Draft RFP Questions and Answers.pdf

Draft RFP Questions and Answers

(Answers in Bold)

1. FINAL_Section L – C.2 (Work Samples)

Section C.2 gives Offerors the option to provide 1 to 2 Work Samples. How will the Gov’t evaluate offerors who only submit 1 Work Sample versus those who submit 2?

There shall be a minimum of one (1) work sample for each focus area category. A minimum self-score of 2 is required. The USG changed the requirement for vendors to meet BOTH focus area categories versus one or the other.

2. FINAL_Section L – C.2 (Documentation)

Section C.2 states that “The Offeror needs only to include the relevant portions of artifacts from the Work Sample that clearly show the Government that the Offeror has experience in the Focus Area Categories for which points are claimed.” While Section 6 calls for submission of documentation in its original format. Would the Gov’t please confirm that Offerors my provide excerpts of the original files as long as the actual content is not edited?

Yes

3. FINAL_Section L – C.6 (Documentation)

Section C.6 states that “Evidence proposed must be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered.” It is our experience that project documentation can be lengthy, as much as 30-60 pages. Given page restrictions for the Tech Vol, would the Gov’t. exclude documentation artifacts from the 30-page limit?

We ask that the vendor keep the submission to 30 pages or less. If project documentation is submitted that exceeds the 30-page limit, it will only be evaluated to the 30th page.

Anything passed the 30th page, will not be reviewed.

4. FINAL_NGAGE_SOO

Would the Gov’t. prefer an AGE solutions that integrates power, cooling, and digital diagnostics in one systems?

This will be determined at the Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) level.

5. FINAL_NGAGE_SOO (Small Business)

If a large business exceeds DoD goals by demonstrating mentor-protégé agreements or joint technology incubation with small businesses, will that factor positively influence acceptability?

6. FINAL_NGAGE_SOO (Technology Adoption)

Does the Government anticipate prioritizing incremental modernization of legacy AGE versus fully new system development under NGAGE?

7. FINAL_NGAGE_SOO (Evaluation Transparency)

If an Offeror’s work sample self-score is decremented by the evaluators, will feedback be provided before award to allow clarification or correction?

There currently are no plans to hold discussions prior to award.

8. FINAL_Section M - Evaluation (Innovation vs Build to Print)

Since the SOO excludes build-to-print efforts, can the Government confirm whether proposals emphasizing rapid prototyping with production-scalable designs will be prioritized / have more favorable scoring?

9. FINAL_Section M - Evaluation

Since only the Post-Award Conference (PAC) price is considered at the base award, how will price competitiveness be assessed across contractors before delivery orders are issued?

10. FINAL_Section M - Evaluation

Will delivery orders allow for integration of COTS/commercial industrial equipment if modified to meet AGE requirements, or must all solutions be custom military designs?

Yes, and this will be determined at the Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) level.

11. Can you clarify if an Offeror pursuing NGAGE as a Prime with subcontractor teammates can submit one work sample performed by the subK teammate to count toward the self-scoring matrix? Or must both work samples come from the Prime offeror?

If a company is interested in being the Prime and they work with subcontractors, the company would only submit one self-scoring matrix. If a Prime’s subcontractor is wanting to be a Prime as well, then both companies would need to submit work samples.

12. When will the formal RFP be released?

We are expecting to release the formal RFP in early November.

13. May you provide an existing equipment NSN, which is to be replaced by a Potential Equipment line item (e.g., Hydraulic Test Stand)?

Unfortunately, we do not have a list of NSN’s at this time.