MAAS_Questions and Answers_3_26 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 #3

26 April 2024

Q1: I just wanted to clarify your answer you sent regarding the Key personnel 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.”

Companies are allowed to use key personnel regardless of how long they have been in business.

A1: Sections L&M will be updated in a forthcoming amendment to update Key personnel language as follows: “Offerors, joint venture members, or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities, or any company who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant corporate past performance while employed by another company, may demonstrate the performance of such key personnel by submitting information for four (4) of their most recent and relevant contracts under which such key personnel performed 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. This past performance information should be submitted in the PPI Tool. However, please note that the quality and depth of relevant manufacturing involvement of the key personnel’s performance under the submitted contract must be able to be verified by the Past Performance Team in order to be considered in the assessment of confidence…”

Q2: Could you please clarify whether multiple contract awards for the same item are permissible to be included in Attachment B of RFP FA8534-24-R-0002 for the relevancy assessment, or if only one contract award per item is allowed?

A2: One contract per submission will be allowed, with any potential ordering contract allowed to have all recent/relevant orders identified for evaluation.

Q3: Could you provide guidance on whether the Attachment B of RFP FA8534-24-R-0002 permits the inclusion of multiple contract awards for multiple items, given their applicability to the criteria outlined for the relevancy assessment?

A3: One contract per submission will be allowed, with any potential ordering contract allowed to have all recent/relevant orders identified for evaluation.

Q4: Response A4c (Reference Q&As #2): Please elaborate, can other systems developed/manufactured other than Aircraft Arresting Systems qualify as 'Any System' respectively? For example, working on Aircraft, weapon systems, manufacturing/building aircraft/weapon systems?

A4: Yes, other manufactured systems may qualify as “any system”.

Q5: Is the first article to be built from the existing government data package or a new contractor-developed data package?

A5: The first article will be built from an existing TDP, not a contractor-developed data package.

Q6: Has the current government TDP already been verified by a first article test?

A6: No, the government TDP has not been verified by a first article test.

Q7: Why is the requirement for a first article test included if we are building off of an existing government data package? Shouldn't this be a first article inspection?

A7: The TDP has not been verified by a first article test yet.

Q8: In the SOW, it specifies that we are to submit updated TO's prior to any build, what are the TO's to be updated to?

A8: The illustrated parts breakdown and overhaul manuals will be updated to reflect current data as part of this instant award. Please refer to applicable solicitation attachments.

Q9: Is the first article test to verify the contractor's new TDP to include drawings?

A9: No, there is no requirement for contractors to develop a TDP as the government TDP has been provided.

Q10: Why is the contractor being asked to build a first article for testing when updating the TDP implies a second first article build and test will be required to validate the newly updated TDP?

A10: First article testing has not occurred for this effort. In any drawing package, there will be discrepancies that need to be addressed.

Q11: If contractors will be updating the TDP to include drawings, why is the SOW combining a re-engineering effort with a build effort?

A11: There is no re-engineering effort with a build effort for this award.

Q12: What are the steps needed to obtain a Source Approval Request?

A12: The questionnaire posted with the Sources Sought Synopsis must be completed and returned to be evaluated.

Q13: Is it necessary for the contract referenced in Attachment C, filled out by our customer, to match the contract reference provided in Attachment B, completed by us and entered into the PPI tool?

A13: To ensure the efforts submitted are the correct efforts evaluated for past performance, it is necessary for the contract referenced in Attachments B and C to match.

Q14: Would you be able to share the AutoCAD or any CAD version of the drawings?

A14: The AutoCAD or CAD version of the drawings is not currently available for public release.

Q15: Will there be another extension?

A15: No, the government does not intend to extend the proposal due date any further.