MAAS_Questions and Answers_2_2 APR 24.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE GEORGIA

MOBILE AIRCRAFT ARRESTING SYSTEM (MAAS)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FA8534-24-R-0002

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

2 April 2024

Q1: Please confirm that the entire “scope and magnitude” the Government will evaluate under the past performance factor is located in Section M.4.1.

A1: The entire “scope and magnitude” is the entire solicitation, including what is listed in Section M.4.1.

Q2: If the “scope and magnitude” of the contract is not in Section M.4.1, or not entirely in Section M.4.1, please identify other locations in the solicitation where “scope and magnitude” are addressed.

A2: The entire “scope and magnitude” is the entire solicitation, including what is listed in Section M.4.1.

Q3: The first bullet of Section M.4.1 says “Testing: First Article Testing (FAT) using detailed test procedures developed by the Government in accordance with MIL-STD-3036, the tailored MIL-STD-3035 and the SOW.”

- Have any companies performed first article testing for the MAAS system using detailed test procedures developed by the Government in accordance with MIL-STD-3036, the tailored MIL-STD- 3035, and the SOW?

- If the answer to (A) is yes, please identify the company or companies.

A3: To preserve the integrity of this Source Selection, other companies’ information will not be released.

Q4: The Solicitation defines “very relevant” as present or past performance involving “essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.” The Solicitation defines “relevant” as present or past performance that is “similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.” The first bullet in Section M.4.1 says, “Testing: First Article Testing (FAT) using detailed test procedures developed by the Government in accordance with MIL-STD-3036, the tailored MIL-STD-3035 and the

SOW.”

(a): Does the Government expect that “essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires” means that a first article test must be performed?

A4a: No, Section M does not state first article testing must have been performed. The Government will take into consideration the type of testing performed in the evaluated efforts.

(b): For a first article test to be performed, is it the case that offerors must have already won a contract to provide the MAAS system?

A4b: No, offerors do not have to have won a Government contract to provide the MAAS system in this instant procurement.

(c): Please explain how any offeror other than the company or companies that have previously sold the system to the U.S. Air Force can receive “very relevant” or “relevant” past performance?

A4c: The relevancy definitions were reviewed and broadened specifically to avoid restricting competition. The Very Relevant and Relevant definitions require demonstration of the required elements for any type of aircraft arresting system/any system respectively. It is not restricted to the MAAS system that is currently being procured by this solicitation.

Q5: Also in Section M.4.1, the Government says the “duration of time” is 8 years.

(a) Would the Government please clarify what “duration of time” means?

A5a: The “duration of time” referenced in Section M.4.1 is the expected contract Period of Performance for the instant acquisition.

(b): Does the Government expect that “essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires” mean that duration of time of a prior effort must be 8 years?

A5b: No, the Government has identified the expected magnitude of work and complexities in paragraph M.

II.C.4.1 for the instant acquisition.

(c): Would the Government please identify those companies that have received contract awards of 8 years?

A5c: To preserve the integrity of this Source Selection, other companies’ information will not be released.

Q6: The Solicitation defines “very relevant” as present or past performance involving “essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.” The Solicitation defines “relevant” as present or past performance that is “similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.”

- Would the Government please clarify what Solicitation data the Agency intends to use as a comparator to determine whether present or past performance is “essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort complexities this solicitation requires?”

- Would the Government please clarify what Solicitation data the Agency intends to use as a comparator to determine whether present or past performance is “similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires?”

A6: Reference Section M.4 for the tailored relevancy definitions and the expected magnitude of work and complexities.

Q7: In Section M.4, the Government imposes requirements for companies to receive “very relevant” past performance. These requirements are in sub-Sections A and B. They appear to be requirements in addition to those set forth in Section M.4.1. Under the definition of “very relevant,” the Solicitation says, “both requirements of Section A and Section B must be demonstrated.” While sub-Section B says that one of two bullets must be satisfied, sub-Section A is silent about the number of bullets offerors must be satisfied.

- Would the Government please confirm that “very relevant” requires that offerors demonstrate past performance that shows experience with all of the bullets in sub-Section A?

A7: Yes, all elements in Section A must be demonstrated for Very Relevant.

Q8: In Section 4, the Government imposes requirements for companies to receive “relevant” past performance.

These requirements are in sub-Sections A and B. They appear to be requirements in addition to those set forth in Section M.4.1. Under the definition of “relevant,” the Solicitation says, “both requirements of Section A and Section B must be demonstrated.” While sub-Section B says that one of two bullets must be satisfied, sub- Section A is silent about the number of bullets offerors must be satisfied.

- Would the Government please confirm that “relevant” requires that offerors demonstrate past performance that shows experience with all of the bullets in sub-Section A?

A8: Yes, all elements in Section A must be demonstrated for Relevant.

Q9: Regarding “very relevant” and “relevant” past performance, Section B has the same two requirements.

Successfully completed aircraft arresting system dynamic dead load testing at NAVAIR in Lakehurst NJ.

Post installation Certification Engagement performed with F-15, F-16, or F-22 Aircraft.

- Would the Government please identify how many companies meet the above bullets?

- Would the Government please identify the names of the companies that meet the above bullets?

- Would the Government please identify the number of companies without MAAS contracts with the U.S. Air Force that meet the above bullets?

A9: To preserve the integrity of this Source Selection, other companies’ information will not be released.

Q10: To successfully complete aircraft arresting system dynamic dead load testing at NAVAIR in Lakehurst NJ, must a company have already sold MAAS systems to the U.S. Air Force? If not, would the Government please explain how?

A10: No. NAVAIR provides independent testing outside of USAF contract awards.

Q11: To perform Post installation Certification Engagement with F-15, F-16, or F-22 Aircraft, must a company have already sold MAAS systems to the U.S. Air Force?

A11: No.

Q12: To perform Post installation Certification Engagement with F-15, F-16, or F-22 Aircraft, may a company use certification engagements performed outside the US with non-USAF owned aircraft?

A12: Yes.

Q13: If the Government believes Post installation Certification Engagement with F-15, F-16, or F-22 Aircraft does not require prior sales of MAAS systems to the U.S. Air Force, would the Government please explain the basis for its belief?

A13: Any company could have built and supplied a similar arresting system to a foreign country or another government agency.

Q14: In Section M C.2.D, the Government allows “offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past fifteen (15) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.” One-way offerors without prior sales to the Government can meet this requirement is by having a key person who meets the definition.

(a): Why is the Government restricting the key person exception to newly formed entities?

A14a: Section M.C.2.D allows for new companies with no past performance to still submit an offer based on key personnel to increase/improve competition.

(b): Would the Government please consider allowing any company to demonstrate past performance with Key Personnel who meets the definition in Section M C.2.D?

A14b: Section M C.2.D isn’t restrictive in nature; any company can demonstrate past performance with key personnel who meet the definition of relevant past performance while employed by another company that can be verified by the Past Performance Team. Section M C.2.D is enabling companies in existence less than three (3) years the ability to compete, thus promoting greater competition.

Q15: The Solicitation is Build-to-Print to Government specifications.

(a): Would the government please explain why load testing is given a Very Relevant rating while significant experience in Build to Print does not appear in the relevant or very relevant categories in light of the fact that the government design has the performance requirements captured in the design?

A15a: Reference Section M.4. Build to Print is a requirement of both relevancy ratings.

(b): If the contractor’s product explicitly meets the TDP and conforms perfectly to the government’s design, can the government explain how it would consider that less relevant than previous experience testing the same units?

A15b: Reference Section M paragraph II.C.4 for the established relevancy definitions and associated requirements. Efforts submitted for evaluation in response to this solicitation must meet the criteria for evaluation and subsequent rating assignment. The Government is unable to provide any further information in light of not having the hypothetical effort’s detailed information to take into consideration all aspects in accordance with Section M paragraph II.C.6.

Q16: Per ATCH-03 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award section 4.1, under Testing: First Article Testing (FAT) using detailed test procedures developed by the Government in accordance with MIL-STD-3036, the tailored MIL-STD-3035 and the SOW Question -Is this USAF Test matrix different from previous test matrices performed at Lake Hurst? If yes how?

A16: Yes; any resultant contract from this solicitation will utilize the test procedures developed by the Government. The differences are not significant enough to affect contractor proposals.

Q17: I’m updating my Volume II submission and I’m a bit confused about the Client Authorization Letter (Attachment D). Can you explain? For my critical subcontractors, I have prepared the Transmittal Letter (Attachment E) to include the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire and the Consent Form (Attachment F). I’m not sure if/where/how Attachment D applies.

A17: Reference Section L.C.9 for details on when a Client Authorization Letter is needed.

Q18: CDRL A009 of Block 12, Date Of first submission is 390 DAC however this CDRL must be submitted prior to test readiness review which is 14 days prior to verification testing that is 240 days DAC. CDRL A009 falls 150 days after the Verification Testing. We believe this is not correct.

A18: CDRL A009 has been updated to correct date of first submittal to 206 days after contract award. Below is a breakdown of how the 206 days were calculated.

206- Test Readiness CDRL Submission (Ref: CLDR A009/SOW para 3.2.2.1) 226-Test Readiness Review (Ref: SOW para. 3.2.2) 240 days: First Article/Start of Function Verification (Ref: SOW para 3.5.1.1)

Q19: SOW Paragraph 3.5.2.2, there is no where stated that how many days would take for the Government to return the government generated test reports to the contractor.

A19: The SOW has been updated to incorporate changes.

Q20: Can the Air Force please explain why FAR 52.242-4 is included in the RFP on page 76, since the RFP does not appear to call upon offerors to submit final indirect cost rates? Are offerors required to complete this certification as part of their proposal, and if so, what aspect of the proposal is the government asking offerors to certify?

A20: Clause 52.242-4 is included due to progress payments being incorporated into our effort. Completing certification of indirect costs would take place during contract performance when working with DCMA to submit progress payment information/invoices. We are not asking offerors to certify to their proposal as this is a competitive effort.

Q21: We request an extension of the proposal submittal deadline by 30 days, from April 15, 2024to May 15, 2024.

A21: The government will concur to a 15-day extension vs the requested 30 days. (Reference Solicitation Amendment 0002)

REFERENCES:

Solicitation Amendment (FA8534-25-R-0002-0002) SOW update (Atch 01) CDRL A009 Update (Exhibit A)