PreSolicitation_QAs_78-113.pdf

Number Document Page Reference

Document Paragraph Reference

Question/Comment/Feedback Government Response

78 Sample Task Lot 1

Page-1 of Sample Task LOT I refers to SOW Section 4.6 CLIN 0005 Travel in Support of CLIN X001, X002, and X003.

Should this instead refer to Section 4.7? The sample task also refers to Section 4.7 CLIN 0006 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLS). Should this instead refer to Section 4.8?

Correct. Sample Task references to the SOW will be updated accordingly in the final solicitation.

79 General

The late June release of the Draft RFP Sections L and M indicating traditional team subcontractors will not be evaluated does not allow enough time to form JVs and obtain the RFP required certifications/registrations for a new entity. In particular, this will put small businesses responding at a significant disadvantage, reduce responses and decrease competition for Lot II work and to some extent Lot I also. Will the Government consider allowing traditional Prime/Subcontractor teams to participate in this RFP rather than requiring the evaluation based on the Prime Contractor or JV entity?

Subcontractors will not be evaluated under Past Performance or Corporate experience for the Basic MAC award. Teaming approach is included in the Basic MAC Technical Evaluation section. Subcontractors/teammates may be evaluated on future order competitions on any factors.

80 General If the government will accept a traditional Prime/Subcontractor teaming arrangement, will the Government allow a “Significant teammate” to provide past performance input for evaluation?

Subcontractors will not be evaluated under Past Performance or Corporate experience for the Basic MAC award.

Subcontractors/teammates may be evaluated on future order competitions on any factors.

81 11 B The language in the note states there will be no CLIN pricing in Section B. However, RFP pages 2-10 show pricing information will be displayed. Please clarify.

Section B pricing will be filled out in the final solicitation.

82 11 B

Clause 5252.211-9503 (a) requires LOE information be inserted. Will this data be accumulated at the contract level based on the totals of the released DOs/TOs and then be revised as the orders are revised?

This clause does not apply at the Basic MAC level. This clause will be utilized at the DO/TO level as appropriate.

83 11 B Clause 5252.211-9503 (c) requires a fixed fee adjustment based on the prescribed parameters. Will this adjustment be calculated at the contract level or the DO/TO level?

This clause does not apply at the Basic MAC level. This clause will be utilized at the DO/TO level as appropriate.

84 77 G

Clause 252.234-7002 (c) requires the utilization of EVMS on contracts valued at greater than $50M. Will this be determined at the DO/TO level? If this is the case, will DOs/TOs valued at less than $50M be required to utilize a graded approach depending on the requirements of each order?

Utilization of clause 5252.234-7002 (c) will be determined at the order level. The Final solicitation will reflect this update. The government does not anticipate EVMS requirements on orders less then $50M.

85 81 H

Clause 5252.215-9505 - Understanding there are specific RFP instructions for proposing exclusive teaming arrangements, if a Prime has non-exclusive arrangements, will only those companies referenced in the proposal be allowed to bid on DOs/TOs or do the Primes have the flexibility to add teammates as needed during execution of the DOs/TOs? Do all teammates exclusive and non-exclusive need to be referenced in the Prime's proposal submission at the IDIQ level?

Due to the broad potential scope of requirements Primes are expected to add or remove teammates as required at the DO/TO level. Primes may, but are not required to, reference, but clearly identify by type, their exclusive and/or non-exclusive team mates

86 85 H Will the Clause 5252.232-9516 fill-ins be at the contract or DO/TO level?

Utilization of clause 5252.232-9516 will be determined at the order level. The Final solicitation will reflect this update.

87 107 I Will the Clause 252.232-7007 fill-ins be at the contract or DO/TO level? Clause to be deleted in final solicitation.

88 123 L

Table G-3 provides information on maximum page counts by Volume. The second paragraph under 3.0 refers to the "suggested" page counts under Table G-3. Please clarify if the Table G-3 page counts are firm or flexible.

Maximum page counts as identified in table G-3 will apply. The final solicitation will remove any mention of suggested page counts.

89 123 L

Table G-3 only indicates electronic submittals are required for Annexes A, B and C. However, Table G-2 provides file naming conventions for electronic files under all Volumes.

Please indicate the electronic file requirements for all appropriate Volumes under Table G-3.

Hard copies of Annexes A, B and C do not need to be provided with your proposal. One printed original and one printed copy of Volumes 1-6 should be delivered. One electronic original and one electronic copy should be delivered with Volumes 1-6 and Annexes A, B and C.

90 124-125 L Suggest the Cross Reference Table G-5 on Page 125 be included with the proposal for clarity purposes and as an aide for the evaluators.

CRM submission is not required; however, Offerors may provide a cross-reference matrix if desired.

91 125 L

4.1 requests several proposal deliverables be provided two weeks prior to the due date of the proposal. In order to keep all proposal items in order and complete, suggest all proposal deliverables occur on the same date rather than split.

The entire Volume I and Volume II sections of your proposal are not being requested 2 weeks early; only those items identified in Section L, Part A, 4.1 are being requested. Offerors may update or edit any of the earlier provided proposal information with their overall proposal submittal. Offerors are advised to clearly identify any changes made from the early submission.

92 125 L, Part B, 4.1

The Government requests one hard copy and one electronic copy of several components of the proposal be delivered no later than 2 weeks prior to the due date. One of the items included is Annex A. However, in L, Part B, 2.3 (page 133) offerors are instructed not to provide Annex A in hard copy.

Please clarify.

Only an electronic copy of Annex A is required. The final solicitation will up updated.

93 127, 128 L, Part B, 1.0

We believe the numbering for “b. Relevant Contract Summary Table” should be “c. Relevant Contract Summary Table” and “c. Contract Administration” should be “d. Contract Administration”

Concur. The final solicitation will up updated accordingly.

94 129 L, Part B, 2.0

Government instructs offerors to “identify contracts within the past five years that had any show-cause notices, cure notices, or termination for default.” Is this limited to contracts included in response to this solicitation or inclusive of all company contracts within the last five years?

This proposal instruction applies to proposed relevant contracts for this solicitation only.

95 139 L, Part B, 4.0

It is difficult to determine exactly what the Government is requesting for Volume 4. Are offerors to provide both a narrative (typically in a Word Document) and Attachment L-8 (Excel file) to address the requirements in 4.1 – 4.3? Or, are offerors only to provide completed Attachment L-8?

Offerors are to provide both written narrative comparative analysis as well as an attachment L-8 CE-2 table (which summarizes the narrative comparative analysis). Additional information has been added to solicitation to address this.

96 Pages 133-136 L, Part B, 2.3

The TO/DO value threshold criteria for Lot II of $1M / $200k for relevant / somewhat relevant experience limits offeror's ability to cite past performance that is directly relevant to this solicitation in the area of Reverse Engineering. Most Reverse Engineering orders in support of Flight Critical Military Aviation Components are placed by supply activity engineering directorates (DLA, NAVSUP, AFSC) as delivery orders for individual component or assembly efforts at unit costs of $25,000-$50,000. Production orders are then competed by the cognizant items managers. Lowering the thresholds for relevancy would enable the government to better assess the capabilities of offeror’s in this area. Recommend the Past Performance Relevant/Somewhat Relevant thresholds be modified to the level of $500k / $50k for relevant / somewhat relevant past performance.

The Government will consider this recommendation. Please review the final solicitation for any updates.

97 Page 127 L, Part B, 1.0, b

The Government’s restriction in evaluation Offerors' Past Performance by excluding Team Members’ Past Performance but including Joint Venture partner past performance creates an unexpected departure from NAWC’s normal approach and a significant change to the competitive landscape late in the procurement cycle. Changing from a Teaming structure and establishing a Joint Venture is a lengthy process for a Small Business and retaining this change may result in a request for a delayed release of the formal solicitation. Recommend the Government reconsider this approach and evaluate Past Performance from a Team perspective.

Subcontractors will not be evaluated under Past Performance or Corporate experience for the Basic MAC award. Teaming approach is included in the Basic MAC Technical Evaluation section. Subcontractors/teammates may be evaluated on future order competitions across any factors.

98 Page 127 L, Part B, 1.0, b

Restricting Past Performance evaluations to Small Business Primes only and not considering Team past performance inhibits the ability of capable small businesses to compete for this award. While the Government clearly recognizes the value of Small Business Teaming through its inclusion of participating Small Business Team Members in calculating compliance with the “51% rule”, ruling out team member Past Performance contradicts the Department’s stated commitment to small business participation. Traditionally, Small Businesses bring strength in a smaller number of technical areas and teaming has been recognized to both enhance small business teams and provide the government with stronger awardees. Recommend the government establish a tiered Past Performance evaluation that assesses the Prime Contractor’s capabilities, the Team capabilities and how well the Small Business prime has addressed potential weaknesses in capability through effective teaming.

Subcontractors will not be evaluated under Past Performance or Corporate experience for the Basic MAC award. Teaming approach is included in the Basic MAC Technical Evaluation section. Subcontractors/teammates may be evaluated on future order competitions across any factors.

99 Page 143 L -5.3a.

The section states that “the Offeror must clearly identify the source of the direct rates (i.e. payroll records) and substantiate their buildup”. Does this mean we should include payroll records for each person in the proposal?

Offerors shall provide a direct labor rate for each of the labor categories identified in CA-2. As indicated in Section L, Part B, 5.3a the Offeror must clearly identify the source of the direct rates (i.e. payroll records) and substantiate their buildup. If an offeror's approach to substantiated a proposed direct labor rate is based on payroll records for that proposed direct labor rate, than payroll records should be provided, as appropriate.

100 Pages 143-144 L -5.3b.

This section requires completion of Table CP-1 with three years of historical rates for all indirect rates used in the proposal. In table CP-1, 2012, 2013, and 2014 are listed.

Should this be changed to 2013, 2014, and 2015?

Table CP-1 will be updated in the final solicitation to reflect rates from 2014, 2015 and 2016.

101 Pages 90 and 147 Section I, and Section L

The draft RFP includes FAR 52.215-16, "Facilities Capital Cost of Money" and FAR 52.215-17 "Waiver of Facilities Capital Cost of Money" which are contradictory. Which contract clause should prevail?

For the MAC approach, an Offeror can propose FCCOM and if awarded a resulting contract, FAR Provision 52.215-16 will be included and the Offeror may propose FCCOM as an allowable cost under each TO/DO if the FAR part 31.205-10(b) is met. On the contrary, if an Offeror does not propose FCCOM for the MAC approach and is awarded a contract, the resulting contract will include Clause 52.215-17 and FCCOM will not be an allowable cost under each TO/DO.

102 Attachments L-10a and L-10b

For Pricing Template Attachments L-10a and L-10b, the CA-2 spreadsheet states CLIN 0001 but is labeled as “Sample Task 1” on the hours column. Could the Government please confirm if this should be labeled as “CLIN 0001” instead? For CA-3 and CA-4, both state “Lot 1 Sample Task 2”. Could you please confirm if these should read “Lot 1 Sample Task 1” for Lot I and “Lot 2 Sample Task 2” for Lot 2?

Updated templates will be provided with the Final RFP that clarify these concerns. CA-2 will be updated to remove reference to Sample Task 1 and CA-3 and CA-4 will be updated to reflect either Lot I Sample Task 1 or Lot II Sample Task 2, as appropriate.

Attachment L-7 and Annex B, Small Business Subcontracting

Plan (Lot 1 Only)

If a Small Business is submitting a bid against Lot I, could the Government please clarify if a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, as well as Small Business Goals (Attachment L-7), are required?

Any Offeror proposing under Lot I must provide all information requested for all Lot I identified elements, to include 3.4b Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan. Please note that Small Business offerors may meet the 3.4 requirement using work they perform themselves.

104 64 H-2, (c) What percentage of TOs are anticipated to authorize proposal charges?

The Government does not anticipate authorizing bid and proposal costs as part of the direct proposal cost at the DO/TO level.

105 123 3

As stated, "The title and table of contents pages, as well as tables, are not included in the suggested page count." Will the Government also include a List of Figures, and List of Acronyms and Abbreviations as also not included in the Page Count?

Per Section L, Part A, 3.0: The title and table of contents pages, as well as tables, are not included in the maximum page count.

106 123 3.0, Table G-3 Will the Government increase the Executive Summary maximum page allowance to 10 pages to allow sufficient space for volume summaries and the required tables?

Yes. The final solicitation will reflect this change.

107 126 1

The Government requires that proposal information be structured such that its paragraph numbers/letters correspond to the proposal instructions paragraph/numbers. The Government requires the Executive Summary to contain the salient points contained in each proposal volume. Will the Government add and adjust proposal instruction paragraphs/numbers for the Volume 1 Executive Summary to easily allow inclusion and proper paragraph numbering for the proposal volume summaries?

The Executive Summary maximum page count will be increased to 10 pages. The final solicitation will reflect this change.

108 138 & 153 3.4 & II.B Is the Small Business minimum proposed goal of 5% for all Small Business subcategories combined? Yes.

109 For Lot II does the 50% small business rule apply at the TO/DO level or will it be at the overall MAC level.

Clause 52.219-14 (i.e. 50% rule) is applicable at the DO/TO level.

110 127, Table ES1 Requires % of total proposed cost - what cost is this reference to (i.e., the sample task only)?

Table ES-1 will be updated to remove any reference to % of proposed cost. This will be reflected in the Final RFP.

111 1 & 2 L-4 Sample Task 1 -

CLIN 0002 Lot I Only Technical

The sample task order provided for CLIN 0002 Lot 1 requires development of a cost and technical response supporting missionization of a medium cargo lift aircraft. Although the sample task provides high level requirements associated with primary avionics upgrades, it does not provide requirements for installation and integration of mission systems such as:

Existing or Newly Installed Electro-optic/Infrared (EO/IR) Sensors Existing or Newly Installed Surface Search or Synthetic Aperture Radars Existing or Newly Installed Tactical Communication systems Existing or Newly Installed Signal Receivers Existing or Newly Installed Mission System Processing and Network Components Existing or Newly Developed Mission System Software

Can the USG provide high level requirements associated with the above systems, or others, in support of development of the sample task technical and cost solution? When listing mission system requirements, can the USG identify which items are GFE to support exclusion from material costs associated with the sample task response?

The Offeror should use only the data provided in the sample task and the referenced TDP. Use the installation data package in the TDP (10310 drawings) for development of the installation cost estimate. Additional and existing aircraft systems are not required to be integrated in this effort. The Offeror should only include the cost associated with the installation portion of the sample task. Pricing of individual WRAs is not required.

Reference the instructions tabs in attachment L-10a or L-10b as appropriate.

112 L-6 Lot II RO, pg. 3 3.1.2

Section 3.1.2 of the RO just states “This is a non-severable supply/completion type Firm Fixed Price contract.” Based on this, could the Government please confirm if the Base and Option CLINs will be awarded at the same time? By doing so, this would create economies of scale and lower pricing.

Please see the updated final solicitation to address this question.

113 General

Please provide evidence (i.e., Sources Sought Data) that two or more small businesses were NOT capable of performing LOT I Tasking. Please review the Sources Sought that was released for this effort and show where the LOT I scope was queried.

Small business may propose to Lot I.

Answered