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.

14. Digital Engineering Vision: The SOO emphasizes MBSE. Does the Government envision the MBSE data being maintained and evolved into a full lifecycle "Digital Twin" for the NGAGE fleet, integrating real-world operational and maintenance data post-fielding?

Yes.

15. Cybersecurity for OT: Given that AGE is Operational Technology (OT), will the Government prioritize or require adherence to OT-specific security standards, such as NIST SP 800-82, in addition to the broader RMF controls under NIST SP 800-53?

Will be determined at FOPR level. Main focus is NIST SP 800-53.

16. Power Infrastructure Assumptions: To properly design and test charging interfaces, what Government Furnished Information (GFI) will be provided regarding the existing electrical infrastructure and power quality at representative CONUS and OCONUS bases?

GFI will be provided at the FOPR level containing all electrical infrastructure and power quality for both CONUS and OCONUS requirements.

17. Technology Insertion Approach: For this 9-year MAC, what is the Government’s preferred approach for technology insertion? Will Task Orders specify open architecture requirements to facilitate the seamless integration of future technologies (e.g., new battery chemistries, advanced diagnostics)?

Yes, will be determined at FOPR level.

18. Test & Evaluation Assets: Will the Government provide key GFE for testing, such as specific aircraft for interface validation or calibrated load banks that simulate aircraft power profiles, or should offerors plan to provide these assets?

Gov may provide test assets during Operation Tests. Developmental Testing will be CTRs responsibility.

19. Target Maintainer Profile: To ensure the design, diagnostics, and technical manuals are appropriately developed, what is the target Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) and skill level (e.g., 3-level, 5-level, 7-level) for the primary NGAGE maintainer?

3 level

20. Environmental Profiles: To ensure robust design, can the Government provide the anticipated key environmental design drivers and operational profiles (e.g., specific MIL-STD-810 methods for temperature, humidity, sand/dust, shock/vibration) that are most critical to the NGAGE mission?

Will differ/contract. Will be determined at FOPR level. Gov may ask to meet requirements of MIL-STD-810, Method 501.7, Procedure I / Method 502.7, Procedure I & Procedure II / Method 506.6, Procedure I / Method 521.4 / Method 509.7 / Method 510.7, Procedures I & II / Method 514.8, Table 514.8.

21. Technical Data Rights: The SOO focuses on design and development. What are the Government’s specific data rights goals for the technical data, engineering drawings, and software developed under this MAC (e.g., Government Purpose Rights, Unlimited Rights)?

TBD at FOPR level.

22. System Interoperability: Beyond the aircraft interface, what other ground systems, diagnostic tools, or maintenance databases (e.g., IMDS, GIMMS) will the NGAGE system be required to interface with?

23. Innovation Evaluation: Regarding the Self-Scoring Matrix, how will the Government objectively evaluate the "innovation" of a proposed solution? Is it based on specific performance metrics (e.g., % reduction in size/weight/fuel) or a more subjective assessment?

24. First Article Testing: Multiple first article approval clauses are listed, but all details are “determined at the order level.” Will the Government provide any notional guidance on when first article testing is expected (e.g., for new designs only, not COTS)?

After initial design analysis/PDR/CDR and approval of TRR/first article test procedures. This could differ depending on the contract and the effort.

25. For Category 1 (OEM delivery/manufacturing of AGE/comparable equipment): The definition includes "equipment with AS8090-compliant running gear." Must work samples explicitly demonstrate AS8090 compliance, or is it optional?

Will be determined at the FOPR level.

26. Mission Critical AGE typically have a long production phase of a program. Can the offeror use Development and ILS documentation from a program that was more than 5 years ago if the offeror can show production orders/product support contracts within the last 5 years?

Yes

27. Section L – II.A.2 (page 2)

Section II.A.2 states “In order to verify the font size and margins utilized, the Offer shall provide an electronic copy of the technical and small business proposals in Microsoft Word format.”

Question: If the Technical proposal is to include actual deliverables for the accomplished work, it may be very difficult to convert these documents into a “word” version. Will the Government reconsider requiring the technical proposal be submitted in a “word” version?

A PDF would be accepted with the parameters meeting the specifics in the Section L.

28. Section L – II.C.2

Section II.C.2 states “Using the instructions provided below, the Offeror shall substantiate its self-score from the matrix by providing, as specifically as possible, the actual deliverable(s) for the accomplished work that is detailed in the work sample(s)……A work sample artifact represents evidence/information/documentation submitted as a deliverable to a Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) for its work sample.

Under 1) Category 1, it states …”If your company has not previously manufactured AGE and/or comparable industrial equipment but has the potential to support flightline or back shop operations, please provide examples or design, development, prototypes, projects, ad efforts that are applicable.

Question: This section indicates that the work sample artifact shall provide evidence of experience by providing CDRL artifacts. However, the direction under Category 1 appears to allow offerors without manufactured AGE experience to provide examples of design, development prototypes, projects and efforts. Does this mean that offerors without manufactured AGE experience can submit artifacts that are NOT related to CDRLs?

Yes.

29. Solicitation

Question: When does the Government anticipate awarding the Multiple Award Contract?

27 April 26

30. Will the NGAGE IDIQ allow for purchase of commercial items that fully meet military requirements as stated in the SOO?

Per Executive Order (EO) 14271: Ensuring Commercial, Cost-Effective Solutions in Federal Contracts, commercial items are actually preferred at long as they meet or exceed the requirements defined.

31. We acknowledge that the solicitation restricts offerors to submitting two work samples.

For planning purposes, we would appreciate confirmation that this means a total of two samples, one per category. Additionally, we seek guidance on whether it is permissible to reference other relevant projects within the narrative portions of the proposal, as long as we remain within the overall page limit. Our goal is to illustrate the full scope of our experience while adhering to the format requirements.

Confirming that 2 work samples are correct. One for each category. You may provide any information you would like in the proposal. Anything over 30 pages will not be reviewed.

32. 5352.209-9000 Organizational Conflict of Interest- Is it the intention to include clause 5352.209-9000 in all developmental contracts issued under the NGAGE IDIQ?

Clause 5352.209-9000 will apply for any delivery or task order awarded under the NGAGE IDIQ. Any contract that is in the basic, can and will apply at the order level unless otherwise advised.

33. Evaluation Basis Contradiction: Section L requires a detailed technical submission indicative of a Best Value Trade-Off, while the GovWin report indicates the evaluation may be Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA). Could the Government please confirm if the basis for award will be LPTA or a Best Value Trade-Off?

The basis for award to the IDIQ MAC will be Technically Acceptable only. You are required to show you are technically acceptable by providing the work samples for the 2 categories. At the individual order level, the basis for award will be determined when those FOPRs are released for each project.

34. Small Business Plan Evaluation: To confirm our understanding, is the Volume I Small Business Subcontracting Plan evaluated on a pass/fail basis for compliance with FAR 52.219-9, while the Volume III Small Business Participation Plan is qualitatively evaluated for its merit and commitment?

The small business subcontracting plan required by FAR 52.219-9, as supplemented by the DFARS, shall be submitted by Large Business Offerors. The plan shall comply with FAR 52.219-9, Alternate II, and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the Offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan). The submitted plan shall set forth the Offeror’s plan for subcontracting with small businesses to the maximum extent practicable, in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 as supplemented by the DFARS. The small business subcontracting plan shall include the information required by FAR 19.7, DFARS 219.7, and all associated clauses within the RFP. Offerors are strongly encouraged to utilize the document entitled “DoD Checklist for Reviewing Subcontracting Plans” available at https://business.defense.gov/Acquisition/Subcontracting/DoD-CSP/Subcontracting- Guide/. NOTE: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required by large business offerors only and shall be incorporated into any resultant contract.

35. Scope of "Full Production": The SOO states the MAC is not for "complete/full production runs." Could the Government please define the threshold (e.g., by quantity of units or total dollar value per order) that constitutes a "full production run" to ensure offerors properly scope their MAC-level proposals?

This is something that will be determined at the individual order level depending on the requirement, not the basic contract.

36. Self-Scoring Matrix Mechanics: Will the Self-Scoring Matrix be used as a preliminary down-select tool prior to a full proposal evaluation, or will the final verified score be incorporated as a formal evaluation factor in the final award decision?

The self-scoring matrix is what will be used to choose the awardees for the basic IDIQ contract. All contractors meeting the required score of the matrix backed by work samples, will be chosen for the basic IDIQ contract.

37. Key Personnel at MAC vs. TO Level: Given the 9-year PoP and undefined nature of future Task Orders, would the Government consider making Key Personnel requirements and commitments applicable at the individual Task Order level, rather than at the base MAC award?

Yes, this is a 10 year contract if all options are exercised. Depending on the requirement will determine which personnel will be involved at the order level.

38. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI): As this MAC involves the design and development of new AGE solutions, will awardees under this MAC be eligible to compete for future, separate full-rate production contracts for the systems they help design, or would that be considered an OCI?

That will depend on the requirements and specifications of the other contracts.

Please bring it up to contracting of both requirements if this occurs, and we can work out a mitigation plan.

https://business.defense.gov/Acquisition/Subcontracting/DoD-CSP/Subcontracting-Guide/ https://business.defense.gov/Acquisition/Subcontracting/DoD-CSP/Subcontracting-Guide/

39. Task Order Competition: The draft mentions an Ordering Guide. Can the Government clarify the anticipated process for competing Task Orders among the MAC holders?

Specifically, will all awardees have a fair opportunity to compete for every Task Order?

All awardees on the basic contract will have a fair opportunity to propose for each order unless there is an exception that applies at at FAR 16.505.

40. Place of Performance: The GovWin report lists Robins AFB, GA, as the Place of Performance. Does this refer only to the location of the program office, or is there an expectation that a significant portion of the development and integration work must be performed at or near Robins AFB?

Robins is the place of the program and contracting office. Performance for each order will be specified at the FOPR level.

41. CDRL Pricing: Will Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) items be priced individually at the Task Order level, or should offerors price them as a single, comprehensive data package at the base MAC level?

There are no CDRLs to price at the MAC level. CDRLs will be order level specific.

42. Option Year Exercise: What will be the primary basis for the Government's decision to exercise the option years for the MAC? Will it be based on the performance of individual awardees, the overall success of the program, or simply the continuing need for the contract vehicle?

It could be for any of the above. If there is still a need for requirements, which we believe there will be, then we will exercise the option. If a contractor is not performing and has a history of poor reports then they could be off-ramped and not be included in the exercised option.