11Feb08.doc

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

RFP FA8530-08-R-21758

11 Feb 08

Question: There is major concern among many of the non-OEM F2AST offerors about the F2AST RFP restrictions/guidance in adding subcontractors after award of the contract as attested by discussions with various capture managers and business leaders and the continual number of questions sent to the Government on this subject. The constraint of limiting labor category billing rates to the mean rates of all subcontractors in the evaluation proposal has many offerors perplexed and concerned about the Government’s intent and strategy as it relates to the execution phase of the F2AST contract.

This subject/restriction was never discussed with industry in any of the Industry Information Exchange sessions. However, in reviewing several questions asked during that period of interchange between the Government and industry, questions were asked. However, the Government did not clearly answer those questions by stating there would be these specific restrictions/criteria on adding subsequent subcontractors after award.

As a result, this RFP requirement caught many offerors unaware of the strategy or need for such a requirement. Many sense/believe its implementation has the potential to suppress competition and opportunity for winning task orders on the full scope of the F2AST contract. This is especially troubling for those offerors who have developed teaming strategies that have built teams focusing on the heavily weighted C-130 maintenance evaluation requirements with historically lower labor category billing rates and built execution teams for after award to compete for the remainder of the F2AST scoped work that ranges from the lower labor category billing rates to more professional/specialist categories of all the F2AST 129 labor categories.

Several suggestions have been made to the Government to address these concerns which would allow offerors to add teammates after award with labor category billing rates that would be acceptable to their future teammates and also constrain escalation of the billing rates. To date, the Government has denied or rejected all these suggestions. The Government has not explained their execution philosophy or rationale as to how F2AST primes are to execute the fully scoped contract with these billing rate constraints.

To date, answers to the many questions on this subject of being able to add individual labor categories later on depending on task orders requirements have not addressed this issue, nor do statements that the Government can add subcontractors if situations/requirements warrant doing so. How do future F2AST primes build teams (add subcontractors) with acceptable labor category billing rates in order to successfully compete for full scoped F2AST contract Task Orders?

Would the Government once again reconsider this requirement and change/make the billing rate range the same for all primes based on all prime subcontractors submissions? Doing so equalizes the range of billing rates for all future primes and does not create an environment where subcontractors migrate to those future primes with the highest mean billing rates. If not, would the Government consider opening discussions with potential offerors to explain their concerns or share/explain why this requirement remains unchanged?

Answer: The Government has reviewed and considered all comments, questions, and suggestions regarding this issue, and has determined that it is in the best interests of the Government to proceed with the limitation as stated in answers to previous questions (median rate) and as set forth in RFP Amendment 0004. It is true that this information was not provided to industry in the Information Exchanges; however, the Government specifically stated that all information provided in the Information Exchanges was predecisional. The last Information Exchange was held 31 October 07, prior to final approval of the acquisition strategy for this effort. As a result of the acquisition strategy approval process, changes to the acquisition strategy were made after the final Information Exchange.

One of the main reasons for inclusion of this rate limitation is the very situation set forth in this question: “This is especially troubling for those offerors who have developed teaming strategies that have built teams focusing on the heavily weighted C-130 maintenance evaluation requirements with historically lower labor category billing rates and built execution teams for after award to compete for the remainder of the F2AST scoped work that ranges from the lower labor category billing rates to more professional/specialist categories of all the F2AST 129 labor categories.” While it is entirely up to each Offeror to build its team in the manner it believes best responds to the requirements set forth in the RFP, one reason the Government has implemented the rate limitation is to counter the ability of an Offeror to “buy in” by proposing low rates for the critical subcontractors who make up its team at the time of award, and then coming back later to add much higher priced subcontractors when there is no competitive pressure on the rates of the subcontractors being added. This rate limitation is being used to continue competitive pressure on rates added after award.

Question: In the 6 February 2008 Questions and Answers, the Government indicated that the Small Disadvantaged Business Targets that are to be submitted under FAR 52.219-24 in Volume III will be treated as “pass/fail.” Will Section M of the RFP be updated to reflect this evaluation criteria?

Answer: Yes. The following information was inadvertently omitted from M-900 and will be incorporated via RFP Amendment:

All proposals will be evaluated as to the extent of participation of SDB firms in performance of this resultant contract. Offerors will provide targets, expressed as dollars and percentages of total contract value, for SDB participation in any of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Industry Subsectors as determined by the Department of Commerce. NAICS codes and titles are posted at: http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/naicod02.htm. The targets may provide for participation by a prime contractor, joint venture partner, teaming arrangement member, or subcontractor; however, the targets for subcontractors must be listed separately.

Question: On 8 Feb 08, the Government issued the Q&A below. Based on the Government’s answer, it is our understanding that the Government does not want Offerors’ proposals in response to RFP FA8530-08-R-21758 to include the data cited in DFAR provision DFAR 252.215-7003. Please confirm that our understanding is correct.

Question: Reference RFP Section L, L-232 – DFAR 252.215-7003 Excessive Pass-Through Charges--Identification of Subcontract Effort, page 103. The provision requires the offeror to “identify in its proposal the percent of effort it intends to perform, and the percent expected to be performed by each subcontractor, under the contract…”

Is it the Government’s intent that each offeror identify this percentage in their contract proposal? If the answer is yes:

(a) Should the calculation of the percentage be based on the offeror and critical subcontractors only or the offeror’s whole team?

(b) Should the calculation of the percentage be based on the whole scope of services or just the minimum capability matrix?

(c) For purposes of this proposal, an offeror is a single CAGE code and other CAGE codes from the same company are subcontractors. For purposes of responding to the clause, should this definition of offeror and subcontractor be used or should the standard definition be used?

Answer: Compliance with this clause is at the D/TO level, where work is actually performed, per Clause H-901. For compliance purposes for F2AST, the offeror is a single CAGE code and other CAGE codes from the same company are subcontractors and this is the definition that is to be used.

Answer: This is correct.

Question: In the Questions and Answers dated 8 Feb 08, the Government stated the following:

Please clarify how this page limitation accounts for the FACTS Sheet form, which is three pages in length without any offeror information added. In previous questions and answers, the Government indicated that the page limitation for the FACTS Sheet is “in addition to” the three pages taken up by the FACTS Sheet form and accounted for those three pages in the maximum page count calculation.

In yet another question and answer, the Government indicated that offerors may delete the instructions on the FACTS Sheet form. Because offerors are instructed not to modify other Government-provided attachments in any fashion, we request that the Government incorporate, by amendment, its response that offerors may delete the instructions from the FACTS Sheet form.

Answer: The FACTS Sheet page limitation (7 pages total) is as set forth in the Questions and Answers dated 8 Feb 08. Offerors may delete the instructions on the FACTS Sheet form, without need for an RFP amendment.

Question: If an Offeror is the common parent corporation of subordinate organizations which share a common CAGE code, but which have separate cost accounting disclosure statements, should such subordinate organizations be treated as approved subcontractors and critical subcontractors for purposes of preparation of rate tables required by RFP Attachment 10?

Answer: Yes.