Industry Questions and Government Responses to Draft RFP.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted Jun 1, 2023

Attached to: AVIATION TRAINING ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION PRODUCTS (ATAEP) - DRAFT RFP INDUSTRY QUESTIONS & GOVERNMENT RESPONSES
Solicitation number: ATAEP-0007
Issued by: Department of the Navy Naval Air Systems Command

View the file

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

Question #	Question #	Subject	Reference (i.e. RFP, SOW, Attachment, etc.)	Specific Question	Government Response
3	1	Past Performance Rating	3.3 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

• Past Performance Contract References provided for the prime will provide a greater level of confidence to the Government than references provided on behalf of a proposed principal subcontractor;

• Past Performance Contract References of a Small Business that performed as a first-tier subcontractor or JV team member will be considered similarly as past performance of an entity that performed as a prime contractor.

Bullets 2 and 3 indicate that past performance as prime will be more favorably rated than subcontractor past performance. This appears inconsistent with Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 140 / Friday, July 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations. In the rulings "Summary of and Response to Comments" the SBA made the following response: "SBA does not agree that first-tier subcontractor past performance should be weighted differently than prime contractor past performance. Implementing the statute in this manner would be inconsistent with its intent, which is to help small businesses to have qualifying past performance."

Question: Would the Government consider rating subcontractor past performance the same as the prime's past performance in accordance with the intent of the SBA ruling, and not more favorably rating prime past performance than subcontractor past performance?	The evaluation methodologies outlined in the referenced bullets 2 & 3 are consistent with current SBA regulations. 13 CFR 125.11(c)(4) states “When evaluating the past performance of a small business concern that elected to use a rating for its offer on a prime contract, a contracting officer shall consider the concern's experience and rating of past performance as a first-tier subcontractor.” The regulation does not require that the Government must consider past performance information from the Prime Offeror similarly to that of its proposed 1st tier subcontractor. -In bullet 2, the Government indicates that the past performance of the ATAEP Prime Offeror will provide a greater level of confidence than the past performance of a principal subcontractor proposed by the ATAEP Prime Offeror. -In bullet 3, the Government indicates that past performance references of an ATAEP Offeror that performed as a 1st tier subcontractor or JV member will be considered similarly as past performance of an ATAEP Offeror that performed as a prime.
	4	2	Past Performance	Section L, Part B, 3.3 3. RELEVANCY INFORMATION OF THE PAST PERFORMANCE CONTRACT REFERENCES	Section L, Part B, 3.3.3 a reads, “If the prime or subcontractor performed as a subcontractor on the reference, a copy of the subcontractor agreement between the prime and the subcontractor is required to demonstrate the agreement between the two parties and the division of work."

Question: In the event that an Offeror’s past performance met the definition for “principal subcontractor” (including the requirement to have performed at least 20% of the total contract price), the requirement for agreements between prime and subcontractors may unintentionally exclude otherwise relevant past performance performed in subcontractor-to-subcontractor contract structures.

Can USG confirm that subcontractor-to-subcontractor past performance that otherwise meets the RFP’s principal subcontractor definitions will be deemed as acceptable so long as the principal subcontractor provides appropriate traceability?

The question appears to conflate the ATAEP solicitation’s definition of “principal subcontractor” with the Past Performance relevancy criteria. The Government will evaluate the relevancy and Demonstrated Past Performance of the past performance reference(s) of the ATAEP Offeror’s proposed principal subcontractor. The Government has no requirement nor intent to evaluate the proposed principal subcontractor’s past performance other than that which it gained via performance as a prime or a 1st tier subcontractor.
5	3	Substantiating data	RFP, Section L 1.2 and 3.3(a)	If contractors are using the same contracts to demonstrate Experience and Past Performance, does the government want us to submit copies of our fully executed contract twice? (Experience & Past Performance)	Yes, the Government expects the Offeror to submit copies of the fully executed contract twice (once for Corporate Experience and once for Past Performance). Per Section L.B. Paragraph 1.2 Corporate Reference Substantiation “the Offeror shall highlight, in yellow, the portions of the document that clearly identify that the contract reference meets the criteria in Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.1…The Government may consider non-highlighted portions of the supporting documentation or contracts, but the Government has no duty to search for missing pieces of supporting documentation or to search parts of the supporting documentation that is not highlighted…” Additionally Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3.3 Relevancy Information of the Past Performance Contract References states “the Offeror must highlight (in the supporting documentation it provides) the exact content in those cited paragraphs that it believes is similar to the solicitation requirements.
	4	Corporate Experience	RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.1, Subparagraph 1.	Will the Government consider removing the requirement that all analysis and assessment experience be specifically for the military aviation community and instead require it for any military training activity? This requirement restricts competition and does not reflect that other military communities are required to satisfy the direction and processes of NAVEDTRA 136 series instruction or similar for example the TRADOC 350 series pamphlets which mandate entry and exit criteria for analysis and evaluation of training, regardless of community.	No. The Market Research conducted by the Government indicated there were sufficient industry vendors with military aviation experience in regards to training analysis and training evaluation.
	5	Corporate Experience	RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.1, Subparagraph 2.	In the case of a company that is both an SDVOSB and an 8(a), will the Government allow employee experience to be leveraged as part of corporate experience. This would align with the SBA's regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which states that an 8(a) concern "must demonstrate the technical and managerial expertise and the facilities necessary to perform each contract" (13 CFR §124.501), which allows the qualifications and experience of the firm's key personnel, including employees, to be considered when assessing the company's capabilities.	No. The Government is pursuing a SDVOSB set-aside.
	6	Technical Factor	RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1.1	What aircraft is the GPSMAP 64 Series used in, and what NECs are affected by this training?	The GPSMAP 64 Series is a commercial off the shelf (COTS) manual and is not related to a specific Naval aircraft/NEC. The Government identified a COTS manual to safeguard technical data related to Naval specific aircrafts. The Government is satisfying the aviation specific experience through corporate experience.

Attachment L-1 Question and Answer Form N61340-23-R-0065

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Jun 1, 2023.