organization Table" required in Volumes 2, 3, and 4 the same as the Table of Contents requirement in L.2.2.5? If not, please explain what is required for the "Proposal Organization Table". | As stated in Section 2.2.2 "The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.2.2.1 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits in Table 2.2.2.1 The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below." |
Paragraph 2.2.5 instructs "Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume."
While Table 2.2.2.1 references specific information required within each volume, the Government anticipates that an Offeror's proposal may also include additional attachments, tables, charts, graphs, figures, etc that are included as information for the Government to utilize in it's evaluation IAW Section M. The Government anticipates Offerors to utilize a Table of Contents IAW L. 2.2.5 that would delinate the Offeror's reference/usage of such included information within a given volume. It is in an Offeror's best interest to ensure the proposal is organized in a manner that is clear and legible for the Government to utilize in its evaluation activities.
| 52 | Does Volume 1 have to have a Title Page in accordance with L.2.2.1 (since it's not included in Table 2.2.2.1)? | No. | |
| 53 | Please confirm that since this a proposal submission upload using DoD SAFE, that an electronic signature on the SF33 is compliant and not, "A wet signature by the Offeror on the SF33 "? | Wet or electronic signatures is acceptable. Section L, 6.2.1 has been updated to reflect that. | |
| 54 | Does the Government want the completed Attachment 7-HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix submitted in the Excel xls format or pdf (or both)? | Section L, Table 2.2.2.1 limits the submission to the template. In this case, the template can be submitted in either Excel or PDF form. | |
| 55 | Please confirm that the DUNS Number requiredin the ITO Attachment 2.0-Proposed Team List should be UEI in both places. | Please refer to question and answer 17. | |
| 56 | a) Please confirm that the ITO tables that we have to complete (such as SBPCD and Cross Reference Matrix) do not have to be at 1.5 line spacing? | ||
| b) Also, please confirm that the Offeror Company Information/Title Page, Cover Letter, Table of Contents/Proposal Organization Table, List of Tables and Figures, and Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms do not have to be at 1.5 line spacing. | Confirmed and Confirmed. | ||
| 57 | In the L.4.4.3 Narratives instructions, what 'proposed effort' is being referenced in this statement in both places, "...provide a narrative explaining what aspects of the contract/order is deemed relevant to the proposed effort, which evaluation criteria in the HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix is supported, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate"? | The government is asking what portion of the provided contract/task order relates to the CFT LASR effort. For example of the task order submitted was for repair of "ABC Widgets" and the contract only cites ABC Widgets, and not the fact the ABC Widget" is a subassembly of the F444 Engine for the B79 aircraft. Please provide a narrative how the ABC Widget is an aircraft engine subassembly, and how the repair of ABC widget relates to the engine repair portion of the HTRO matrix for engines and subassemblies. | |
| 58 | In the L.4.4.3 Narratives instructions, what 'proposed portion of effort' is being referenced in this statement "...tailored to the proposed portion of effort"? | Please see answer to Question 57. | |
| 59 | To meet the HTRO Self Scoring Matrix Evaluation Criteria #14, can at least one Work Sample include direct maintenance on wheeled vehicles and at least one Work Sample include direct maintenance on tracked vehicles to meet the criteria?” | IN the instance provided in the question: If Contract "A" was for wheeled vehicles and Contract "B" was for tracked vehicles this would be two distinct efforts. This would satisfy the demonstration for 2 efforts covering wheeled and tracked vehicles. | |
| 60 | The HTRO scoring matrix #9 notes: "# of DoD/Non-DoD/Commercial Contracts/TOs administered in last 5 years that included direct Fixed wing scheduled & unscheduled 1-2 engine aircraft maintenance". For clarification, when it is noted "1-2 engine aircraft maintenance" as the evaluation criteria, is it to be understood this to mean between 1 and 2 specific engine models or between 1 and 2 engines on the aircraft itself (example, a aircraft with 2 engines, of which they are the same model)? | The intent is to show work on either single engine or two engine aricraft. For EXAMPLE an F-15 is a 2 engine aircraft, and the F-16 is a single engine aircraft, regardless of engine type installed. | |
| 61 | The HTRO scoring matrix #10 notes: "# of DoD/Non-DoD/Commercial Contracts/TOs administered in last 5 years that included direct Fixed wing scheduled & unscheduled >2 engine aircraft maintenance". For clarification, when it is noted ">2 engine aircraft maintenance" as the evaluation criteria, is it to be understood this to mean more than two specific engine models or more than two engines on the aircraft itself (example, a aircraft with 3 engines, of which they are the same model)? | This item encompases any aircraft with over 2 engines. Examples include: DC-10, KC-135, Boeing 747, C-5, C-17,B-52, etc The distinction of the two questions is to have a simple break point to identifiy work on small or large airframes. | |
| 62 | The HTRO scoring matrix #13 notes: "# of DoD/Non-DoD/Commercial Contracts/TO administered that included direct scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of aircraft engines, modules, Shop Replaceable Units, Quick Engine Change components and other subassemblies". For clarification, would a contract/task order which includes direct scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of one of the items from the provided list of "aircraft engines, modules, Shop Replaceable Units, Quick Engine Change components and other subassemblies" be considered acceptable for the evaluation factor for this item, or does the task order need to include references to all listed items? For example: A task order which included scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of Shop Replaceable Units but not aircraft engines. | The reference is for any of engines, modules, Shop Replaceable Units, Quick Engine Change components and other subassemblies. DO NOT need to encompass the entire listing to demonstrate the capability. | |
| 63 | The HTRO scoring matrix #13 notes: "# of DoD/Non-DOD/Commercial Contracts/TO administered that included direct scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of RADAR/Radio equipment Ground stations". For clarification, would direct scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on avionics systems on aircraft be acceptable references for this evaluation factor as applicable to RADAR? | The intent of this quesiton is for ground RADAR and radio installations, NOT aircraft installations. Work done on these type system installed on aircraft do not support scoring for this item. | |
| 64 | Will the Government consider an extension to the proposal due date pending responses to questions? | Amendment 0001 was issued on 11 July 2024 and extended the proposal due date to 26 August 2024 at 5:00PM CST. | |
| 65 | Section L Table 2.2.2.1, Proposal Organization, Volume III, 5.2 states Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) are to be included with an unlimited page count. Since the PPQs are not returned, is this the printouts from the PPI tool? | The Government has reviewed Table 2.2.2.1 and has determined an amendment is required to remove "5.2 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) Unlimited" from Volume 3 submission requirements per Table 2.2.2.1. The requirements as described in Section L 5.1.1 for the PPI information from the PPI Tool and Section L 5.2.1 regarding the instructions for processing requests for PPQs remain in full effect. | |
| 66 | Section 4.3 Factor 1 – AS9100D certification states all prime offerors and/or all teaming members participating in any proposed teaming arrangement are required to possess a AS9100D certification and it is a prerequisite for HTRO scoring. However, the example stated in the next paragraph contradicts this requirement. Can the Prime have a subcontractor or a teammate that is not AS9100D certified? | Subcontractors are not required to have the AS9100D Certification. All team members participating in Teaming Arrangments as indicated by Section 5.3 as stated are required to have the AS9100D Certification. | |
| 67 | Why does the government emphasize OCONUS for Small Business when Small Business concerned does not applyi overseas? | The governent anticipates awarding task orders under the LASR to Small businsses OCONUS and is evaluating Small business entity OCONUS experience. | |
| 68 | Why are the level of FTE’s when they would equivalent to a large business? | The FTE numbers for Small businesses are scored to account for only SB sized task orders, F&O are scored at levels commensurate with Large task orders. | |
| 69 | Does getting a Top-Secret clearance for a TS awarded count? | As long as a TS facility clearance was issued to the entity for the TS award referenced | |
| 70 | Why is the minimum MTTR - 40,000 to same for large and small businesses? | The MTTR is scaled and scored so Small businesses will score the same relative to sections based on team compliment size, which determines if a task order is set aside for Small Businesses | |
| 71 | # of DoD/Non-DoD/Commercial Contracts/TOs administered in last 5 years that included direct wheeled and track vehicle maintenance activities. Why this requirement, when it is vehicle maintenance? 1,000? | The HTRO matrix specifies both wheeled and tracked to remove ambuiguity as to either wheeled to tracke d vehicles. Either tyype vehicle is permissable to account for score referenced. The maximum 1000 points and weight factor is based on importance for the effort to the overall LASR requirement. | |
| 72 | The HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix has the same score requirements for small business as well as large business. This is unfair in that small business does not have the range of contract sizes and other requirements. Will the government establish a small business HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix of 25,000 points versus the current 40,000 points? | The HTRO metric is properly scaled for Small business entities. Outside of the personal size requiremenst which are scaled seperately, for SB or F&O competitions, the government is evaluating SBs based on number of conracts/task orders rather that size/scale of the contract/task order. Based on market research the 40000 points is achievable by Small businesses with sufficient experience to demonstrate capability. | |
| 73 | I see where RFIs for the above solicitation are requested to be submitted through DOD Safe and then Proposal Submission in PIEE. A couple of questions for you. Do you want the Questions for this submission sent through DOD Safe or PIEE? Also I was not able to find this solicitation in PIEE, has it been input there yet? | Proposal submission shall be via DoD Safe IAW Section L. | |
| 74 | After review I see where questions are to be submitted to DOD Safe. Could you please provide the code/link needed to submit? | A formal question/response period was not indicated for this solicitation. Questions shall be sent to the POCs for this solicitation and may or may not be answered. Answered questions will be posted to sam.gov on a non-attribution basis. | |
| 75 | We assume "accompanying attachments" includes contractual documents, like PWS, CPARS and submitted CDRLS, etc. | ||
| Question: Is this assumption correct? | Confirmed. | ||
| 76 | Please confirm that there is no requirement to provide pricing at the IDIQ level. If there is a requirement to provide pricing at the IDIQ level, please provide data to correctly estimate pricing, such as associated Sections L and M information, labor categories, SCA and WD information, quantiites and units, locations, etc. | The Government is not seeking pricing for basic contract award. As stated in question and answers # 9 and 36, information such as Quantity, Unit, Unit Price, Amount, for the CLIN structure as found in Section B shall be left blank. | |
| 77 | For future Amendments, please provide indications of changes (change bars, highlighting, etc.) | Confirmed. Amendments will include indications of changes. | |
| 78 | Please confirm that the Section H reference to FA8108.52.216-9ZH3 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL & PREMIUM PAY (MARCH 2024) applies to individual task orders only and is not applicable to the IDIQ. | Confirmed. | |
| 79 | We recommend the Cross Reference Matrix page count be unlimited because the Matrix in the ITO is 2 pages, exceeding the 1 page limit, and several of the HTRO Column C Work Samples are Unlimited in number. | ||
| Will the Government please revise the ITO ATTACHMENT 2.2 CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX page limit to unlimited? | Please see answer to question 1. | ||
| 80 | Paragraph 4.4.1 states, "The Offeror shall only provide relevant pages of documents used to fully validate Offeror Self-Scores." | ||
| Please validate that only specific pages are required, and not the entire document or the title page indicating the source of the validating information. | Confirmed. | ||
| 81 | Please validate that PPIs are required. | Each offeror shall submit a Past Performance volume with its proposal, containing Past Performance Information (PPI) IAW the format contained in Attachment 1.1 of the ITO. The Government has provided specific instructions within Section L 5.0 and applicable subparagraphs, as well as Attachment 1.1 of the ITO regarding how to submit information related to the Past Performance Volume. | |
| 82 | Please clarify in which volume and a location PPIs are to be provided. | Volume III. Please refer to Section L 5.0 and applicable subparagraphs, as well as Attachment 1.1 of the ITO regarding how to submit information related to the Past Performance Volume. | |
| 83 | Please clarify how are PPIs are evaluated. Please provide a PPI evaluation criteria. | The Government's evaluation methodology for all factors, to include Factor 3 Past Peformance, are described in detail in Section M. Specifically, Section M 2.4 and all subparagraphs describe the Government's methodology of Past Performance. The Government's evaluation of Past Performance will be conducted in three phases: recency assessment, relevancy assessment, and performance quality assessment. See Section M for full details. | |
| 84 | We assume Work Samples can be from efforts as a Subcontractor on a referenced Work Sample as long as the recency and relevancy requirements are met. | ||
| Question: If the assumption is correct, must the Prime contractor complete a PPQ considering it is unlikely that a Prime contractor will be willing to complete a PPQ in a timely manner, if at all? | Refer to question and answer 15. | ||
| 85 | The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section B of the model contract/solicitation and is 365 days. Signature Requirement (ITO 2.0.4) states that a Wet signature by the Offeror on the SF33 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. | ||
| Question: Is an Acrobat E-sig acceptable because it is legally binding? | Refer to question and answer 53. | ||
| 86 | Atch 4 – ITO, 2.1.6 Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals states: “Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted via drop-off (upload) files in DoD SAFE to Contracting Officer at ryan.mccabe.2@us.af.mil. DoD Safe contains a notice that states the following, “DoD SAFE is NOT to be used for contract solicitation or proposal submission. Use the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) for time-sensitive submissions.” | ||
| Question: What is the correct mechanism for submitting the proposal? | The latest copy of Section L. posted to sam.gov instructs offerors to submit proposals via DoD Safe. Please utilize DoD Safe for proposal submission. | ||
| 87 | Not sure if anyone commented yet, but the PPQ Evaluation questions in Section L does not exactly match the updated HRTO Self Scoring Matrix. That may be on purpose, but I believe as a minimum, S4 should be 90 days versus 30. | S4 in the PPQ within Section L has been corrected to reflect 90 days for OCONUS | |
| 88 | Confirm 1.5 spacing is not required for title pages, headers and footers, tables, or graphics. | Confirmed. | |
| 89 | Clarify how offerors should respond to L.6.3.1. Ombudsman. | No response is necessary. Information for the Ombudsman is there for information purposes. Please refer to 6.3.1. for information regarding the Ombudsman. | |
| 90 | Section L not state what information offerors should include in their proposal organization tables. Recommend clarifying or providing additional instructions. | Please refer to Section L, 2.2.2. | |
| 91 | Confirm offerors should provide the HRTO Self-Scoring Matrix within the Vol II - Technical document. | Confirmed. | |
| 92 | Confirm offerors may submit work sample documentation (PWS, mods, etc.) as separate attachments or as a PDF portfolio package. | Work Samples should be submitted with the appropriate volume as indicated in Section L. Separate files may be used for rapid location of all portions as indicated by Section L, 2.4. | |
| 93 | Confirm offerors should include PPI printouts within their Vol III - Past Performance document. | Confirmed. | |
| 94 | There is a discrepancy between the OCONUS transition days in the HRTO (90 days) and the PPQ S.4 (30 days). Please correct the PPQ or tell us how to proceed. | Please see answer to questions 27 and 87. This has been corrected via the latest solicitation amendment. | |
| 95 | We have PWSs that have CUI Markings. How should Offerors notify and transfer these artifacts to the Government as part of the Work Sample contract documents? | Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) is unclassified information the United States Government creates or possesses that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls limiting its distribution to those with a lawful government purpose. The Government believes it has met the intent of having lawful Government purpose to access the requested information for this acquistion. However, the Government will defer the Offeror to reach out to the PCO who controls the documents/dissemination controls for permission to release such documents in response to this aquisition. | |
| 96 | I can’t access the PPI. We tried to copy and paste. We also tried to drop the file on the desktop. No Success. Can you help? | Attachment 1.1. provides detailed instrutions regarding how the PPI Tool can be downloaded. If an offeror is having technical difficultiles with the PPI Tool, please contact the COs directly via email for assistance. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .