Contractor_Questions_on_the_Solicitation_for_FA8620-20-C-2001.pdf

Contractor Questions on the Solicitation for FA8620-20-C-2001, “MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Aircrew and Support Services”:

1. Issues regarding a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) on the current contract:

a. Gov Response – There is a CBA on the current effort. Each contractual effort is a standalone action and has no bearing on the other. With that being said, the Government has an inquiry to our Legal Department about any issues arising with this agreement and its effect on a new contract, or if a new CBA would have to be established on a new contract, if at all. Once the Government has an answer, we will add it to this posting. Please note there are multiple clauses in the contract that cover the Service Contract Act and allow for Wage Adjustment according to the Dept of Labor Standards.

2. Section M, page 5, 2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment states, “To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.” Section L, page 10, 5.3 Relevant Contracts states, “Past Performance Information for 3 recent contracts (within the past 5 years) that you consider most relevant in demonstrating you and your subcontractor(s) ability to perform the proposal effort.”

Can the Government clarify if the past performance look back is based on three years or five years?

a. Gov Response: The Past Performance look back is for 3 Years. Recent and Relevant are two separate items. Section L, Page 10, 5.3 is being updated to say “ (within the last 5 years)”

3. Section L, page 10, 5.3 Relevant Contracts states, “Submit information in accordance with

Attachment 3: Past Performance Information for 3 recent contracts (within the past 5 years) that you consider most relevant in demonstrating you and your subcontractor(s) ability to perform the proposed effort.”

Does the Government expect 3 recent contracts each from the prime and the subcontractor(s) for a total of 3, 6, 9, etc., or simply a total of 3 from the team?

a. Gov Response: The Government expects no more than 3 relevant contracts for each team.

4. Reference: RFP_Cover_Letter.pdf Attachment 5 ProPricer Working Excel Model Extract – Step by

Step Instructions (Information Guidance) Question: Is Attachment 5 embedded in another attachment or is it missing for the solicitation documents? Will the Government please provide this attachment if still necessary?

a. Gov Response: Please look at all the attachments again. “ProPricer Working Excel Model Extract” has been located on the posting since it was originally posted.

5. Reference: Section_L.pdf Pg. 32-34 Attachment 5 Total Evaluation Price Matrix & Section_M.pdf Para. 2.4.4: M.2.4.4 states TEP will be evaluated based on attachment 5 of Section L with the exception of cost reimbursable CLINS.

Question: Can the Government please identify in Section L Attachment 5 which CLINS are Cost Reimbursable? Will the Government also clarify in Section L Attachment 5 what other contract types will be used for all other CLINS?

a. Gov Response: Please review the Model contract for all CLIN types. They are all listed for each Year.

6. Reference: Section_L.pdf 5.3 Relevant Contracts: Paragraph states “Past Performance

Information for 3 recent contracts (within the past 5 years) that you consider most relevant…” Question 1: Is it the Government’s requirement to submit exactly 3 past performance citations? May more or less be submitted? If so, will submitting more or less affect the overall confidence rating?

a. Gov Response Q1 - The Government expects no more than 3 relevant contracts for each team. Submissions beyond 3 per team will not be reviewed. Having no submissions will most likely result in a neutral confidence assessment unless negative performance is discovered through other sources. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis for submissions with 3 or less. The Government will use the information that is provided, but also reserve the right to look at CPARs as well.

Question 2: Will the Government consider including a 1-year minimum performance requirement for any contracts provided as past performance citations? This minimum performance requirement should be necessary to avoid having contractors claim “significant past performance experience” on contracts that were either recently awarded (i.e. no actual performance to date) or have insignificant periods of actual performance from the date of this solicitation.

b. Gov Response Q2 – The Gov believes that it will be able to accurately analyze past performance based on the given criteria.

7. Reference Section_L.pdf Para. 5.3 states relevant contracts are those performed (within the past

5 years). Section_M.pdf Para. 2.3.2.1 states recency requirement is three (3) years. These requirements conflict. Recommend the Government maintain three (3) year recency requirement with minimum 1 year of performance for on-going contracts.

a. Gov Response – Answered above.

8. The PWS released with the RFP titled “MQ-9 UAS Aircrew and Support Services is dated 6 June 2019. In the document “Model Contract FA8620-20-C-2001” there is also a PWS dated 2 April 2019.

Which PWS is the correct one to bid to?

a. Gov Response – Solicitation was updated on 1 July 2019 to make sure all PWS documents contained the PWS dated 6 June 2019.

9. Page 114 of the Model Contract states, “The offeror shall provide documentation that the

Cognizant Federal Agency has determined that the proposed earned value management system (EVMS) complies with the EVMS guidelines in Electronic Industries Alliance Standard 748 (EIA-

748) (current version at time of solicitation).” Page 116 of the Model Contract indicates an EVMS is not required “If the offeror submits a proposal in the amount of $100,000,000 or more” If an offeror submits a proposal for less than $100,000,000 is EVMS documentation required?

a. Gov Response – The clause on Page 116 has now been removed so it does not conflict with the clause on 114. Update was made to the model contract on 1 July 2019.