Industry Day Questions and Answers v1.docx

Industry Day Questions and Answers

NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS PUT FORTH BY INDUSTRY SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS DIRECTION BY THE U. S. AIR FORCE, NOR SHALL ANY ANSWER PRESENTED CREATE ANY OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE TO EITHER ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL OR AWARD A CONTRACT. IN ADDITION, THE U. S. AIR FORCE WILL NOT REIMBURSE ANY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESSING THESE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. NOTE: ANSWERS PRESENTED AT THIS TIME ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

1. What are the delivery requirements for the proposal?

See Section L, item 2.1 through item 2.2.7.

Submission of the initial proposal packages via electronic means will not be accepted. Initial proposal packages shall either be mailed or hand-delivered to the following address: AFTC/PZZC, Attn:

Julie Maxwell/Craig Keelen, 5 South Wolfe Avenue, Bldg 2800, Edwards AFB, CA 93524-1185.

In total, the offeror should submit one CD/DVD-R and four 3-Ring Binders.

2. Will graphics and tables be counted in the page limitations?

See Section L, item 2.2.3.

The page limitations include any cover page, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any table of contents or list of acronyms (if utilized). Offeror’s are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation.

3. When it comes submitting Past Performance, can we submit ID/IQ contracts?

See section L, item 5.3 Ordering Type Contracts Submission.

If the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), only after issuance of a delivery/task order does performance occur. Given this, only individual orders under the basic ordering contract shall be submitted, in lieu of the basic ordering contract itself. All information provided to the Government, for an ordering type contractual vehicle shall be at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order) with the basic ordering contract number clearly stated in addition to the delivery/task order number. Note that a series of orders will not be accepted for evaluation.

4. Are you going to look at all five (5) contracts for past performance based on relevancy factors as a whole or will they be evaluated individually?

See Section M, item 2.3.6.2. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent five (5) submitted contracts.

5. When evaluating the technical portion, will you be checking off the criteria from the ID/IQ SOW?

See Section M, item 2.2.1.

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated based on three sub-factors to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the EWIC Statement of Work (SOW), and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks.

6. What do you mean by the magnitude and Dollar Value when it comes to relevancy?

A contract/TO with a value of at least $1M with performance of at least 12 months is considered a very relevant submission

7. If we have work that is classified, is there a way to submit classified material if it is approved on our end?

No. There is no means of receiving the classified material.

8. For the purpose of this effort, will there be requirements that require contractor access to the BAF?

Possibly, however, the majority of the work will be conducted at Contractor Facility unless otherwise stated in the task order. In those cases BAF access will be granted.

9. Given the current submission date, if the final proposal revisions and clarifications are issued February 21st, offerors will only have three weeks to incorporate what may be substantial revisions into their responses. For the sake of providing quality responses that are organized, concise, and easy for the source selection team to evaluate, we would request a modest extension of two weeks.

Proposal due date has been extended to 6 April

10. Based on discussions at industry day, the pricing workbook will be updated to include government-provided estimated hours and remove the "employee name" column. Please confirm that this is correct.

That is correct.

11. Based on discussions at industry day, the government will provide labor category definitions for the categories listed in Attachment 06 to ensure that offerors provide pricing for comparable skill levels. Please confirm this is correct.

That is correct and are uploaded now.

12. Based on discussions at industry day, the government intends to assign an integrated past performance confidence rating based on whether or not the offeror has demonstrated relevancy across each of the assessment areas, rather than if each past performance, on its own, demonstrates relevancy across each area. I.e., an offeror presenting 5 past performance citations that achieve "very relevant" ratings across each assessment area AND have favorable performance quality ratings will receive a Substantial Confidence rating; but an offeror who provides 5 past performance citations that collectively achieve "very relevant" across each assessment area AND have favorable performance quality ratings will also receive a Substantial Confidence rating. Please confirm this is correct.

Correct.

13. M.2.3.1 states "a combination of short-term contracts, short-term task orders, and/or short-term job orders performed consecutively and/or concurrently to meet the minimum performance length of six months will not be considered." This conflicts with the relevancy definitions given for Magnitude ("performed on contracts/task orders/job orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of at least $X within 12 months") and Contract Type (which includes IDIQ). If the intent is to gauge relevant performance from both a technical aspect and an ability to manage large and complex programs, we recommend the government revise M.2.3.1 to explicitly allow the use of relevant IDIQ contracts. The current limitation and criteria essentially limits past performance capable of receiving "relevant" ratings to the incumbent contract (excluding those which would pose OCIs), which is not reflective of the true competitive landscape given the nature of the work.

Thank you for informing the government of the contradiction in our section M. We will accomplish an amendment correcting this. The government still does not wish to accept ID/IQ contracts. Submission of a task order while identifying the basic ordering agreement will allow the government to determine if work occurred on an ID/IQ. We will be able to determine contract type from the submission of task orders since there is the requirement to identify the overarching basic contract.

See section L, item 5.3 Ordering Type Contracts Submission.

If the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), only after issuance of a delivery/task order does performance occur. Given this, only individual orders under the basic ordering contract shall be submitted, in lieu of the basic ordering contract itself. All information provided to the Government, for an ordering type contractual vehicle shall be at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order) with the basic ordering contract number clearly stated in addition to the delivery/task order number. Note that a series of orders will not be accepted for evaluation.

14. While it was noted that critical subcontractors will be required to provide their hourly rates, how do Subcontractor rates and Prime contractor rates be reviewed and awarded in the ID/IQ? Will only Prime Contractor rates be included as Exhibit B?

No. All rates for the Prime and critical subcontractor would be included in Exhibit B because all prime and CRITICAL subcontractors will bid task orders under CLIN 0001. CLIN 0002 is used only for subcontractors used for one off task orders.

15. Attachment 3, Statement of Objectives, Page 5, section 3.1 Purpose: Since the potential awardee will be working as an overseer and integrator of the ADTRA and NEWEG Systems, why is the solicitation missing a special clause concerning Organizational Conflict of Interest? There is a possibility that the interested parties for this ID/IQ also provide the ADTRA and NEWEG Systems, or may be direct competitors with the possibility of the developers not willing to share proprietary information.

The OCI Clause will be added to the solicitation. Any conflicts regarding data sharing will have to be handled at that time.

16. Section L, page 1 Part 1.1, General, it is stated that the proposal submission is due by 16 March 202 but briefing charts state 20 March for proposal delivery. Please clarify discrepancy.

This was an error. All proposals are now due 06 Apr 20 so there is no need to correct this error.

17. Section L, page 1, Part 2.11: Please clarify the page limits. During industry day, it was stated that the technical volume may be reduced to 50 pages. The current solicitation states 75. Can the printed versions of the proposal be two sided?

The page limit of 75 stated in the solicitation is the correct number.

18. Under Section L, page 2, Section 2. Volume organization, part 2.1, four volumes are called out. However, the Volumes are labeled I, II, III, and V. Do you want the proposers to label the Cost/Price Volume as IV or V? We are assuming it should be labeled as IV as specified in 2.2.1.

It should be labeled IV and will be corrected in the next amendment.

19. In Section L, page 2, 2.2.1, the statement is made that “The sealed package used to submit the proposal package must show the time and date specified for receipt.” How does this get accomplished if offeror is hand delivering the package? Does the office accept, and stamp with a date and time received? For delivery of the proposals – is there a desk at Building 2800 to which we can deliver the proposal and get a receipt?

There is a front desk at building 2800 and they accept and stamps with a date and time.

20. Section L, page 3, Volume I, Technical Proposal, part 3.2.3 –this section calls for “the prospective share ratio to verify the Prime Offeror’s compliance with FAR Subpart 9.6, Contractor Team Arrangements.” With future tasking unknown at this time, a set prospective ration cannot be determined. Please advise.

This determination should be done by identifying which team member will accomplish each scope item as identified in the PWS. For example Team 1 will specialize in PWS para 2.3, 2.5. 2.8 etc. Team 2 will specialize in PWS 2.2, 2.4 etc.

21. Section L, page 4, Volume III Past Performance, part 5.1 calls out “The offeror shall submit present and past performance information for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor IAW the PPI Tool format detailed in the following paragraphs” Does that mean that the Offeror/Prime submits all of the Past Performance information; five for the offeror and three for the critical subcontractor in one PPI tool (file)? Or should the subcontractor submit their own PPI tool (file) with their separate cost submission?

Contractors are no longer required to submit through the PPI tool so they may submit their past performance on the required CD.

22. Section L, page 5, Section 5.3: Per this section, the bidder is allowed to submit individual orders as past performance. During the bidder’s brief, it was discussed that the ID/IQs could be included as a whole. Which statement is accurate? Those that are using ID/IQs as past performance usually only have one CPAR for the entire contract, not on a task order basis. If we are allowed to enter Task Order individually, is that acceptable?

As stated previously in this Q&A and section L of the RFP basic ID/IQs are not to be submitted only task/delivery orders associated with the ID/IQ. The government requested that the basic ID/IQ associated with the task/delivery order be identified. This will allow the government to review the appropriate CPAR.

23. Section L page 13, Part 6.2.10.4 and Attachment 9, L-06: The model requires indirect rates be supplied for FY20 through FY27. If an offeror has an Accounting Fiscal Year that is different than the GFY, then it is not feasible to create a proposed indirect rate schedule by GFY. Are offerors able to propose these future rates by their own accounting period? If not, please provide guidance.

It is acceptable to propose future rates by their own fiscal period.

24. Section M: Is there a credit in evaluation for small businesses?

There is no credit in evaluations for small businesses. All contractors will be evaluated in accordance with section M.

25. Based on the reading of the Statement of Objectives, and noting that the offeror will be integrating and overseeing the ADTRA and NEWEG systems, how will the materials from any subcontractors be transferred from their current government contracts to this new procurement?

Materials gathered from any contractors currently on contract will be delivered/transferred to the government and then assigned to the EWIC contractor if necessary.