PreSolicitation_QAs_round_2.pdf

35 Page 128

Section L, Part B, Section 2.0; and Pre-

Solicitation Q&A # 9 posted on 22 July

Pre-solicitation Q&A #9 states that past performance

“Contracts may be referenced at the contract level instead of at the deliver or task order level.” Question: May offerors propose past performance efforts at the IDIQ umbrella contract level?

Yes. Contracts may be referenced at the IDIQ contract level instead of at the deliver or task order level. Up to five delivery orders or task orders awarded under the same Multiple Award

Contract may be referenced at the MAC level instead of at the delivery or task order level as a single reference.

36 Page 129 Section L, Part B, Section 2.0

Section 2.0 states that "Contract Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance

Questionnaires (Attachment L-2) will be the primary customer feedback data used to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance." Question: Can CPARS at the IDIQ Contract level be used as evidence of past performance for TO/DOs performed under that IDIQ contract?

Yes. If additional information is required at the DO/TO level, the

Government will request that information from the appropriate

Government POC.

37 Page 138 Section L, Part B, Section 3.4.b

Question: Are Small Businesses (SBs) proposing to Lot I required to submit an SB Subcontracting Plan, or any other plan (i.e., SB Subcontracting Master Plan; and Individual

Contract Plan) or content addressed in Section 3.4.b?

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.

38 11 Section B

The clause on this page refers to Key Personnel. Will key personnel be determined at the Task Order level? Key labor categories do not appear to be defined. Please identify anticipated Key Labor categories in each Lot. This information is important to industry as part of the bid determination process. Industry needs to ensure that they can staff the key functions.

Key Personnel may be identified at the DO/TO level as required.

39 11 Section B

Clause 5252.211-9503 is included. However, the man-hours are TBD, and will be determined at the DO/TO Level. Please confirm this clause does NOT apply at the contract level, and only applies at the DO/TO level

Yes, this clause applies only at the DO/TO level.

40 15 3

The Government has provided a list of elements that will be considered in determining LOT I or II. For many of the elements, it is not clear how a the data will be collected or evaluated. How will the Government maintain a current database of contractor capability with respect to these criteria

(a - j) as our capability evolves over the course of this 8 year contract?

No, the Government does not anticipate maintaining any sort of

'capability database'. Future order requirements will drive the

Lot I or Lot II determinations based on the considerations provided in the SOW.

41 15 3

The Government has provided a list of elements that will be considered in determining LOT I or II. For many of the elements, it is not clear how a the data will be collected or evaluated. How will the Government maintain a current database of subcontractor capability with respect to these criteria (a - j) as our capability evolves over the course of this

8 year contract? Will subcontractors not be considered as part of the LOT I assignment? Will subcontractors not be considered as part of the evaluation of delivery order proposals?

Future order requirements will drive the Lot I or Lot II determinations based on the considerations provided in the

SOW.

Please note that RFIs may be requested prior to any Lot determination.

Subcontractors will not be evaluated under Past Performance or

Corporate experience at the Basic MAC level, but will be evaluated under Technical as appropriate. Subcontractors may be considered as part of the evaluation at the order level.

42 128 Section L Part B, 1.0b

The RFP appears to be blatantly biased against small business concerns as sections L and M repeatedly state that the use of subcontractors will not be considered as part of the evaluation of this proposal. It is clear that any small business prime will be assessed by its ability to fully, organically provide all capability in the SOW. The only remedy offered by the Government is forming a JV that will cost the small businesses additional money and time.

Please explain why team mates will not be considered as part of the evaluation.

Subcontractors will not be evaluated under Past Performance or

Corporate experience at the Basic MAC level, but will be evaluated under Technical. In terms of PP and CE the Gov requires that primes have sufficient capabilities to be competitive throughout the life of the MAC.

43 68 Section H-3, 2

It is unclear why this is included as part of the RFP, this section implies that only these teaming agreements are allowed under this contract. Is that what the Government intended? If this is the intent, please explain why the teaming agreements are limited in this manner?

Teaming arrangements are limited to enhance or increase competition as outlined in H-3. This clause is applicable at the

DO/TO level.

44 16 and 125 4.0.2 and Table G-5

Table G-5, on page 125 indicates GOPs will be included as part of the submission. At industry day, it was made clear approved GOPs are required as is AS9100C registration.

Please confirm GOPs must be developed, and approved by

NAVAIR or other GGFR, prior to submission of the proposal.

Please confirm an opportunity will be provided to receive this approval prior to submission of the proposal. Also, this type of tasking is ideal to be subcontracted as it is a different line of business than the engineering and fabrication efforts.

Why can't subcontractors' past performance and corporate experience be considered? Please explain how this doesn't adversely impact small business participation in this solicitation?

Approved GOPs are not required as part of the proposal submission. Please see Section J Attachment CDRL A003, block 16 for GOPs submission requirements.

Table G-5 is specifically limited to Corporate experience regarding the Offeror's experience in the development of and /or performance under GOPs.

45 140 Section L, 4.2.2

At industry day the Government stated that when submitting past performance references the prime should take credit for all subcontractor efforts as the prime in the submissions. If the subcontractor had approved GOPs that were used for the effort can the prime submit the subcontractor approved

GOPs as evidence of past performance and corporate experience?

The SOW associated with each proposed relevant contract identifies the requirements the Prime was responsible for meeting. In this instance, if a proposed relevant contract had a requirement identified in its SOW for GOPs, than that contract would be evaluated as having GOPs scope.

46 140 4.2.2

Section 4.2.2 states Offerors must also demonstrate…..signed by the Government Ground Flight

Representative (GGFR) for each contract referenced. This implies only contracts that included GOPs and for which

GOPs were approved should be referenced. Suggest the wording be changed to ....for each applicable contract referenced.

Concur. The final solicitation will up updated accordingly.

47 15 4.0.1

Section 4.0.1 and previous Q&A makes it clear AS9100C registration is required as part of the proposal submission process. However, it is anticipated that more than a year will elapse between proposal submission and award. Will proof of registration be required for award as well? Would proof of significant progress towards 9100 registration be adequate at the proposal, with the requirement that proof be provided prior to award? Many things are likely to happen between the proposal submission and contract award that would affect registration including acquisitions, mergers, loss of registration, expiration of registration, etc. We suggest that the requirement be changed to registration at award. It is very, very unlikely an offeror would invest in this costly a proposal, be selected, and then fail to achieve AS9100C registration.

Primes are required to be AS9100C certified at proposal submission. Per SOW 4.0.1, Loss of registration status will result in exclusion from DO/TO competitions until such time that registration is restored

48 Industry Day

During the industry day session, it was stated that ONLY offerors that receive an award under LOT I will be allowed to bid on those tasks determined to be too complex or large for a SB to perform. However, if a LOT II offeror/awardee is able, through growth over the 8 years, or teaming, or even organically capable of competing for, winning, and executing a task determined to be LOT I, why would the gov't exclude anyone that has received an award under the basic contract from competing for such a delivery order? We recommend

ALL awardees of this contract be allowed to compete for LOT

I awards.

Upon this Basic MAC award, only those vendors selected for Lot

I may compete on future Lot I orders. However, it is the

Government's intent to maintain a level of competition in both

Lots with the utilization of the H-8 Addition of Contractors clause.

The H-8 clause allows the Government to periodically make a determination whether it is necessary to add additional prime contractors to either Lot to maintain competition. Should the

Government determine that it is necessary to add additional prime contractors, the re-competition will be solicited on either a

Lot I unrestricted or Lot II small business set-aside basis as necessary to sustain the competitive base. If a vendor acquires additional capabilities, the vendor may compete at the basic level to be added to the higher Lot if the Lots are re-opened for competition through the H-8 Addition of Contractors Clause.

49 General

Given the gap in scope, complexity and magnitude between

LOT I and LOT II please consider breaking the effort into two separate contracts. Breaking this into two separate solicitations will allow for quicker award and provide an opportunity to make the LOT II solicitation more fair to small business. Please explain how the current solicitation structure allows for maximum small business competition.

The government stands by its approved acquisition strategy.

50 66 H-2 Does the Government actually intend to issue DO/TO orally or by fax?

While the Government does not typically issue DO/TO's orally or by fax, how DO/TO's will be issued will be determined at the

DO/TO level

51 139 Section 4.0

The evaluation areas in corporate experience are significantly different than the relevancy criteria used for past performance. Please confirm past performance references that do not meet the requirement for very or somewhat relevant should be used in corporate experience. We recommend the Government delete all references to relevancy in Volume 4. If the intent is that each contract reference satisfy both the requirements of past performance and corporate experience this seems unnecessarily punitive to small businesses, please clarify the intent.

"The relevancy (i.e. scope, magnitude and complexity) of submitted Corporate Experience and Past Performance

Contract References will be determined through the process discussed in subparagraphs 2.2 and 2.3 (above)."

Only those contracts found to be relevant under the relevancy definitions identified in Section L, Part II, 2.3a and Section M, Part III will be evaluated for Past Performance and Corporate

Experience.

52 Pre-Sol Conference

At the pre-solicitation conference the Government stated that

Volume I and II (ES-1, ES-2, and PP-1) would be due 2 weeks prior to the full proposal submission. We request that the entire proposal be due concurrently to maintain consistency across the Volumes. Please consider this for

LOT II.

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.

53 153 Section M - II B -

Technical

The Government states that the evaluation will include an evaluation of overall staffing and teaming approach for the

Samples Tasks and RO 001. It is clear throughout the RFP that the Government only intends to evaluate the prime contractor and that the prime is expected to capable of executing 100% of the effort. Given this approach why evaluate the teaming approach as part of the evaluation?

How will the prime be rated if no teammates are used and the prime will perform all of the work?

Subcontractors will not be evaluated under Past Performance or

Corporate experience at the Basic MAC level, but will be evaluated under Technical as appropriate under Overall Staffing

Teaming approach. Section M identifies that Overall Staffing and Teaming approach will evaluate the ability of the prime to retain/maintain technical competence and capabilities to perform the tasks in the PBSOW and the level of reliance on and quality management approach of subcontracting.

54 24 CDRL A003

CDRL A003 requires GOPs be delivered 2 weeks ARO - is the ARO after award of applicable DO/TOs?

Approved GOPs are not required as part of the proposal submission. Block 12 Date of First Submission information will be updated in the Final RFP to indicate that Date of First

Submission 'will be defined at the order level. Contractor may submit GOPs at any time post award of the basic contract prior to an order with this requirement'.

55 25 6 Is there a specific level of security Clearance required to receive an award under the basic contract?

See the DD254 for facility clearance requirements at the Basic

MAC level. There is no specific security classification level required for personnel at the Basic MAC contract. Security classification level will be determined and evaluated at the order level.

56 25 7.0.1 Are company NDAs sufficient instead of individual NDAs?

No, per section 7.0.1, any employee performing services under the contract shall execute a non-disclosure agreement, as applicable.

57 27 10

Clearly some of the Labor Categories are only for Lot I, will the Government identify which LCs are limited to Lot I and which are limited to Lot II? See earlier question regarding the separation of Lot I and II into 2 distinct solicitations.

Specific labor categories will be identified at the DO/TO level as appropriate.

58 146 6 Is it acceptable to print the SF 33 sections B-K double sided?

Yes, it is acceptable to print the SF 33 sections B-K double sided; however, one (1) side of each page will count as one (1) page count. The proposal needs to follow the maximum page counts and content noted in Section L.

59 125 4

Should the early submission (2 wks after RFP release) only include the Tables ES-1, ES-2, PP-1, CE-1 and Annex A and not the entire volumes these are a part of?

Correct; only those items identified in Section L, Part A, 4.1 are required 2 weeks prior to proposal submittal (not 2 weeks after

RFP release).

60 126-127 Part B, 1.0

Are tables ES-1 & ES-2 that are provided as a separate electronic file included in the page count for Volume 1 -

Executive Summary?

Separate Section L Attachments (i.e. Section L Attachment 1 which includes ES-1 and ES-2) do not count towards page counts for any volume.

61 120-125 2.0-3.0

Are the cover sheet, Table of Contents, Acronym list and

Cross Reference Matrix included in the page count for the volumes?

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.

62 128-139 2.0 - 2.3

Are the PP-1 tables embedded in the 40 page past performance document and submitted as a separate file that is not included in the page count?

PP-1a or PP-1b tables that are included as part of the L-3a or L-

3b attachment do not count towards to the Past Performance volume page count.

63 141 4

In the instructions for Table CE-2, for Column C it states, "Summarize the comparative analysis provided as narrative in 4.4 (Contract Comparative Analysis)… Should this have read 4.2 instead of 4.4?

The ES-2 Column C instructions have been updated to correctly state: Summarize the comparative analysis provided as narrative in 4.3 (Contract Comparative Analysis), utilizing a separate worksheet for each of the evaluation areas located in subparagraphs 4.2.1 through 4.2.6 as appropriate. Only provide data/factual comparisons. This update will be reflected in the

Final RFP solicitation.

64 69 H-7 Will Small Businesses be required to re-certify their size at the end of year 5?

The Government does not intent to have Small Businesses re-certify size at the end of year 5; however, the Government reserves the right to request certification at any time.

65 General Will you be releasing the charts from the Pre-proposal conference?

Yes. The Pre-Solicitation Conference brief is currently under review for Public release and will be provided upon approval.

Offerors are reminded that the vast majority of the information provided in the Pre-Solicitation Conference brief is the same information already provided in the Draft Solicitation.

66 16 4.0.6.4 Please confirm that the referenced software will be used both for work done on government and contractor premises

The software tools utilized in the contractor facility are at the discretion of the contractor and as defined by the basic contract

SOW sections 4.1.3, 4.2.3 and / or the individual DO/TO.

67 18 4.1.10

The facility clearance level specified in the text is Secret, however the DD254 specifies a Top Secret facility. Please clarify

The facility clearance of Top Secret identified on the DD254 is required for work conducted in Government spaces up to the

Top Secret level. The Secret level identified in the SOW and the safeguarding section of the DD254 is required for work conducted in Offeror spaces.

68 21 4.3.1.11

When would the information system as described be needed to be set up versus using existing government and contractor

LAN/WAN and IA capabilities?

This will be defined by the individual DO/TO requirement.

69 22/23 4.5/4.6

Please clarify/confirm usage of "provide" vs. "procure".

Specifically, what is the contractor expected to provide from existing inventory or on a non-reimbursable basis versus what will the contractor be tasked with obtaining on behalf of the government on a reimbursable basis? Is the government using the terms interchangeably?

The terms "provide" vs. "procure" are being used interchangeably.

70 25 6

With regard to personnel needing to have the ability to obtain and maintain a secret clearance, must personnel be cleared before starting work, or can they begin work while we are processing the SF86.

Personnel security classification levels will be determined and evaluated at the order level.

71 25, 26 10

Please confirm that the government is not defining key personnel at the IDIQ level and that no resumes are required with proposal submission. Are contractors expected to identify key positions at the IDIQ level, and provide resumes for those?

Key Personnel are not required at the basic MAC level. No information is required relative to Key Personnel for evaluation purposes of the basic MAC for either Lot I or Lot II.

72 27 10 Is Program Manager an IDIQ-level position?

No , there are no specific labor categories tied to the Basic MAC level.

73 67 1

Please clarify use of the term "exclusive basis" with regard to teaming. Is the Government's concern exclusity for this specific IDIQ, or exclusivity across NAVAIR/broader than this

IDIQ?

Exclusivity applies to this Basic MAC contract.

74 127 a.1

Although primes must be AS9100 certified, will subcontractors and vendors at the TO-level also be required to have the same certification?

No, only primes are required to be AS9100C certified.

75 139 Section 4.0

Does Experience need to address/match all the contracts referenced in the Past Performance section? May Corporate

Experience reference contracts in addition to those listed in

Past Performance?

All contracts referenced will be evaluated for relevancy. All contracts found to be relevant will be used in the Past

Performance and Corporate Experience evaluation. The relevancy (i.e. scope, magnitude and complexity) of submitted

Corporate Experience and Past Performance Contract

References will be determined through the process discussed in

Section L, Part II, Volume 2, subparagraphs 2.2 and 2.3.

76 Sample Task Lot 1

Page-3 paragraph-2 directs offerors to Reference the 10310 data package in RO 001 and use this data package to assess the scope and complexity of the finished A-Kit data package. However, the 10310 data package is for a C-130T aircraft and LOT-I is for modification of a CN235 (like) aircraft. Are we to assume that this data package is compatible with the modification aircraft for LOT-I?

The data package is not compatible with the aircraft for LOT I.

The data package is referenced to provide a comparative scope, scale and complexity of the requirement.

77 6 Industry Day Q&A

"Q: When submitting a TO/DO for PP, are offerors required to submit the SOW for the basic contract or just the TO/DO?

A: Offerors should submit the SOW for the TO/DO."

Confirming the corollary that if citing an IDIQ where all TOs are relevant, that the SOW at the IDIQ will be sufficient versus dozens of SOWs from five years of task orders.

Since the actual work performed was at the DO/TO level, offerors should submit the SOW for the TO/DO.