Response_to_RFP_Comment.pdf

Response to Industry’s Comment Final Request for Proposal (RFP)

Solicitation No. FA9101-13-R-0100, Test Operations and Sustainment

Question

RFP Reference

Attachment 9, Section L

In the original release of the Final RFP, Section L defined a major subcontractor as a subcontractor that will perform 10 percent or more of contract scope based on labor hours or total cost. This definition applied to both the Past Performance Volume (L-5.3.1) and the Cost Volume (L-6.4.7). In Amendment 0001, the Government expanded this definition to include any subcontractor the maintains a full-time presence at AEDC or its GSUs. We understand the rationale for changing this definition for Cost Proposal (L-6.4.7) as it more broadly captures subcontractor costs for the purpose of calculating total cost. For the Past Performance Volume, however, this expanded definition will require offerors to gather/develop past performance information for additional subcontractors. Given the early due date for Past Performance, this represents an unanticipated requirement that has significant impact on proposal development for both primes and subcontractors. In a worst case scenario, it could result in removal of subcontractors from teams to avoid submission of the additional past performance information. Even in the best case situation where teams are able to develop the required information in the two weeks remaining before Past Performance Volume submission, this could result in a substantial increase in the number of contracts the Government will be required to evaluate.

Will the Government consider reverting to the original Final RFP requirement for subcontractor past performance? To avoid confusion around the term “major subcontractor” in the RFP, Section L.5.3.1 could be changed to read: “This information is required for the Offeror and all subcontractors who are to perform 10 percent or more of contract scope based on labor hours or total costs. Offerors are cautioned …” Section L-

6.4.7 could then remain as released in Amendment 0001.

After careful consideration, the Government will continue to use the same definition for a major subcontractor in the Cost and Past Performance Volumes. From a past performance perspective, please note that you are to provide no more than three past performance references for each subcontractor. Potential offerors are not required to submit past performance information for team members that do not meet the relevancy criteria set forth in Section M-2.3.2.2.