ADS QA Master Log 27 Jan 22.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HTC711-22-R-C004
About this file
This document contains a question and answer log regarding a solicitation for aerial delivery services. The solicitation seeks proposals to provide aerial delivery services at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, Joint Base Charleston in South Carolina, and Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington. The period of performance is from October 2022 through September 2027, including four option years. Responses are due no later than February 18, 2022 at 2:00 PM CST. The incumbent contractor operates under a collective bargaining agreement between the employees' union and the base at Joint Base Charleston. Questions addressed include the evaluation criteria for technical acceptability, price realism, past performance references, training requirements, and subcontracting obligations.
View the file
Other files
Show all 29
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 # | Par. Ref | Quick Reference | Question | Date | Government Answer | Column1 |
| 1 | All | RFP M-1 Basis for Award (b) (1) | How will the Government determine technical acceptability and price realism in terms of essential parts, supplies, vehicles, and other support equipment? Our concern is that without a plug number specified, a low-cost bid could be successful in the award but unable to execute. | Per M-1 Basis for Award, (b)(1) the Government will then evaluate the Total Proposed Price to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) by the following: (i) Completeness: All information required by the solicitation has been submitted and (ii) Fair and Reasonable: The Government will conduct a price analysis to determine whether the proposed prices are fair and reasonable using one or more techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). Technical will be evaluated IAW the Solicitation. | ||
| 2 | M-1 Basis For Award | Pages 46 & 51, paragraphs (a) and (b)(4)(B) | Page 46 of the solicitation states that this is a “best value source selection”. However, page 51, paragraph (B) states "If the lowest priced, business and technically acceptable evaluated offer is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance assessment, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point". This language appears to make this a low price, technically acceptable source selection. Will the Government provide further clarification on the type of procurement, and Section M, evaluation approach? | In accordance with the solicitation, M-1 Basis for Award, the Government will conduct a Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection in which competing offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations. | ||
| 3 | Section L Proposal Format | Page 40 | Clear guidance is provided on proposal format, but does not indicate if Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV should all be in a single document or separate files for submission. Will the Government provide additional guidance on proposal formatting for electronic submission? | In accordance with Section L – Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, Addendum To 52.215-1, Offers shall be submitted via Department of Defense (DoD) Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) https://safe.apps.mil/. |
In accordance with L-4 Proposal Instructions (a) (1), states the proposal shall consist of four (4) separate parts: Part I – Business Proposal, Part II – Price Proposal, Part III – Past Performance Information Proposal, and Part IV – Technical Proposal. The proposal parts may be in a single file or in four separate files so long as it is clear where the beginning and end of each part begin and end, and the proposal otherwise complies with the solicitation submission instructions.
| 4 | Section L-4 Proposal Instructions (b)(3)(b) | Page 43 | It was noted that the past performance parameters remained the same at 3 years (as previously outlined). Considering the previous ADS contract was 5 years in duration, will you reconsider expanding the past performance to 5 years? | No. In accordance with FAR 42.1503(g), Agencies shall use the past performance information in CPARS that is within three years (six for construction and architect-engineer contracts) of the completion of performance of the evaluated contract or order, and information contained in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), e.g., terminations for default or cause. As this is a servcie contract and not for construction or architect-engineering, the solicitation shall remain as written. The Offeror shall submit past performance references for no more than three of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customores within the last three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. However, the Government is not limited to only three past performance submissions submitted by the offeror; the Government may consider any past performance information of which it has knowledge. The Government has adjusted the scope, magnitude, and complexity to better evaluate an Offeror's Past Performance whether or not there is any specific Aerial Delivery Services past performance, for three recent efforts, for the past three years from the date of solicitation. |
| 5 | RFP/PWS | Regarding the relevant scope items for past performance, will the new expanded relevant items be rated Equally relevant to the traditional air terminal ground handling services scope items; in comparison to the deemed most relevant scope items in the PWS (i.e., Rig and Prepare Aerial Delivery Platforms, Combat Offloads, Inspect, Clean, Store, Repair Parachutes/Extraction Line Panels, Drop Zone Recovery and Participation in Airdrop Malfunction Investigations)? | In accordance with the Solicitation Past Performance evaluation criteria, Scope is defined as providing services requiring logistics coordination, scheduling, compliance with provided instructions, manuals, and regulations, and materials inventory management.. | |
| 6 | PWS | PWS 3.4.2.1 | PWS 3.4.2.1 states the government will make available a Parachute Rigger Course. The Technical Order for rigging of parachutes requires the specific course attendance at the school in Fort Lee? Can you clarify that the PWS will supercede the Technical Order? | PWS Parachute Riggers Certificatio/Course requirements do not reference a Technical Order, and remain the valid Riggers Certification Training requirement, unless amended or modified by the Government. |
| 7 | PWS | 4.3 | PWS 4.3 Training states the contractor is responsible for all training costs. PWS 3.4.2.1 states the government will make available a Parachute Rigger Course, this is a government unique training only available from the government, as such the actual cost of the course should be free to the contractor, as the government should not be looking to profit on sole source training unique to the government. We can understand all associated costs such as travel etc… being a contractor responsibility but the actual course should be at no charge since it is a mandatory government requirement for the function, and is only available from the government. | There are no Parchute Riggers Course tuition/attendance costs. |
| 8 | It is our understanding the U.S. Army Quartermaster School for Parachute Rigger Course will not allow contractors to attend? The Air Force provided funded instructors for this course to the Army, the Air Force should have some say in its training needs here but in any case will the government ensure access to a Technical Order approved Parachute Rigger Course for the life of the contract? | The Government will make available a Parachute Riggers Course provided at a location within the Continental United States or through a Mobile Training Team for those contractor personnel not certified for the life of the contract. | ||
| 9 | Small Business | Is it the governments intent to force a Small Business entity such as a SDVOSB to subcontract work to competitor Small Businesses? And if so under what FAR reference does such action exist? | When there is a requirement for Other Than Small Business concerns (Large Business concerns) to submit a Subcontracting Plan (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan) and offers will be evaluated using other than the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process, then small business utilization will be evaluated by all offerors. In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i)(B) Proposals addressing the extent of small business performance shall be separate from subcontracting plans submitted pursuant to the clause at FAR 52.219-9 and shall be structured to allow for consideration of offers from small businesses. | |
| 10 | Small Business | Why would Small Business concern subcontract work out to a non-qualified small business concern? And, why would the government seek such action? It makes sense for a large business to have a subcontracting plan IAW the FAR, in order to meet small business set aside goals of the government and Congressionally mandated but it lacks merit for one small business to be forced to subcontract to another small business and create a competitor. | It is not an uncommon practice for small business concerns to subcontract with other small business concerns. Like Other Than Small Business concerns (Large Business concerns), Small Business concerns have an obligation to provide maximum opportunities to qualified small business concerns through subcontracting. In Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 2, titled Definitions it states the following: Small Business Teaming Arrangement - (1) Means an arrangement where-(i) Two or more small business concerns have formed a joint venture; or (ii) A small business offeror agrees with one or more other small business concerns to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract. A Small Business Teaming Arrangement between the offeror and its small business subcontractor(s) exists through a written agreement between the parties that- (A) Is specifically referred to as a "Small Business Teaming Arrangement"; and (B) Sets forth the different responsibilities, roles, and percentages (or other allocations) of work as it relates to the acquisition; Small Business concerns are not to submit a subcontracting plan. However, a Small Business Participation Commitment Document to evaluate small business utilization shall be submitted with the proposal package from all offerors. | |
| 11 | Can you confirm any and all Union agreements for existing incumbent workforces which apply to this solicitation? | There is a Collective Bargaining Agreement between incumbent and union: Aerial Delivery Flight Services employees of Joint Base Charleston Local, effective 30 Sep 18 through 29 Sep 23. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .