USG Responses to Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8629-25-R-B007
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) file for the USAF Rapid Development Integration Facility (RDIF) Supplies, Services, and Deliverables Request For Proposal (RFP). The solicitation is a competitive 8(a) set-aside for a five-year base IDIQ contract with five one-year option periods, valued at a $99M ceiling. The contract will be awarded to an 8(a) contractor, with evaluation based on a tradeoff between past performance and price. The live task order involves fabricating a B-52 VLF (Very Low Frequency) Kit, specifically one kit with Boeing-specified components and electrical cables.
Key details include a proposal due date of October 14, 2025, with an anticipated contract start date of approximately June 26, 2025. The contract requires on-site workforce within 50 miles of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, with specific labor categories including sheet metal workers, machinists, and electricians. Contractors must submit past performance information, including questionnaires and references, with a Unique Entity ID (UEI) instead of DUNS numbers. Subcontractor labor will be priced under CLIN 0002, and material markup rates will be proposed competitively. The government will act as the certification authority for all projects and will provide necessary equipment and specifications.
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. | |||||
| 21 | TO Drawings | As source has not be located for the below materials, and it seems these cables are Boeing P/Ns, but there is not a drawing to confirm. Will the USG either provide a drawing or an identified source for us to purchase the following part numbers? 1. | D3-7619-5/701 (CABLE, ELECTRICAL) Qty.: 29 IN. | |||||
| 2. | D3-7619-5/714 (CABLE, ELECTRICAL) Qty.: 260 IN. | |||||||
| 3. | D3-7619-5/940 (CABLE, ELECTRICAL) Qty.: 44 IN. | |||||||
| 4. | D3-7619-5/1208 (CABLE, ELECTRICAL) Qty.: 231 IN. | |||||||
| 5. | D3-7619-5/659 (CABLE, ELECTRICAL) Qty.: 332 IN. | |||||||
| 6. | D3-7619-5/699 (CABLE, ELECTRICAL) Qty.: 375 IN. | These cables will be provided per the live Task Order PWS. | ||||||
| 22 | Section L | 4.2 | IAW the previous Q&A #20: Will the USG please update the Organization and Page Limit Table in Section L-4.2 to clarify that Subfactor 1 - Live Task Order is a total of 20 pages with 10 pages total for 6.1.1 Performance Plan, 6.1.2 Labor Categories/Hours, and 6.1.5 Required Subcontractors then 10 pages total for 6.1.4 Bill of Materials, but 6.1.3 Labor Force Qualifications / Experience (Resumes) has no limit / is not counted? | The page limits for each of these categories is 10 pages, each. The 10 page limit applies to each category individually. As stated in paragraph 6.1.3, the page limit does not apply to resumes. | ||||
| 23 | General | In light of working through ongoing Q&A, would the USG consider a due date extension to 17 October 2025? | The USG will not be extending the RFP Due Date. The information was made available both the Draft and actual RFP stages. The 14 October 25 date is criical to USG schedule. | |||||
| 24 | Proposal Due Date | Would the Government please consider granting a minimum two-week extension to the proposal due date? Due to the complexity of the solicitation requirements and the extensive coordination required among our team and subcontractors, additional time would enable us to deliver a more comprehensive, compliant, and well-structured proposal that fully aligns with the Government’s objectives. | see question 23 above. | |||||
| 25 | Section L | ¶3.3 Electronic Proposal Submission | Could the Government please clarify the required form of the final proposal submission? Section L, paragraph 4.2, indicates that a hard copy is required, and we would like to confirm whether this is correct or if electronic submission will be acceptable. | Table updated. Electronic Copy is all that is required. | ||||
| 26 | Attachment 1 - PWS | §5.4.3 | For reverse engineering tasks (PWS 5.4.3), will the Government provide complete technical data packages (TDPs), or should contractors assume limited data availability requiring disassembly-based reverse engineering? | This is only future potential work. In the event of this being required, reverse engineering will be accomplished by the USG engineers, and the subsequent TDP will be provided to the contractor. | ||||
| 27 | Attachment 1 - PWS | For FAA certification support (PWS 5.4.5), does the contractor need to hold existing FAA DER/ODA authority, or will the Government act as the certification authority? | The USG will act as certification authority for all projects at the RDIF. | |||||
| 28 | Attachment 1 - PWS | §8 Travel | Travel is listed as Firm Fixed Price at the TO level. Can the Government confirm if Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) rates are mandatory, or if contractor travel policies below JTR rates are acceptable? | Yes , proposed travel below JTR Rates is acceptable. | ||||
| 29 | Attachment 8 - B-52 VLF Kit PWS | Addendums a/b | The B-52 VLF Kit PWS references Boeing specs. Will Boeing-proprietary parts/specifications be Government-furnished, or must the contractor procure directly through Boeing? | As stated in the Live Task Order PWS: Boeing specs have alreaded been crosss-referenced to milspecs; and any Boeing parts will be supplied by the RDIF. | ||||
| 30 | Attachment 1 - PWS | §5.4.12 Program Management / Labor Categories | Will the Government permit blended labor categories (e.g., Engineer/Scientist also performing QA Tech duties) when justified by scope and TO requirements? | If it necessary and required at the Task Order Level. However, tasks should be comensurate with the labor category and proposed pay level. | ||||
| 31 | Section M | Factor 2 - Past Performance | Can offeror affiliates or JV partners submit past performance under their corporate name if the work was performed outside the JV structure? | Yes, if it is the only way to receive past performance on a JV partner. | ||||
| 32 | Section L | ¶7.1 Past Performance Info Tool (SAM Att. 9/10) | Will the Government accept CPARS reports in lieu of completed questionnaires if contracting offices decline to fill out Attachment 10? | Questionnaires must be submitted, please work to get these accomplished. | ||||
| 33 | Attachment 1 - PWS | §12 Security | Must subcontractors hold the same level of FCL as the prime, or will sponsorship under the prime’s clearance suffice? | They will need to have an FCL to preform classified work at the facility. If the Sub is not performing classified work / a lower level of work then they will just need the proper FCL level to support their classified work. | ||||
| 34 | Section M | ¶3.3.4 Workforce Plan | Section M requires a plan to maintain a qualified workforce within 50 miles of WPAFB. Will the Government accept a hybrid model (local core staff + remote surge staff) for meeting this requirement? | No. qualified workforce needs to be onsite at the RDIF facility. | ||||
| 35 | Attachment 8 - B-52 VLF Kit PWS | Addendums a/b | Can the Government confirm whether substitutions for specified materials/components in the B-52 VLF Kit (Attachment 8) are permitted if industry standards have changed or certain parts are no longer available? | MILSPEC standards, not industry, must be met. Currently all materials/compnents in theB-52 VLF Kit drawings are available or can be fabricated from available materials. | ||||
| 36 | Section L | ¶2.8 Export-Controlled Data | Will the Government provide all ITAR-restricted drawings in full detail to offerors that complete the DD Form 2345 process, and can additional lead time be granted if JCO certification is delayed? | 2345s are required for any company receiving the drawings, including JV partners. NO extensions will be granted. | ||||
| 37 | SF 1449 | Attachment 6 Equipment List | For Government Furnished Equipment (Attachment 6), can offerors rely on full availability and operability of all listed equipment, or should contingencies be priced for downtime/maintenance? | All necessary equipment will be available at the RDIF. | ||||
| 38 | Attachment 8 - B-52 VLF Kit PWS | §1.0 Description / §3.0 Scope | Can the Government clarify whether the contractor is expected to fabricate only one kit for the live task order, or should the pricing approach anticipate potential quantity changes? | The live Task Order is for one (1) kit as stated. If the need for future kits arise, they would be a separate Task Order. | ||||
| 39 | Attachment 4 - Labor Categories | Qualifications | For labor categories defined in Attachment 4, can education/experience equivalencies (e.g., military or OEM training in lieu of degree) be proposed, and will they be deemed acceptable? | If a degree is a requirement, it is firm. Other experience requirements cannot generally be deemed acceptable. Experience determinations would need more detail to be made and can be done on a case by case basis by the Source Selection Team. | ||||
| 40 | Attachment 1 - PWS | §5.4.12 / Labor Categories | Are all labor categories in the PWS (Attachment 1, §5.4.12) subject to the Service Contract Act (Wage Determination 2015-4731) or only those that clearly align to SCA categories? | See question 19 above. | ||||
| 41 | Attachment 1 - PWS | §5.4.12 / Labor Categories | Will the Government confirm whether “Professional Services” categories (Attachment 4) are considered exempt (non-SCA) labor? | See question 19 above. | ||||
| 42 | Can the Government clarify whether past performance from a corporate affiliate (parent, subsidiary, JV member) will be considered relevant if submitted via the PPI Tool? | Please see Section L, Paragraph 7.2. | ||||||
| 43 | Section M | ¶4.2 Recency | For recency, does the Government measure the five-year look-back from the RFP issue date or proposal due date? | RFP date. | ||||
| 44 | Section M | ¶4.1-4.2 Relevancy | Will commercial contracts (non-DoD) be considered for relevancy if they demonstrate similar prototyping and integration capabilities? | Please see Section L, Paragraph 7.4, subparagraph 7.4.2. | ||||
| 45 | SF 1449 | CLIN 0001 / Attachment 3 Price Matrix | The SF 1449 requires binding labor rates across the IDIQ (Attachment 3). Will escalation (e.g., annual COLA, market-based) be allowed beyond FAR 52.222-43 SCLS adjustments? | Labor Rates will be bid for the entire Period of Performance for the IDIQ contract. Please see ATTACHMENT 3 - RDIF PRICE MATRIX and Section L, Paragraph 8.1. | ||||
| 46 | SF 1449 | CLIN 0002 Materials | Can the Government confirm whether subcontractor labor should be priced as “Materials” under CLIN 0002, consistent with Attachment 3 instructions? | Yes. Subcontractor vendors are under CLIN 0002. | ||||
| 47 | SF 1449 | CLIN 0002 Materials | Is there a ceiling or cap on material markup rates, or are they fully competitive? | Material Markup rates will be proposed by each individual, potentital awardee; see Section L Paragraph 8.1. | ||||
| 48 | Will the contractor be responsible for providing an FAA certification capability in-house, or will Government furnish that support? | see question 27 above. | ||||||
| 49 | Section L | ¶7.1 Past Performance Info Tool (SAM Att. 9/10) | Can the Government clarify how performance against the QASP will be weighted in CPARS (e.g., is timeliness equal to quality, or is quality prioritized)? | QASP is independent of CPARS. Evaluations for CPARS will be completed independent of QASP, but QASP requirements may be used to develop CPARS inputs. | ||||
| 50 | Section M | Evaluation Process | Does the Government intend to hold quarterly or annual MFT reviews, and will contractor participation be mandatory? | Annual reviews will be done via CPARS. | ||||
| 51 | Section M | ¶3.2.1 Live Task Order | Will the live task order (minimum guarantee) be awarded at contract award, or after transition? | The live Task Order will be awarded shortly after the IDIQ. | ||||
| 52 | SF 1449 | Block 26 | Can the Government confirm whether the contract ceiling of $99M (SF 1449 Block 26) is a hard ceiling across all task orders? | Yes. This is the ceiling for all task orders that will be awarded under this IDIQ. | ||||
| 53 | FAR Clause | 52.219-14 | Under the Limitations on Subcontracting clause, how will compliance be measured—by base IDIQ totals, or at the individual task order level? | IDIQ Level. | ||||
| 54 | SECTION_L.pdf | 10 | 6.1.4 | In April 2022, SAM.gov phased out DUNS numbers and replaced them with the new Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) system. Would the government please confirm that offerers can submit a SAM Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) in lieu of DUNS numbers for all material suppliers in the Bill of Materials list? | Yes, as previously answered offerers can submit the SAM UEI in lieu of DUNS numbers. | |||
| 55 | ATTACHMENT_3_-_RDIF_PRICE_MATRIX.xlsx | - | - | Will the Government confirm the formula for the Material TEP Contribution in cells N34 through N44 is only supposed to reflect the price of the Material Markup and not the total of the Estimated Materials Purchased combined with the applicable price of the Material Markup? | That is correct. The Material TEP Contribution cells in N34 through N44 is only supposed to reflect the price of the Material Markup after the offeror inputs their markup percentage. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .