QA from Pre-Proposal Conference.docx

Pre-Proposal Conference Questions and Answers 5 November 2021

Q1: On slide 16 of the Conference Brief (General Proposal Submission Requirements) it says:

· Only one proposal submission per offeror

· If proposing to both Group A and Group B, only one submission to include both group proposal requirements will be accepted

In Attachment L, pages 7 (Past Performance) and 11 (Technical), it says:

Should the offeror chose to propose to both Group A and Group B, the offeror shall provide separate Volume II submittals; one submittal per group.

Should the offeror choose to propose to both Group A and Group B, the offeror shall provide separate Volume III submittals; one submittal per group.

Please clarify.

A: The Government’s meaning for this is the number of DoD SAFE submittals. There should be only one (1) DoD SAFE submittal per offeror. That means that there will be multiple volume submittals for those offerors proposing to both Group A and B within the DoD SAFE submittal link. As a further clarification, should an offeror choose to submit their Volume II proposal early per request in Section L paragraph I.A, two DoD SAFE submittals will be permitted.

Q2: We understand the source selection criteria is technical acceptability with past performance/price tradeoff. Within that technical acceptability determination, the Purchase Description (PD) has a number of “shall” requirements to be met. In the proposal, with the understanding of the page count limitations, there are a subset of parameters identified to be addressed. In the pre-solicitation conference, discussion indicated some “shall” statements may be conflicting and there may be some tradeoffs. How does the Government score those tradeoffs within the technically acceptable determination?

A: During the pre-proposal conference, it was discussed that the PCO did not recall a specific discussion regarding any technical tradeoffs, as no tradeoffs will be made under the technical evaluation factor. The technical proposals will either be determined acceptable or unacceptable. Upon the conclusion of the pre-proposal conference, the team thoroughly reviewed the information from the pre-solicitation conference. Q4 from the “pre-solicitation” Q&A document posted speaks to a question regarding any potential for trade-space for thresholds and objectives, and is copied here for convenience:

Q4: Any trade-space to allow for thresholds and objectives? The level of descriptiveness and the simultaneous criteria required to be met within specific dimensions and maximum weight make it extremely difficult if not impossible to meet.

A: Each Purchase Description has internal trade space able to be managed by a potential offeror based on their selected design approach; however, there are no objectives associated with any of the Purchase Descriptions.

Q3: If an offeror can’t meet one or more of the “shall” statements within the PD, the offeror will identify this within the Volume I cover letter as an exception to the terms and conditions. Will this count as an automatic fail?

A: No, exceptions to the terms and conditions will not be deemed as an automatic ineligibility for award. The Government will take into account all exceptions and assumptions along with associated rationale, and will review each on a case-by-case basis to determine if the exception(s) can be accepted and incorporated into the requirement.

Q4: It was industry’s understanding that the intention behind having a separate Group B competition and ultimate award is to ensure the Government has separate sources. During the conference, it was stated that offerors proposing to both Group A and Group B should use the same verbiage for the 72 kW GPU technical proposal volumes for consistency. Is this contradicting the Government’s intention to have multiple 72 kW GPU contractors?

A: The Government does not view this as contradictory, as there will be two awardees as a result of this solicitation. One company will not be able to win both Group A and Group B awards. The request to use the same verbiage is the team’s request for industry to help with streamlining the evaluations, as the 72 kW GPU specific evaluation criteria is the same for both Group A and Group B. Group A is different in that offerors must also address the 144 kW GPU and the 144 kW ULB along with the 72 kW GPU. Based on this, the information provided for both groups should be the same for that one end item.

Q5: Similar to how the pre-solicitation conference recording was made available, will the recording of this conference be available for vendors to review as needed?

A: Yes, the recording will be available. Just like the pre-solicitation conference recording was made available, a specific request must be sent to the PCO and buyer, and the recording will be sent via DoD SAFE.

Q6: Were the briefing slides posted to Sam.gov, or will they be posted and made available?

A: Yes, the briefing charts were posted to Sam.gov on 28 Oct 21. As stated during the conference, the PCO confirmed the charts are posted on Sam.gov under the notice.

Q7: During the Pre-Proposal Conference, and as stated on conference slide number 18: “All team members beyond the prime offeror shall sign a Subcontractor/Teaming Member Consent Form (RFP Attachment 6); completed forms to be included in the Volume II submittal.”

However, within the Attachment 6 form, it reads in the first paragraph “We are currently participating as a (critical subcontractor/joint venture partner) with (prime contractor or name of entity providing proposal) in responding to the Department of the Air Force, …”

There seems to be a conflict between “all team members” and “critical subcontractor/joint venture partner” between these two instructions. If a subcontractor “A” is participating on the team but is not classified as a critical subcontractor/joint venture partner (per the Government’s definition within the solicitation), should a completed Attachment 6 be provided by this participating subcontractor “A”?

A: Only the joint venture member(s) and/or those subcontractors that meet the definition of a critical subcontractor per the RFP should submit a completed consent form. Essentially, any company beyond the prime offeror that is submitting past performance information for evaluation will need to have a completed consent form included.

Q8: We would like to confirm our assumption on what data the USAF is requesting below as it relates to PRIME and sub-tier data:

1. For example, if we participated in a program through a large USG Prime Contractor where we produced relevant goods, does the USAF want the data for the PRIME contract or the contract information that was between us and the PRIME?

*Contractor - Is this the PRIME contractor number or OUR ( sub-tier) contractor number?

DUNS Number - Is this the PRIME contractor number or OUR ( sub-tier) contractor number?

CAGE Code - Is this the PRIME contractor number or OUR ( sub-tier) contractor number?

Delivery / Task Order - As defined from the prime or the sub-contract?

*Contract Number - As defined from the prime or the sub-contract?

*Contract Dollar Value - Original - At the prime level or the sub-tier level?

*Contract Dollar Value - Current - At the prime level or the sub-tier level?

A: The information provided needs to be at the subcontract level if you performed as a subcontractor on a larger prime effort. Offerors are certainly welcome to identify the prime contract information; however, please ensure the proposal clearly delineates between the two sets of information as the evaluation team will be strictly focusing on the contract information for the offeror’s performance as a subcontractor in lieu of the overall prime contract.

Q9: For basic ordering contracts we plan to submit as past performance efforts, we have delivery orders in various contract periods (i.e., some orders in the basic, some in the option years). Do we submit these all together as one effort or do we submit each contract period as an effort?

A: It is ultimately up to the offeror how they choose to submit their efforts. However, all orders demonstrating relevancy under a single ordering contract can be submitted under one effort. Orders do not have to be submitted as separate efforts simply due to being issued under different contract periods, as long as they are issued under the same basic contract. As a reminder, if the number of orders exceeds five (5), please ensure a separate attachment is included to identify each order.

Q10: Regarding the separate attachment to identify orders exceeding five (5), there isn’t a place to attach it in the PPI Tool. Do we just add it into the DoD SAFE submittal upload?

A: Yes, offerors will include this listing of orders within the Volume II submittal outside of the PPI Tool.

Q11: For those efforts we are submitting for one end item (e.g., load banks), do we group the performance efforts by the end item or by customers? In other words, we have multiple customers for load banks—would we submit one effort for the load banks and just identify the customers?

A: The efforts need to be submitted by contract—each effort is based on an individual contract (and order(s) if the contract is an ordering type contract).

Q12: We understand the Government has been taking action to modify contracts and active solicitations to include the new COVID-19 FAR clause. Will that clause be incorporated into this solicitation and ultimate contract award? Is there any guidance that can be provided at this time?

A: At this time, the new COVID-19 clause is not required for this effort. While this effort does have elements of incidental services (testing, data deliverables, etc.), these services are not covered by the Service Contract Act. Current guidance on the applicability of this clause uses services covered by the Service Contract Act as a litmus test. Please note that this is subject to change based on applicability guidance and requirements.

The Government has not received clear guidance as of yet for those contracts that are not “covered contracts” in accordance with the applicability requirements; however, any guidance received will be provided as soon as possible. At this time, we will be following the guidance found at https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/ as it relates to COVID-19 safety protocols and requirements. A new training session for the Air Force contracting workforce was provided on 3 Nov 2021 in which some new guidance was provided. If the clause is not required in the contract, should the contractor require access to a federal facility (e.g., testing support), the contractor must follow all COVID-19 safety protocols (social distancing, masks, testing, etc.) and will be required to carry a completed DD form 3150 on their person.

Q13: As a part of our Gate 1 submission, we have been making distinctions between suppliers and subcontractors. We have been classifying those businesses that provide us with parts (to include sheet metal work) as suppliers/vendors; as such, we have not included any work they provide within our submission. Is this a correct interpretation and classification?

A: Yes, this is a correct interpretation and classification. For purposes of the Government’s past performance evaluation and efforts to be submitted for those entities outside of the prime offeror, a subcontractor is an entity that will meet the definition of a critical subcontractor.

Q14: As a result of the ongoing global pandemic, the supply chain for parts has been hit hard. Parts that weren’t long lead items are now turning into long lead items with wait times of a year or longer. Has the Government considered how these supply chain issues may impact the no later than 330 days ARO testing start requirement?

A: The Government team has been considering these impacts, but we have not collectively fleshed out any specific path forward. The team would like to request further information and input from all interested vendors on this issue, as well as recommendations for this testing start requirement.

Upon further discussions as a Government team, it has been determined that the no later than 330 days after receipt of order (ARO) formal first article testing start requirement can be reviewed and addressed likely around the time of PDR (no later than 90 days ARO). The Government sincerely hopes that the 330 days ARO first article testing start date will not cause any companies to not submit proposals, as any potential need for schedule extensions will always be reviewed and discussed for resolution. However, the primary date that the Government will have to hold firm to at this time is the start of OT&E (no later than 580 days ARO). Other dates can be flexed as needed based on any circumstances that arise.

Q15: Can the Government provide any updates on anticipated timing of the subsequent gates?

A: The anticipated award date is late September 2022. Beyond the anticipated award date, it is difficult to provide a valid anticipated timeline for the subsequent gates without at least having a number of proposals as a baseline for schedule management. However, the Government will not request proposal submissions during the holiday season. As such, it is safe to expect Gate 1 oral discussions to occur after the new calendar year, with Gate 2 notifications/proposal requests being issued within 2-3 weeks of the conclusion of Gate 1 oral discussions with all offerors.

Q16: We understand that testing must begin no later than 330 days ARO. However, does this mean that testing for all three end items in Group A must begin at the same time?

A: At a minimum, formal first article testing for each end item must begin no later than 330 days ARO. That does not preclude the awardee from beginning testing early for one or more of the end items in Group A. Further, the start of testing does not necessarily have to be the same test(s) for each end item. Each end item could go through different sets of tests simultaneously. This was the intention behind building the test schedule requirements in the manner in which it was built; it is to allow the contractor the most flexibility within the total allotted time to manage their test program as needed.

Q17: Specifically for Group A, does the PDR/CDR have to be held for all three items at one time, or can they be held separately?

A: The Government’s preference is to hold these reviews together. However, the schedule is built to allow for flexibility depending on whether any of the end items gets ahead or behind the other end items.

Q18: Does the Government intend to notify offerors of their status as evaluations progress through the various Gates?

A: Yes, the Government will issue notifications to the offerors upon the conclusion of each gate. For example, those offerors within Gate 2 will receive notifications of either proceeding into Gate 3 or remaining within Gate 2.

Q19: For those basic ordering contracts, we are only identifying the orders that demonstrate relevancy in accordance with the relevancy definitions. This has resulted in ‘breaks’ between order number identification (e.g., we may identify orders 1-4, 9-11, 13, 16, etc). Should we address these breaks in order identification?

A: The Government does see the benefit of addressing these breaks; however, the Government will be pulling up these contracts independently to review the information in addition to the information provided in the PPI Tool. The evaluation of the information submitted via the PPI Tool will be limited to those orders specifically identified. However, the Government reserves the right to independently evaluate any orders not identified that are determined to demonstrate recency and relevancy.

Q20: We are interested in a teaming arrangement. Does the Government know of any other companies interested in teaming with an established defense contractor?

A: The Government has not received this type of information/communication from interested vendors. However, the Government does recommend reviewing the list of participants from both the pre-solicitation conference (held on 25 August 21) and the pre-proposal conference (held on 1 Nov 21) and reaching out to the identified companies individually.

Q21: On briefing slide 33, we noted that only the company names were provided. Are any POCs available?

A: Per numerous requests from participants, only company conference participant names have been released.

Q22: We are aware of a number of similar upcoming acquisitions in much earlier stages. What is the Government’s intention behind these acquisitions? Are they anticipated to remain separate efforts or will they be combined?

A: The efforts are separate; the Government has multiple teams working multiple lines of ground support equipment within the USAF inventory. Information regarding acquisitions outside of the Ground Power Modernization effort is beyond the scope of this conference and cannot be provided in this forum.

Q23: Regarding Section M-900, section 4.1 on page 6, specifically the very relevant definition: item a—we interpret this to mean one single item with multiple types of power outputs. Is this correct or is it asking for multiple units with one output power? Also, what are the expectations regarding the inputs versus outputs?

A: Yes, one singular unit with more than one type of output power.

Regarding the input versus output: the input power is specific to the loadbank performance demonstration; the output power is specific to the generator performance demonstration.

Q24: Within Section M-900, section 4.1 on page 6, specifically the very relevant definition: item b—we interpret this to mean one single item with multiple quantities of power outputs more than one output of the same power out. Is this correct?

A: Yes, this is a correct interpretation.

Q25: Regarding Section M-900, section 4.1 on page 6, specifically the very relevant definition: item c—two legs of 400Hz at the same time powering aircraft simultaneously?

A: That is one potential. The simultaneous outputs don’t necessarily have to be at the same ratings, and they don’t have to power the same aircraft platforms. The key is simply the combination of any two simultaneous outputs.

Q26: Regarding Section L-900, II.C.2, it appears as though a small business subcontracting plan is required as a part of the Volume I proposal submission. Can the Government clarify what is expected within this initial submittal, with the understanding that the goals will not be available until Gate 3?

A: The subcontracting plan is only required to be submitted as a part of the Gate 3 proposal submission. There is no requirement for large business offerors to submit their small business subcontracting plan within their Gate 1 proposal submission.

Q27: On briefing slide 13 discussing the contract strategy, it is noted that ordering year 2, or what our company is identifying as production year 2, will not be included in the basic contract award. As we enter into negotiations, how will these years be priced and negotiated? Will they be evaluated based on competition or will they be Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA)-based negotiations?

A: The negotiations for the ordering years will be TINA-based. Please keep in mind that the negotiations for the 72 kW GPU end items will be for the guarantee quantity SubCLINs, and this will be TINA-based as these SubCLINs will be ordered on the pre-negotiated prices. The competitive quantity SubCLIN prices will not be incorporated into the basic contract. As the competitive orders are issued, the prices will be established at the individual order level to allow for potential fluctuations within the market place.

Q28: On the RFP, it is noted on the face page that there appears to be some contradictions in what offerors shall fill-in and what Section L-900 requires. Specifically, the face page identifies blocks 11, 13, 15, 21, 22, and 27 to be filled in. However, block 11 is already filled in, and blocks 21 and 22 are regarding price. Prices are not submitted until Gate 3. Please confirm that the only blocks to fill in on the face page of the RFP are 13 and 27.

A: Yes, the blocks specifically requiring pricing will not be filled in. Block 11 is where the offeror will identify any other proposal validity time frame (in addition to the cover letter). Block 13 is for the prime offeror’s information to be filled in.

Q29: Can the Government clarify the requirements for LRUs within the PDs? Does each power conversion step have to be within one single LRU or can the process be split into more than one LRU? The first sentence of paragraph 3.4 seems to indicate only one LRU is allowed—specifically “self-contained”.

A: Within the two GPU PDs, paragraphs 3.2, 3.2.1, and 3.4 don’t explicitly define any specific number of LRUs. As long as the unit meets all other PD requirements, the unit can have as many LRUs as deemed necessary.

Q30: What does the Government need to see in terms of past performance submittals that pair up technical complexities, programmatic scope, etc?

A: The Government’s evaluation will essentially be two-fold. First will be the technical complexities—those areas explicitly identified in the relevancy definitions. The programmatic aspect (quantities, length of effort, etc.) is where the team will be evaluating those areas explicitly called out in the RFP, as well as the quality of performance. Should an offeror have a situation where an effort submitted meets all of the technical complexities, but may not meet the programmatic scope (very low quantities, for example), the offeror may choose to submit an effort that may be on the somewhat relevant technical complexities scale with much higher programmatic scope relevancy. This can allow for an aggregated view of the past performance record in which technical complexities and programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort are demonstrated within the record as a whole.

Q31: Were the briefing slides posted? We seem to have missed them.

A: Yes, the briefing slides were posted on 28 Oct 21. However, the slides will be posted again along with these Q&As.

Q32: We are about 70% complete on the PPI Tool data input. When is the submittal required? Are Attachments 5 and 6 required as well?

A: The absolute cut-off date for proposal submission is 16 Nov 21 at 3:30 PM EST. However, the Government has requested Volume II submittals 10 days early to allow for a head-start on past performance evaluations. In order to submit the past performance proposal volumes, please ensure you submit a specific email request to the PCO and buyer for a DoD SAFE drop-off request link. Upon receipt of this email, the PCO and/or buyer will send a link for offerors to use to submit their proposals.

Yes, Attachments 5 and 6 are required as a part of your Volume II submittal.

Q33: When obtaining information for subcontractors, we have run into a situation where their headquarters are in a different country but they have a manufacturing facility within the US. Where do we list the place of origin/performance?

A: The information in the proposal should reflect where the work will be performed.

Q34: The RFP submission for Gate 1, this is going to be approximately 40 pages. What specifically do we include?

A: Volume I includes the completed and signed RFP (including all fill-in clauses), completed and signed RFP amendments, and cover letter. The cover letter includes any exceptions to terms and conditions, assumptions, group being proposed to, etc.

Q35: For Group A and Group B classifications, can large businesses propose to both groups?

A: No, large businesses can only propose to Group A.

Q36: What payment terms will be applicable to the test units?

A: The first article units will be eligible for progress payments on a monthly basis based on incurred costs. Further, the payment terms will be the standard as defined by the FAR. The Government does not anticipate deviating from the standard payment terms.

Q37: Within the technical specifications, can the Government clarify the LRU requirements, specifically in regards to transformers? Should transformers be isolated from each other?

A: PD paragraphs 3.2, 3.2.1, and 3.4 don’t explicitly require any specific number of LRUs. Multiple LRUs may be provided, to include an LRU(s) to house a transformer(s) if required by the potential offeror’s design so long as all other PD requirements are met.

Q38: For the radiator and fan (i.e., cooling system) on the GPU, can a hydraulic driven cooling fan be used as a space saver?

A: PD paragraph 3.5.4 only allows two design choices: mechanically driven or electrically driven.

Q39: If a unit malfunctions during testing, will the contractor be responsible for the repair? We understand the units are under warranty; however, we want to ensure we have a clear understanding of responsibilities should this situation arise.

A: Yes, the contractor will be responsible for any repairs needed during testing. Please note that the items will not be under warranty until after the units are formally accepted.

Q40: Upon conclusion of testing, it was mentioned the test units are to be refurbished to operational status. Again, we understand the units will be under warranty, and we are wanting to ensure we have a clear understanding of these requirements especially in light of some units being destroyed during testing.

A: Yes, the first article units shall be refurbished. We don’t anticipate any units being destroyed during testing. SOW paragraph 3.6.2.6 details the first article restoration requirements. Please note that the items will not be under warranty until after the units are formally accepted.

Q41: This number in Attachment 3 is not found, DFARS 252.225-7014, Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation; however, the same title is found on RFP page 257 under DFARS 252.227-7014. Please confirm the correct number. Also, we are building one Data Rights Assertion table that seems to be applicable to both DFARS 252.227-7014, pg. 258 and DFARS 252.227-7017, pg 290. We would like to submit the assertion table on page 290 and reference it on pg 258. Please confirm this is acceptable.

A: This was a typographical error; the correct clause number is DFARS 252.227-7014. In addition, it is acceptable to build one table and reference that one table as a part of the identified clause fill-in response.

Q42: Is there a preferred file format for delivery of the RFP completed document? PDF? We cannot find this defined in the L section.

A: PDF format is acceptable for the Volume I submittal.

Q43: Why is the Small Business Subcontracting Plan due twice, once in Volume 1 Gate I and once in Volume 1 Gate III? Point being, are we expected to update this plan from our submission in Gate I until we submit our documents in Gate III? Reference:

· Sec L pg 3 A. General – Vol I Completed RFP (including Small Business Subcontracting Plan)

· Sec L pg 7 Vol I Small Business Subcontracting Plan submit with Proposal Submission 3

A: The subcontracting plan is only required to be submitted as a part of the Gate 3 proposal submission. There is no requirement for large business offerors to submit their small business subcontracting plan within their Gate 1 proposal submission.

Q44: Will the clarification issued clearly identify that all small business information is only to be submitted in Gate 3?

A: Small business information is required to be addressed within the past performance submittals within the PPI Tool. However, all other small business information will only be required as a part of the Gate 3 proposal submission.

Q45: Several of our past performances did not require small business plans. Based on the 1 Nov 21 presentation, should we provide generic small business percentages based on the units provided in those projects? Or should we provide our general small business methodologies?

A: If the offeror is able to identify percentages for these efforts that did not include small business subcontracting plans, that is excellent information to provide. If percentages are not able to be identified, a discussion regarding the methodologies used to reach small businesses for subcontracting opportunities will be accepted.

Q46: We plan to request a DOD Safe link this week for Volume 2 and November 15th for Volume 1, is this acceptable to the USAF? Or should Volume 1 and 2 be submitted in only one DOD Safe link, November 16th?

A: Yes, this is acceptable to the Government. The Government does recognize the potential ambiguity in the discussion regarding the one proposal submission requirement. For those offerors that are choosing to submit their Volume II proposals early in accordance with the request in Section L, paragraph I.A., the offeror can request two DoD SAFE drop-off request links. For those offerors submitting all proposal information together, only one DoD SAFE drop-off request link shall be submitted.

Q47: There was a discussion on Contract number versus subsequent order numbers underneath the contract. We have some contracts where we receive notices to proceed with the next option years. Where shall we submit the option year orders numbers? There doesn’t seem to be a section in the PPI tool to provide additional contract numbers. Our current plan is to provide this primary contract number, please advise.

A: It is ultimately up to the offeror how they choose to submit their efforts. However, all orders demonstrating relevancy under a single ordering contract can be submitted under one effort. Orders do not have to be submitted as separate efforts simply due to being issued under different contract periods, as long as they are issued under the same basic contract. As a reminder, if the number of orders exceeds five (5), please ensure a separate attachment is included to identify each order.

Q48: When creating the subcontracting plan, we plan to use the contract guaranteed quantities to determine the overall project percentages for the small business break down. Depending on the actual award quantities of the 72kW, the overall percentages of the small business break downs might change slightly. Please confirm if this is acceptable.

A: This is correct. The small business subcontracting plan should be created based on the contract guarantee best estimated quantities identified as those are the quantities that will be ordered based on the annual funding received.

Q49: REF pg 252, FAR 52.219-28: Since our company does have representations and certifications in SAM, is there a reason to complete this section?

A: No, this is not required to be completed at the time of proposal submission as this relates to post-award re-representations. Further, as long as the SAM representations and certifications cover these requirements, this clause will not have to be submitted separately.

Q50: Since this solicitation is using a gating process for source selection, is it acceptable to state N/A or “will be addressed during Gate III price proposal” for any item in the RFP specifically requesting price information? Our question relates specifically to the following sections:

a) Page 1 blocks 11, 15, 21 and 22 relate to the commercial/pricing offer. We understand no pricing information is to be required until Gate 3.

b) Page 1 block 27 requires a signature. If the above information is not submitted, please confirm a signature not required

c) Page 257, we intend to utilize the pricing spreadsheet in attachment 10 as our basis for providing information on data rights but note the sheet provided is password protected. Would it be possible to have a non-password protected version of the first 4 columns of this spreadsheet or just send the 4 columns in a separate document? We are not looking to manipulate the fields; we are just looking to copy the columns into our spreadsheet to build our data rights table based on the CLINs.

d) Pg 269 Certification of Final Costs. Please confirm this section is not required at Gate 1 since it relates to the price submission

e) Pg 296-299 Proposal Adequacy Checklist. This has not been included in Attachment 3 as Required for RFP completion. Is the expectation to partially fill in this chart during Gate I submission? Or shall it be completed at a later Gate as much of the information required relates to pricing information?

A: Yes, it is acceptable to state “N/A” or “will be addressed during Gate III price proposal” for those pricing areas of the RFP.

a) Correct. However, Block 11 is where you may identify a different proposal validity period if needed.

b) A signature in block 27 is still required as information regarding clause fill-ins need to be certified via offeror signature.

c) Upon discussion with the team, columns A-D have been extrapolated from the RFP Attachment 10 as a separate document. Potential offerors may use this to assist with any specific assertions or exceptions as needed; however, please do not use this document to submit any pricing information.

d) Correct; this certificate will be required upon the conclusion of the contract during closeout procedures.

e) The proposal adequacy checklist will not be required for any of the proposal submissions, to include Gate 3. This checklist will be included in the basic contracts as the Government anticipates the ordering year negotiations will require certified cost or pricing data. As such, the checklist will be used for the ordering year negotiations only.

Q51: As a Group A offeror, our critical subcontractor is a small business, do we need to submit their small business subcontracting plan as well and drill down another level to their suppliers? Please advise.

A: Only the large business prime offerors in Group A will be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9. However, as it relates to the small business participation evaluation factor, yes—a small business participation proposal is required from all team members (prime, joint venture member(s) and critical subcontractor(s) as applicable) regardless of small business status.

Q52: PD21WRWNZEA009 Section 3.4.1.1, Is the load rating of 100% equal to 144kW/180kVA? In other words, is the144kW/180kVA load rating in PD paragraph 3.4.1.1 the only load rating requirement at 400Hz?

A: The loadbank rating is similar to the GPU rating. 144 kW/180 kVA is the full load rating. The bottom portion of PD21WRWNZEA009, Paragraph 3.4.1.1 also lists overload conditions the loadbank must be able to provide, to include a 200% full load rating for up to five minutes on all three phases.

Q53: Regarding Volume II – Past Performance:

1. May the offeror include the citations within the volume as well as submitting the information through the PPI Tool?

1. Does the Government wish to receive the Attachment 5 Relevancy Assessments, Attachment 7 Questionnaires, and Attachment 8 Client Letters as separate documents or may they be embedded within Volume II?

A: a. Yes, offerors may include information in the PPI Tool, as well as in other areas of Volume II (summary page, RFP Attachment 5, etc).

b. The Volume II RFP Attachments can be embedded altogether as one document, or they can be included as separate files as long as they are clearly identified. For the RFP Attachment 7 questionnaires, the Government should be receiving that directly from the customer POCs if they choose to complete it in lieu of an interview. The Government should not find any complete questionnaires in an offeror’s proposal response.