USG Responses to Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8629-25-R-B007
About this file
The file is a Q&A document (USG Responses to Questions.xlsx) for a competitive 8(a) set-aside solicitation (FA8629-25-R-B007) for the Air Force Rapid Development Integration Facility (RDIF). The procurement is for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with a five-year base period and five one-year option periods, anticipated to start around June 26, 2024. The government will evaluate proposals using a tradeoff between past performance and price, with technical acceptability as a prerequisite.
Key details from the Q&A include clarifications about the Live Task Order (a B-52 VLF Kit project), past performance submission requirements, and administrative updates to forms and attachments. The solicitation requires offerors to submit detailed technical proposals, including workforce resumes and a Bill of Materials, with specific page limitations. The contract will involve multiple labor categories including sheet metal, machinist, and electrician roles, with the government emphasizing workforce capability and continuity. The incumbent will have a one-year overlap to facilitate transition, and the procurement is specifically targeted at 8(a) program-eligible firms.
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question Log (Answers will be posted for all to see) | ||||||||
| Question # | From | Date | Document | Page | Paragraph Ref. | Question/Comment | Answer | |
| 1 | Section L | PDF pg. 8 | Section 4.2 | To clearly demonstrate the scope and relevancy of our past performance, will the Government permit inclusion of supporting PWS/SOW documents with our past performance submittals? If so, we respectfully request that these attachments not count against the 25-page limit and be submitted as an addendum. | Yes they can be submitted as addendums, and they will be consulted if more info is needed beyond the past performance tool. | |||
| 2 | Section L & M | Section L 6.1, 8.2, 8.4 | ||||||
| Section M 3.2, 5.14, (TEP & Live Task Order Price) | Proprietary question related to potential Organizational Conflict of Iinterest |
In reviewing the Live Task Order TDP, it appears that the incumbent contractor was awarded a task order September 2024 for delivery of the B-52 PLLF1-11002-5 VLF Kit. The incumbent’s solution was developed under the current RDIF contract and funded by the Government. Over the past year, the incumbent has had the advantage of producing this solution, sourcing suppliers, establishing manufacturing processes, performing kitting, and delivering products.
As a result, the incumbent benefits from established production lines and economies of scale that were created and stabilized during performance of the current contract. These advantages lower the incumbent’s unit costs in the Live Task Order proposal, reduce non-recurring engineering (NRE) costs (spread across one versus 27 units), and improve economic order quantities and vendor quotes. The incumbent can also propose compressed delivery schedules based on proven execution. These execution-derived benefits create the appearance of a stronger best-value solution compared to new entrants, who must develop their solutions incrementally and rely on limited-quantity quotes for materials and services.
In contrast, new entrants must absorb the costs of bid and proposal (B&P) activities as well as additional burdens from NRE and First Article Inspection (FAI)—costs that the Government has already funded for the incumbent under the current contract.
Question 1: We respectfully seek clarification regarding the potential competitive implications of selecting an incumbent solution as a Sample/Live Task Order under a competitive acquisition. FAR 3.101-1 (Standards of Conduct) emphasizes avoiding even the appearance of an unfair competitive advantage, while FAR 9.505 (General Rules of Contractor Organizational Conflicts of Interest) cautions against situations where a contractor may benefit from prior Government-funded work.
Question 2: Could the Government share how it intends to ensure a level playing field in this acquisition, given the incumbent’s Government-funded solution, established production base, potential schedule and price advantages?
Question 3: We respectfully request the USG reconsider the sample task provided in this solicitation. As written, the ST is aligned with the incumbent’s current work and creates an inherent competitive disadvantage inconsistent with FAR Part 19’s requirements to promote maximum practicable competition, as well as SBA’s mandate that the 8(a) program foster fair opportunity across all eligible firms. To ensure a fair acquisition, we recommend substiution of a new Live Task Order that has not been executed by the incumbent team/RDIF or eliminate Live Task Order from the solicitation. 1) It is common for the RDIF to repeat project task orders across multiple platforms, and although the current incumbent is on task to fabricate 27ea B-52 VLF kits. Additionally, the FAI kit is only for the B-52 Program Office to verify the RDIF is able to build to Boeing’s drawing package. The incumbent did not have any role in developing the NRE drawings or TDP package. Further, it was unaware 1ea VLF kit was going to be used as the Live Task Order for RDIF IDIQ4 contract award until RFP release. Incumbent did not have any role in drafting/developing the PWS or any part of the requirement for FA8629-25-R-B007.
2) An offeror having a prior or current contractual relationship with an agency does not, in and of itself, create an unfair competitive advantage. An offeror may possess advantages and capabilities due to its prior experience under a government contract – either as an incumbent contract or otherwise – and the government is not necessarily required to equalize competition to compensate for such an advantage. The Government firmly believes the incumbent is not receiving preferential treatment or an unfair competitive advantage.
3) The RDIF/Government must use a project that is a current requirement with available funding. Currently, this is the only requirement, with available funding, requiring prospective offeror(s) to use multiple labor categories (Sheet metal, Machinist, Electricians) as well as vendor services to demonstrate competence and capability to meet RDIF workforce needs. Therefore, this is representative of the work to be performed on the contract, and Government does not intend to change it.
| 3 | Will the Government provide the anticipated start date(s) for the IDIQ and Task Order? | Approximately 1 Jun 26. | ||||
| 4 | SF_1449_FA8629-25-R-B007.pdf | 17-19 | Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders | We request that the full text of the FAR 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders - Commercial Products and Commercial Services be added. Currently, only Alternate II (DEVIATION 2025-O0003) is included, beginning at paragraph (d), which omits the base text of the clause. | ||
| The base FAR 52.212-5 clause contains essential elements, such as mandatory clauses in paragraph (a), and optional clauses in paragraphs (b) and (c), which require the contracting officer to indicate their applicability. Without the full text, it is unclear which clauses are effective, particularly in paragraph (c), where the Service Contract Act Clauses reside. Additionally, as a wage determination has been included, FAR clauses 52.222-41, 52.222-55, and 52.222-62 need to be checked as effective in paragraph (c). | We understand your concerns, the Govt has no issue adding these full text clauses as requested. They will be added to the final SF1449 signed by both the Govt and awardee. | |||||
| 5 | EXHIBIT_1_CDRL_Package.pdf |
and
SF_1449_FA8629-25-R-B007.pdf Exhibit 1, page 25
SF1449, pages 17-19 Exhibit 1, CDRL A009, Blk 10 and
| SF1449, 52.219-14 | Limitations on subcontracting is required in two places within the solicitation documents – 1) CDRL 004 (with a semi-annual report due); and, 2) 52.219-14 deviation 2021-O0008, which requires reporting “By the end of the performance period for each order issued under the contract.” If the intent is to use the "end of performance period" as the compliance measurement timeframe while still requesting semi-annual reports, would the government explicitly state this in the CDRL? It is important for industry to understand that compliance is only evaluated at the end of the performance period and not at the six-month mark. If not, we request that the reporting frequency in the CDRL be updated to remove the 6-month requirement. | Its as stated. First report due at 6 mo from contract award and subsequent reports due 1 yr afterwords. | |||||
| 6 | SAM_Attachment_10_-_RDIF_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx | 1-6 | Would the government please remove the "DRAFT" watermark from all pages in this document? | Draft Removed. CO will repost as requested. | |||
| 7 | SAM_Attachment_10_-_RDIF_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx | 1-6 | The file header shows "ATTACHMENT 5 - RDIF PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE". Would the government please update this to show "ATTACHMENT 10"? | Updated to Attachment 10 | |||
| 8 | SAM_Attachment_10_-_RDIF_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx | 1-6 | **TIME SENSITIVE** | ||||
| Section E.2 - DUNS numbers are no longer provided to companies seeking to do business with the federal government. Instead, companies must register on SAM.gov to receive a Unique Entity ID (UEI) number. Would the government update this section to require offerors to provide their SAM UEI instead of a DUNS number? If not, would it be permissible for bidders to submit their SAM UEI in lieu of a DUNS number? | Updated to SAM UEI | ||||||
| 9 | PPI Tool | Step #2: Enter Past Performance Information | The PPI Tool requires a DUNS number on the past performance references. Given the DUNS numbers have been replaced by the SAM UEI, would the government please confirm if they would like the offeror to put the UEI in the DUNS field? Or, if the government will be providing a revised/updated PPI Tool? | Use SAM UEI since we cannot update the PPI Tool. | |||
| 10 | SECTION_L.pdf | 12 | 7.7 | The solicitation instructs that all past performance information (volume, PPI tool response, and PPQs) be submitted no later than seven days before the submission deadline. We are concerned that the changes requested in questions 4 through 7 above, would cause a time constraint (especially for PPQs) if the amended files are not received well ahead of the question due date of September 30. We want to ensure that we provide our government points of contact (POCs) with sufficient time to complete and submit the PPQs. Would the government please consider providing the amended PPI tool and PPQ form in their final state prior to the question due date? Alternately, would the government please consider allowing the offerors (and/or government POCs) the ability submit past performance information on the final due date (currently Oct 14)? | This should not be an issue since the form is updated and provided well ahead of the 30 Sep date. | ||
| 11 | Section L | 8, 9 | 4.2, 5.3-5.5 | Reference #1: The proposal organization table in L-4.2 shows Certifications and Representations with reference to 5.3, Model Contract with reference to 5.4, and IDIQ Minimum Guarantee Acknowledgement with reference to 5.5. |
Reference #2: The Final RFP includes Model Contract/Representations and Certifications in 5.3, IDIQ Minimum Guarantee Acknowledgement in 5.4, and SCLS Compliance Acknowledgement in 5.5.
| Question: Can the Government please revise the proposal organization table in L-4.2, to align with the Final RFP Section L numbering, so page limits are clear? | Table updated | |||||
| 12 | Live TO Drawings | Kit LF1-11200-1 has two clamp kits, LF1-11200-2 and LF1-11200-4, that have limited effectivity. The effectivity for LF1-11200-2 is L0301-L0302 and LF1-11200-4 is L0303-L0399. Do we need to price one or both clamp kits? | The -5 top kit uses the L0303-L0399 effectivity so you would only need the LF1-11200-4 clamp kit. | |||
| 13 | SF 1449 Schedule of Supplies/Services | 3 | By not including a transition CLIN, it appears prescriptive and favors the incumbent contractor. Will the USG consider adding a transition CLIN? | No, there is a 1 yr overlap on the incumbent contract for delivery. | ||
| 14 | Section L | |||||
| Section M | If a transition is possible, the awarded contractor should have clearly described their transition plan and milestones to ensure continuity of operations through transition and into regular operations. Will the Government consider adding a transition response requirement and evaluation to the technical proposal? | N/A; see 13 | ||||
| 15 | Section L 6.1.3 | |||||
| Section M 3.2.3 | Offerors should be planning to retain as much of the incumbent workforce as the Government deems beneficial to the program. If it is the Government's intent for this effort to be competitive, it appears to be prescriptive on an SCA contract to require resumes. Will the USG consider removing the resume requirements from the Live Task Order 6.1.3? | No, the resume requirement allows the USG to understand the current capability of the potential awardees workforce. | ||||
| 16 | Section L 6.1.3 | |||||
| Section M 3.2.3 | Will the Government consider removing the requirement for resumes for Live Task Order 6.1.3? The incumbent will have these resumes as the current staff is already on hand, but the successful awardee will be transitioning these personnel to the new contract. | No; see 15 | ||||
| 17 | Attachment 2 | |||||
| Attachment 4 | The LCATS (Level II, III, IV) are not shown explicitly in the Wage Determination. Since this contract is subject to Service Contract Labor Standards, and offerors must be compliant with the Service Contract Act, will the Government provide a crosswalk of LCATS to Wage Determination? | Contractor will propose unlisted labor rates based off of the Conformance Process called out in Attachment 2, page 13. | ||||
| 18 | N/A | Can the Government provide the estimated availability of resources (staff, facility space, and tooling, for example) during transition? | The current incumbent and awardee will share work space and equipment/tooling identified in Attachment 6 - Equipment List. RDIF has adequate work space, and space to expand if necessary. | |||
| 19 | SAM Attachment 8 |
Section L 6.1
| Section M 3.2 | It appears that the incumbent contractor was awarded a Task Order to provide 27 B-52 PLLF-11002-5 VLF Kits under Contract # FA862924FB042. To ensure true competition, would the government consider placing a live task order in the solicitation that hasn't been awarded to the incumbent? | See question 2 above | |||
| 20 | Section L 6.1.4 | Will the Government clarify that the Bill of Materials (BOM) is not included in the 10-page limit for subfactor 1? | No; the limit for the BOM is 10 pages. Quotes for materials listed on the BOM are not included in the BOM page limit. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .