15-R-0092_INDUSTRY'S_QUESTIONS_PART_II_10_May.docx

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS II

1. RFP, Section L: How is the Offeror to determine who our principle subcontractors are if we are not pricing out the overall contract? Is it the intention of the Government to have the Offerors determine principle subcontractors based on the sample task pricing alone?

· Section L, Part A, 1.0 General, the definition of Principal Subcontractor will be updated via amendment.

2. Section L1, Part A, General Instructions, Paragraph 1.0, General, page 96 - A “principal subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 10% of the proposed price/cost (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee) for the contract.” Should this definition be applied to proposed subcontractor costs/total price estimated for the “Sample Task #1” since there is no specific pricing for the basic contract?

· Section L, Part A, 1.0 General, the definition of Principal Subcontractor will be updated via amendment.

3. Section L, Part A, General Instructions, Para. 2.0, Proposal Format, Amendment 0001, page 4 The instructions state that written proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12 point normal font. Further, tables or charts, should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented. Since the Corporate Experience Tables are in various font sizes, would it be acceptable to use Times New Roman 10 point normal font for our response to Tables CE-1 through CE-3 (Attachment 2) as well as the Past Performance Matrix (Attachment 3)?

· Section L, Part A, 2.0 Proposal Format will be revised via amendment.

4. Pg 105 Par 1.0 Throughout these instructions, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 10% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee), for the contract. “Team Member” is defined as those entities that make up a joint venture or any other partnership or teaming arrangement formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation. – What is the proper definition of a Team Member? Per this paragraph it is any company who signs a teaming agreement onto a team.

· Section L, Part A, 1.0 General, the definition of Principal Subcontractor will be updated via amendment. For the purposes of this solicitation, the “Team Member” definition in Section L, Part A, 1.0 will be updated via amendment.

5. Page 103 of 121 in the RFP Section 3.0 Volume 3: Corporate Experience, paragraph 3 states, “Submit the tables within this volume in hard copy as well as electronically.” The table on page 98 of 121 in the RFP requires submission of 1 Original/3 Copies/1 CD-ROM or DVD. Please clarify the Government’s requirement to submit “electronically.”

· Section L, Part B, 3.0 will be amended to clarify “electronically”.

6. Section L, Volume 3: Corporate Experience, Page 103. Please explain the requirements for using Attachment #2, Table CE-2 Corporate Experience Summary. Paragraph 3.0 does not refer to Table CE-2 Corporate Experience Summary, nor are there any instructions for completion of this Table in Section L.

· Table CE-2, Corporate Experience Summary is not required for this solicitation and Attachment #2 will be revised via amendment.

7. RFP pages 103-104, Section L, Volume 3: Corporate Experience: This section refers to utilizing Attachment #2 in the response but only describes completing Tables CE-1 and CE-3. Attachment #2 also contains a Table labeled CE-2 Corporate Experience Summary. Please identify if and how this table is to be completed.

· Table CE-2, Corporate Experience Summary is not required for this solicitation and Attachment #2 will be revised via amendment.

8. RFP page 98, Section L, Proposal Content and Volumes: In Volume 3, Corporate Experience, page limits are provided for 3.2 Evaluation Areas and 3.3 Contract Comparative Analysis (Attachment #2), however page 103 contains a requirement under 3.1 to provide Table CE-1 Evaluation Area Summary Table. What is the page limit for 3.1, Table CE-1?

· Section L, Part A, 3.0 Volume and Content Tables 3.0 Corporate Experience and Section L, Part B, 3.1 page limitation will be updated via amendment.

9. Table CE-2, Corporate Experience Summary, RFP Attachment 2: The instructions for the Gray highlighted rows references Table ES-1 Offeror Summary; however, there is no such table. Is this reference supposed to be the Executive Summary Offeror Summary Table described on Page 7?

· Table CE-2, Corporate Experience Summary is not required for this solicitation and Attachment #2 will be revised via amendment.

10. Section L, Part B, Specific Instructions, Para. 3.0, VOLUME 3: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE, Para. 3.2, Evaluation Areas, Amendment 0001, page 11: It appears the Summary Table in Volume 1 referenced in Paragraph 3.2 should list companies proposed to provide tasking in the “Sample Task”. Therefore, CE-2 also seems to be intended to present corporate experience for prime, principal subcontractors and team members that are proposed in the “Sample Task.” Is this correct?

Paragraph 3.0 Volume 3: Corporate Experience on page 103 of the RFP directs the usage of attachment #2, Corporate Experience Tables (CE-1 and CE-3) with no mention of CE-2 which is part of attachment #2. Is table CE-2 required to be filled out with CE-1 and CE-3?

· Table CE-2, Corporate Experience Summary is not required for this solicitation and Attachment #2 will be revised via amendment.

11. Attachment #2 – Instructions – Instructions for Table CE-1 Evaluation Area Summary – Column A – Notes: Note (1) states “Group the references by each entity where entity is defined as the Prime, principal subcontractors, critical subcontractors, or JV Team Members.” This is the only reference to “critical subcontractors” in the solicitation package. Would you please clarify the difference between principal and critical subcontractors or remove the reference to critical subcontractors in this note?

Note (3) states “List all “P” contracts in order from the most relevant to the least relevant. List all “S” contracts in order from the most relevant to the least relevant. List all “T” contracts in order from the most relevant to the least relevant.”

Are we correct to assume that “P” corresponds to contracts from the Prime, “S” corresponds to contracts from the Subcontractor, and “T” corresponds to contracts from the Teammate? Further, per the previous questions, if there are both “principal” and “critical” subcontractors, is further differentiation required (i.e., PS and CS)?

· Attachment #2 will be revised via amendment.

12. Section L, para 5.0 Cost/Price: How will the other labor categories not addressed in the Sample Task be priced?

· Labor categories not proposed in the cost/price volume for the Sample Task will not be priced.

13. Under the attachments, the Government included a P-6. Subcontractors would usually submit a P-7 to their Prime. There is no mention of a P-7 in the instructions. Will the Government be issuing a P-7 template for the subcontractor’s use when submitting to the Prime?

· The P-6 can be used by both prime and subcontractors. The subcontractor’s cost/pricing information begins at Row 46. Volume 5: Cost/Price, Paragraph 5.3.3, instructs the subcontractors to provide Attachment #6, P-6 delineating the build-up of rates.

14. Will the Government be issuing a P7 template as is customary for the subcontractor’s use when submitting to the Prime?

· The P-6 can be used by both prime and subcontractors. The subcontractor’s cost/pricing information begins at Row 46. Volume 5: Cost/Price, Paragraph 5.3.3, instructs the subcontractors to provide Attachment #6, P-6 delineating the build-up of rates.

15. Section L1, Part B, Specific Instructions, Paragraph 5.1, Volume Content, page 107 – It appears that if a subcontractor is not proposed to provide tasking under the Sample Task #1, the subcontractor would not need to submit any cost information in Volume 5. Is this correct?

· Yes. Section L, Volume 5, Cost/Price shall contain the offeror’s cost/price proposal for Sample Task #1.

16. RFP, page 44, Section C, Labor Categories, Acquisition/Operations Logistics manager/Onsite Lead, Senior (Key). The substitution clause for this labor category does not make sense? Please clarify the experience requirements as written: “ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTION: Twenty (20) years of experience in acquisition and/or operational logistics support/maintenance engineering at the non-commissioned/senior non-commissioned officer level (in combination) and/or at the warrant and/or field grade officer or higher level may be substituted for six (6) years of experience, OR MS or MA degree may be substituted for two (2) years operations logistics experience.”

· Section C, Paragraph 11.0, Labor Categories, Acquisition/Operations Logistics Manager/ Onsite Lead, Senior (Key), ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTION will be revised via amendment.

17. Section C, SOW, Para. 11.0, Minimum Personnel Requirements, page 44 The education criteria for the Acquisition/Operations Logistics Manager/Onsite Lead, Senior, (Key) states that a BS or BA degree in Acquisition, Logistics Management, Business, or Management is required. As such, a BS in Professional Aeronautics from Embry Riddle University specializes to the Aerospace industry and contains a core curriculum in Aviation Legislation, Applications in Aviation/Aerospace Law, MGMT 201 Principles in Management, MGMT 210 Financial Accounting, MGMT 221 Introduction to Management Information Systems, and MGMT 420 Management of Production and Operations. Given the heavy concentration in management, would a candidate with a BS in Professional Aeronautics satisfy the education requirement for the category? If not, would the government consider revising the education requirement to include a BS or BA degree in a relevant technical discipline"?

· Section C, Paragraph 11.0, Labor Categories, Acquisition/Operations Logistics Manager/ Onsite Lead, Senior (Key), education criteria will remain as solicited in N00421-15-R-0092.

18. RFP, Section C, Personnel Requirements, pages 48-49: Will the Government consider providing education/experience substitutions for the Program Manager (non-Key) and Configuration Manager Positions, as every other position allows for a substitution?

· Section C, Paragraph 11.0, Labor Categories, Non-Key Personnel, Program Manager and Configuration Manager will remain as solicited in N00421-15-R-0092.

19. 2 of the labor category’s descriptions (Non-Key Logistician III and Logistics Specialist Sr.) do not include experience requirements. Was this done intentionally? All other labor categories include an experience paragraph. Please clarify

· Section C, Paragraph 11.0 Logistician III and Logistics Specialist, Sr. include experience requirements. Formatting will be revised via amendment.

20. Section C, 3.0 Requirements, Para 3.25.3, on page 38 – This task states “The Contractor shall review draft and current Support Equipment Requirements Document and provide comments to the Government.” Please clarify if the Government meant this to be Support Equipment Recommendation Data (SERD) vice Support Equipment Requirements Document.

· Section C, 3.0 Requirements, Paragraph 3.25.3 will be revised via amendment.

21. Clause 5252.216-9535 addresses that “tripwires” would be used in the evaluation of the task order proposals submitted under this IDIQ. Tripwires are not addressed as being used as part of the evaluation criteria. Are tripwires applicable to this Solicitation and will the government be using tripwires to evaluate the sample task? Does the government plan to modify the Solicitation and provide the latest tripwire guidance?

· NAVAIR 5252.216-9535 TASK ORDER PROCEDURES (MULTIPLE AWARDS)(NAVAIR)(AUG 2011) applies to Task Orders awarded under the IDIQs resulting from the award of MAC Solicitation N00421-15-R-0092. The Section M evaluation factors will not be revised to include tripwires for this MAC solicitation.

22. Clause 5252.216-9535, TASK ORDERS PROCEDURES (MULTIPLE AWARDS)(NAVAIR) (AUG 2011) (DEVIATION) is incorporated in this solicitation. This clause states “Any calculated fully burdened annualized labor rate exceeding NAVAIR’s Functional Area “tripwires” may ultimately be determined excessive and unreasonably high.” Tripwires are not addressed as being used as part of the evaluation criteria. Could you please confirm if tripwires are applicable to this Solicitation and if the government will be using tripwires to evaluate the proposal and the sample task? If so, does the government plan to modify the Solicitation and provide the latest tripwire guidance?

· NAVAIR 5252.216-9535 TASK ORDER PROCEDURES (MULTIPLE AWARDS)(NAVAIR)(AUG 2011) applies to Task Orders awarded under the IDIQs resulting from the award of MAC Solicitation N00421-15-R-0092. The Section M evaluation factors will not be revised to include tripwires for this MAC solicitation.

23. On Pg. 41, para 10. Government Work Schedule: The Holidays applicable to this contract are: New Year’s Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day. Does the government intend to cut out four Holidays? On page 110, the Government indicates the work schedule to be composed of 1920 hours after holidays and vacation.

· Section C, Paragraph 10 will be revised via amendment.

24. Section C, SOW, Paragraph 10.0, Government Installation Work Schedule, page 41 – The following holidays are not listed: Memorial Day, Independence Day, President’s Day, or Martin Luther King Day. Should these federal holidays also be included?

· Section C, Paragraph 10 will be revised via amendment.

25. Clause 5252.228-9501(d), Aircraft public and passenger liability, page 78 – Since the SOW for this contract does not involve flying; will the contractor be required to carry Aircraft public and passenger liability insurance?

· NAVAIR 5252.228-9501(d) will be revised via amendment.

26. Clause 52.216-22(d), Indefinite Quantity (OCT 1995), page 85 – Is the “11 year” reference for the delivery period correct?

· Yes, the period is correct in accordance with DFARS 217.204.

27. Section L1, Part B, Specific Instructions, Volume 1, Executive Summary, Abstract, Item v, page 100 – An Affirmation of no Exceptions, Deviations or Waivers is required “if Volume 5.0” is not being submitted. It appears this statement contains a typo and should read “if Volume 6.0” is not being submitted. Please confirm.

· Section L, Part B, 1.0 Executive Summary, Affirmation of no Exceptions, Deviations or Waivers will be revised via amendment.

28. Section L1, Part B, Specific Instructions, Volume 1, Executive Summary, Abstract, Item (ii), page 100 – An Offeror Summary Table is to be completed for all principal subcontractors or team members who will be involved with the performance or management of the contract. Since participation for the basic contract is To Be Determined, it appears the Table only applies to Sample Task #1 performance. Conversely, the information in item (ix) applies to ALL companies who are being proposed for basic contract performance. Please confirm.

· Section L, Part B, 1.0 Executive Summary, Offeror Summary table will be revised via amendment.

29. Section L1, Part B, Specific Instructions, Volume 1, Executive Summary, Abstract, Item (ix), page 100 – Since no direct payments are made by the Government to subcontractors, is DFAS information required for subcontractors and team members?

· Section L, Part B, 1.0 Executive Summary, Abstract ix requests CAGE Code, DCMA, DCAA and DFAS for the prime contractor and all proposed subcontractors and team members.

30. Section L1, Paragraph 3.0, Proposal Content and Volumes, page 98 – The table for Volume 2 indicates the numbering for Sample Task should be 2.1.2; however on page 102, the numbering is 2.1.1. Please confirm the paragraph numbering for the table should be 2.1.1.

· Section L, Part B, 2.1 understanding the Work will be revised via amendment.

31. Section L1, Paragraph 3.0, Proposal Content and Volumes, page 98 – The table for Volume 3 appears to be missing Section 3.1, Summary Table. Please insert this requirement and indicate if a page limit applies.

· Section L, Part 1, 3.0 Volume and Contents, Volume 3 will be revised via amendment.

32. Section M, Part C, 1.0 Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating Methodology Adjectival Ratings, page 119 – The evaluation criteria specified for the technical response is shown as either acceptable or unacceptable ratings. Since this is a “Best Value” acquisition, evaluation criteria should be cited to allow the evaluator to determine the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. Given this, would it be more appropriate to utilize standard best value criteria consisting of “outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable ratings” similar to those delineated in RFP N00421-15-R-0052?

· Section M, Part C, Evaluation Rating and Risk Assessment Definitions,1.0 Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating Methodology Adjectival Ratings remain as solicited in N00421-15-R-0092.

33. Section M, Part C, Tables 2.2 and 3.2, Performance Confidence Assessment, pages 119 and 120 – Since this is a “Best Value” acquisition there should be a method to determine the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. Given this, would it be appropriate to include the “Substantial Confidence” rating in Tables 2.2 and 3.2 similar to those delineated in RFP N00421-15-R-0052?

· Section M, Part C, Evaluation Rating and Risk Assessment, 2.2 Performance Confidence Assessment (Corporate Experience) and 3.2 Performance Confidence Assessment (Past Performance) remain as solicited in N00421-15-R-0092.

34. RFP p. 103 of 121 – 3.1 Evaluation Area Summary Table / RFP 98 of 121 Proposal Content and Volumes - We understand that in our proposal response, Volume 3 Section 3.1 should be a complete Table CE-1 (Attachment #2). However, this reference is not listed in the table on p. 98 (Proposal Content and Volumes). Is the populated Table CE-1 not supposed to appear in the binder prior to 3.2 Evaluation Areas? Or, should there be included in the table on p. 98 a reference to Table C-1? Specifically as follows:

Further, is there a page limit for the populated Table CE-1?

· Section L, Part A 3.0 Volume and Content Table will be revised via amendment.

35. Attachment #2 – Instructions -The lead-in Note in the Instructions for Attachment #2 states – “The contract references designated in Table ES-2 (Relevant Contract Summary) shall be used in completing Tables CE-1…” We could not find the referenced table (ES-2 Relevant Contract Summary) in the solicitation package. Would you please provide Table ES-2 or clarify what is meant in the Note?

· Attachment #2 will be revised via amendment.

36. Attachment #2 – Instructions – Instructions for Table CE-1 Evaluation Area Summary – Column A:

The instruction states – “Enter relevant contract references for previous contracts that provide examples of corporate experience performing tasks similar to those required for evaluation areas 4.2.1 through 4.2.x. Use only those contract references specified in Table ES-2 (Relevant Contract Summary).

Are we correct to assume that the references to 4.2.1 through 4.2.x are intended to be 3.2.1 (Sustainment Strategies Encompassing Analytical Forecasting), and 3.2.2 (Data Management Strategies), 3.2.3 (Readiness and Cost Degraders)?

Additionally, we could not find the referenced table (ES-2 Relevant Contract Summary) in the solicitation package. Would you please provide Table ES-2 or clarify this instruction?

· Attachment #2 will be revised via amendment.

37 .Attachment #2 – Instructions – Instructions for Table CE-2 Corporate Experience Summary - The Gray Highlighted Rows instruction states – “There should be a gray highlighted row for each entity (Prime, principal subcontractor, critical subcontractor, and JV Team Members) identified in Volume 1 Table ES-1 Offeror Summary.”

There is a table called Offeror Summary Table required for Volume 1, however it is not titled ES-1. Are we correct to assume that Table ES-1 is the Offeror Summary Table described on page 100 of the solicitation?

· Table CE-2, Corporate Experience Summary is not required for this solicitation and Attachment #2 will be revised via amendment.

38. Attachment #2 – Instructions – Instructions for Table CE-2 Corporate Experience Summary:

The Column A instruction states – “Enter a contract reference, using the contract references in the Volume 1 Table ES-2 (Relevant Contract Summary)…” Volume 1 contains no mention of either Table ES-2 or a Relevant Contract Summary table. Would you please provide Table ES-2 or eliminate references to it throughout the Attachment #2 instructions?

· Table CE-2, Corporate Experience Summary is not required for this solicitation and Attachment #2 will be revised via amendment.

39. Attachment #2 – Instructions – Instructions for Table CE-3 Contract Comparative Analysis:

The Column C instruction states – “Summarize the comparative analysis provided as narrative in 4.4 (Contract Comparative Analysis), utilizing a separate worksheet for each of the evaluation areas located in subparagraphs 4.2.1 through 4.2.5.” We are unable to locate the referenced 4.4 or 4.2.1 through 4.2.5. Would you please clarify the location of these references in the solicitation package?

· Attachment #2 will be revised via amendment.

40. RFP P. 97 of 121 – 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes; RFP P.100 of 121 – 1.0 Volume 1: Executive Summary. The Specific Instruction for 1.0 Volume I: Executive Summary, items vi, viii, and ix are not listed within the table in 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes. Should ii-ix correspond to items 1.2-1.6?

· Section L, Part A 1.0 Volume I Executive Summary and Section L, Part B 3.0 Volume and Content Tables will be revised via amendment.

41. On Page 96, PART A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS, 1.0 GENERAL, states “Throughout these instructions, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 10% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee), for the contract. “Team Member” is defined as those entities that make up a joint venture or any other partnership or teaming arrangement formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation.” Could you please confirm that any company who has entered into a teaming agreement with the Offeror for this bid response is considered to be a Team Member?

· For the purposes of this solicitation, the “Team Member” definition in Section L, Part A, 1.0 will be updated via amendment.

42. On Page 105, VOLUME 4: PAST PERFORMANCE, 4.1 General, states “When possible, the Past Performance Matrix should include at least five of the most relevant contracts for the prime contractor, five of the most relevant contracts for each team member, and two of the most relevant contracts for each principal subcontractor.” Could you please confirm that, in addition to the Past Performance Matrix, it is the Government's intention that a minimum of five past performance citations be submitted by the prime contractor and that a minimum of two past performance citations be submitted by each principal subcontractor?

· Yes, Section L, Part B, 4.0 Past Performance remains as solicited.

43. RFP, Section L, Part A, Section 1.0: How many awards does the government intend to make as a result of this multiple award contract?

· The Government is not working towards a specific number of awards.