RFP 8504-09-R-22495 RFI and Questions.doc

Request for Information and Questions

Advisory & Assistance Services (A&AS)

FA8504-09-R-22495

1. Please identify the incumbent contractor and contract number?

FA8520-04-D-0001 is the applicable contract number and Chenega Advanced Solutions and Engineering (CASE) is the incumbent contractor.

2. How many contractor employees by skill level are under the current contract?

The current contract covers multiple program offices and the present requirement is for the C-130 program office only. Any information provided would exaggerate the scope of our requirement.

3. It is our understanding no pricing is required for the CLIN breakouts on pages 3-16 of the solicitation and that we should submit fully loaded rates only. Is this correct?

Correct.

4. The solicitation states a total of four recent/relevant contracts shall be submitted for the Prime contractor as well as the subcontractors in the Past Performance proposal. Can the Prime or subcontractor submit less than four if he can demonstrate past performance on a number less than 4?

The referenced quantity of four contracts per entity (i.e., prime, subcontractor, or key personnel) represents the maximum quantity of contracts to be submitted per entity for past performance evaluation purposes. It does not constitute a minimum quantity.

5. In the evaluation criteria it states for a contractor to become very relevant he must have had C-130 or similar cargo type aircraft experience while a relevant rating requires experience on any USAF aircraft. The evaluation criteria for very relevant seems to favor the incumbent contractor because of the minimum number of 8(a) companies that have supported the C-130 and/or similar type cargo aircraft in the last five years at Robins AFB. In addition, this criterion seems to be out of line with the PWS that states throughout the document that the contractor will be required to support a wide range of C-130 and other 330 ACSG program office supported aircraft. In addition the job descriptions listed in the PWS does not specifically require C-130 experience.

Is it possible to change the Very Relevant criteria to reflect experience on any USAF aircraft instead of C-130 or other similar cargo aircraft?

The Very Relevant definition will remain unchanged as the required support is for the C-130 program office and Very Relevant past performance should reflect experience in this area. The Government is willing to consider support of other similar cargo type aircraft as Very Relevant as the C-130 program office currently supports the G-222 (C-27A) and the C-27J may be added to our portfolio. While few 8(a) organizations have experience in this area, subcontracting and teaming arrangements could allow submission of past performance meeting the Very Relevant criteria.

Also, please note the current solicitation does not stipulate past performance must have occurred at Robins AFB.

6. In section M-900 it states that during the evaluation process evaluation hours for each labor category shall be used. Can you let us know what the annual evaluation hours are for each skill that will be used for evaluation purposes?

No.

7. Please clarify the period of performance discrepancy between the CLINS (07/01/2009 – 06/30/2014) and Attachment 4 Pricing Matrix (CY 2009-CY 2015)? The CLINS indicate a base, plus four option years and the pricing matrix indicates a base, plus six option years.

The times outlined in Schedule B for the Contract Line Item Numbers are ordering periods and orders can be placed at any time during any of these periods. Individual task orders can extend out for a one-year period and may cross calendar years and contract periods; therefore, theoretically, an order could be placed on June 30, 2014 and cover the period of 06/30/14 – 06/29/15. Providing rates for Calendar Year 2015 allows the successful party to propose at rates applicable to the actual period of performance.

8. What is the independent government estimate on staffing for the RFP?

That information is not being released.

9. Are the 21 positions that are listed in the RFP on page 29 of 53, the actual positions that are to be filled in support of the contract? If so, is each position one (1) Full Time Equivalent (FTE) per position or will there be more per FTE position?

The positions listed under FAR Clause 52.222-42 are the Government equivalents of the skill types and levels outlined in the PWS. The inclusion of this information does not guarantee that an order will be placed requiring specific support within a labor category; however, it does provide a general listing of the Government equivalent support that is within the scope of the proposed contract. Some tasks may require multiple FTE within a labor category to satisfy the Government requirement.

10. Does the Government intend to use GS equivalency levels as they are listed with the positions on page 23 of 53 in the RFP?

Example: Administrative support position will be a GS-0342-06 equivalent.

The information contained in the applicable clause provides information as to how the Government would compensate their employees for performing work within the scope of the PWS.

11. The 330 ACSG workload data for CY’ 2008 is listed below on a FTE basis. This information is not a guarantee that future workload will reflect past experience or that all positions will be utilized in each year of the subsequent contract.

1 Entry Level Engineer 1 Mid-Level Engineer

7 Mid-Level Program Managers 9 Senior Program Managers 3 Mid-Level Logisticians 3 Senior Logisticians 8 Mid-Level Equipment Specialists 4 Lead Equipment Specialists 4 Administrative Support Personnel 2 Entry Level Analysts 4 Mid-Level Analysts