AVMI_Industry_Questions_-_FBO_Post_23May18.pdf

AVMI Industry Questions

1. Would the Government consider allowing the inclusion of “principal subcontractor” citations for past performance? This would allow potential small business bidders to propose a more robust solution.

Government Response:

The Government will not evaluate subcontractors as part of the Past Performance evaluation.

Given the high percentage of SCA workforce associated with this requirement and FAR 52.222-17, Non-displacement of Qualified Workers, the eventual awardee will likely be responsible for managing what amounts to 80-90% of the current contractor workforce. As a result, the intent of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate whether the prime Offeror (the company that will be responsible for managing a very high percentage of the current AVMI contractor workforce) has current or previous contracts that are relevant or somewhat relevant based on the scope, complexity and magnitude criteria listed in Section M of the RFP and how they performed on those contracts.

2. Would the Government consider lowering the cost threshold for past performance citations?

Typically contracts that exceed 10% of the solicitation’s estimated value are considered relevant in magnitude, and such a threshold provides an avenue for growth for small businesses who are doing very similar work across multiple contracts.

The Government has considered this request and has determined that 10% of the estimated value of the follow on requirement is too low to be considered relevant or even somewhat relevant in terms of magnitude. There is a significant difference between managing a contract with 120 contractor personnel and managing a contract with 12 contractor personnel.

3. Small businesses often have relevant experience that covers the entire SOW but is spread across two or more contracts. This, in many respects, demonstrates a small business’s capabilities meet higher scope and complexity than a single such contract. However, as it currently stands, a small business whose overall capabilities meet the higher scope and complexity of the SOW, would be unable to submit past performance citations because individual citations would not meet even the minimum scope and complexity requirements, though the company comprehensively covers all the scope and complexity requirements across multiple contracts. Would the Government consider adopting the common practice of evaluating past performance as an aggregate over all citations, rather than requiring that each individual citation cover the SOW? Further, would the Government consider lowering the “Relevant” and

“Somewhat Relevant” thresholds for scope and complexity? This would allow small businesses to provide additional citations that demonstrate capabilities directly relevant to the AVMI requirements.

The Government will not evaluate the recency or relevancy of submitted contracts as an aggregate across all submitted contracts. Each submitted contract will be evaluated individually and will be assessed as Relevant, Somewhat Relevant or Not Relevant. Relevant or Somewhat Relevant contracts will need to demonstrate the Scope, Magnitude and Complexity elements that are identified in Section M of the solicitation.

4. Would the Government consider changing the specific requirement of “experience executing/performing contracts with the Ground and Flight Risk clause (DFARS 252.228-7001)” to “DFARS 252.228-7001 or equivalent”? Otherwise, highly similar experience on contracts with equal or more stringent requirements would not be considered relevant.

Any of the documents listed in the DFARS subpart 252.228-7001 (b) are considered equivalent documents and can be used to fulfill the Ground and Flight Risk Clause requirement for relevancy.

5. Section M, page 5, Part B, Section 3.0. Section 3.0 states “In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government may review the prospective Offeror’s proposed labor categories and compare the proposed rate to the average labor rate in industry or other similar rates within the same demographic zone where the work is to be performed.”

Question: The language needs to be strengthened to let offerors know in advance that the proposed labor rates will (not just “may”) be adjusted if rates don’t correspond to those in the

Section L “Historical Cost Range Table” for non-exempt categories and “similar rates within the same demographic zone” for exempt labor categories.

The Government will take this comment into consideration. Please see the next version of the Draft

RFP for any revisions.

6. Section C, SOW, page 18, Paragraph 3.1.11. Paragraph 3.1.11 identifies a significant list of management and quality tasks in 3.1.11.1.1 and 3.1.11.1.2. In 3.1.11.2, the PWS identifies just two Management Personnel to “manage the contract”.

Question: Is it correct to assume that other contract direct labor categories can be used to assist and/or perform these management functions as needed?

The Government is reviewing the availability of direct labor categories that can be used to perform contract management functions. Further direction will be included in the next draft RFP.

7. Section C, SOW, page 44. Section 3.4.4 identifies three key personnel positions that are subject to the NAVAIR Clause 5252.237-9501 – Addition or Substitution of Key Personnel.

Question: Since Section L doesn’t require the submission of resumes or addresses Key

Personnel in any way, where are offerors expected to identify their proposed Key Personnel in the proposal for these three Key positions to subject to this clause?

Resumes for Key Personnel are not required to be included with the Offeror’s proposal. Please see future Draft RFP for any revisions related to Key Personnel requirements.

8. Section L, pgs. 2 and 10, Part A, Section 3.0 and Section L, Part B, Section 2.0, Paragraph

2.1. Part A states “Proposal information must be structured such that its Volume/paragraph number matches the Proposal Instructions Volume/paragraph number provided in section “Part B

Specific Instructions” to which it is responding, although the Offeror may add lower tier subparagraphs.” Part B, Paragraph 2.1 is Past Performance Information Point of Contact.

Question: Please clarify what we are to provide in responding to Paragraph 2.1.

The verbiage in Section L will be updated to clarify the Government’s intent.

9. Section L, pg. 10, Part B, Section 2.0, Paragraph 2.2. RFP states “contract references submitted in each P1 attachment (Past Performance Information Form) shall be used in completing this Volume and all contract references shall be numbered the same throughout the

Offeror’s past performance proposal (i.e. the first contract reference shall be designated “PP1”, the second contract reference shall be designated “PP2”, etc.). File names or contract references shall be formatted in the following manner: N00421-XX-X-XXXX PP1, N00421-XX-X-XXXX

PP2, etc. where “N00421” is replaced with the actual UIC as necessary.”

Question: Is Attachment P1 included in Volume 2 Past Performance or as its own separate file?

Attachment P1 shall be submitted as a separate file. The RFP will be updated to clarify this proposal instruction.

10. Attachment P4 and Section L, pgs. 10-11, Part B, Section 2.0, Volume 2, Paragraphs 2.2 and

2.3.a. Paragraph 2.2 states “For each contract identified for past performance in Attachment P1

(Past Performance Information Form) the Offeror shall complete an Attachment P4 (Past

Performance Contract Data) provided within the attachment and submit it within this section and as a separate electronic file (Microsoft Excel).” While Paragraph 2.3.a states “The completed P4 attachment should also be included as part of Annex #3…”

Question: Please clarify if Attachment P4 is to be included in two sections of Volume 2 (Section

2.2 and Annex 3) in addition to the separate electronic file.

Section L of the RFP will be updated to clarify where Attachment P4 shall be included within the

Past Performance volume.

11. Section L, pgs. 3 and 11, Part A, Section 3.0 and Section L, Part B, Section 2.0, Paragraph

2.3.a. The table in Section 3.0 requires Annex #3, Past Performance: SOW/PWS to be submitted in Hard Copy and in a CD-ROM. However, Paragraph 2.3.a states “The SOW/PWS files only need to be submitted electronically, a hard copy is not required.”

Question: Please clarify if hard copies are required for the SOW/PWS files.

Section L of the RFP will be updated to clarify that hard copies of referenced SOW/PWS files are not required. A Microsoft Word file, or a PDF file, is required to be included in the Annex 3 folder

(on CD/DVD) for each contract referenced in the past performance volume.

12. Section L, pgs. 3, 5 and 6, Part A, Section 3.0 and Part B, Section 1.0. The proposal outline

(specifically those items under 1.1.2 Contract Management Support) provided in the Cross

Reference Matrix (CRM) in Section 3.0 does not follow the outline provided in Part B, Specific

Instructions.

Question: Please update the CRM to reflect Part B breakdown of Volume 1.

The CRM table in Section L of the RFP will be updated to reflect the correct paragraphs.

13. Section L, pg. 9, Part B, Section 2.0. Section 2.0 lists four attachments: P1 through P4.

Question: Will templates for these forms be released prior to the final RFP and if so, when?

The templates for Attachments P1 through P4 will be released in a subsequent draft RFP anticipated to be released prior to the AVMI Industry Day.

14. Section L, pg. 9, Part B, Section 2.0. RFP states “For this volume, the Offeror shall identify relevant contracts, or those portions of a relevant contract, whose performance is within five years of the RFP release date and contains efforts similar to those efforts as described in the appropriate Attachment P4”.

Question: Does the Government mean “as described in the SOW” instead of “as described in the appropriate Attachment P4?”

The intent is “as described in the appropriate Attachment P4”. This will be more clear once the template for the Attachment P4 is released.

15. Section L, pg. 10, Part B, Section 2.0, Paragraph 2.3. Paragraph 2.3 states “For each contract identified in each P4, the Offeror shall provide contract data regarding relevancy, past performance information, and demonstrated systemic improvement.”

Question: P4 is supposed to present an offeror’s summarized past performance contract data in

Excel format, but the instructions refer to “contract data” that appears to be different and requiring more detail. Please clarify.

There is a column in the Excel file where the Offeror is required to include some specific details.

This will be more clear once the template for the Attachment P4 is released.

16. Section M, pg. 5, Part B, Section 2.0. Section indicates that the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall body of work, or aggregate past performance, but the following statement seems to imply that each past performance reference will be evaluated individually, “This assessment will address the Government’s level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort based on the offeror’s Prime’s and

JV team members’ (if applicable) relevant past performance and systemic improvement.”

Question: Please clarify if the offeror’s past performance is being evaluated and rated in total, or if each reference is being evaluated separately.

Each contract reference will be rated individually for recency and relevance. However, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. As outlined in Section M of the RFP, the first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the

Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent relevant past performance. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance (Section M, Part B, Section 2.0).

17. Section L, pgs. 14 and 17, Part B, Section 3.3, Paragraphs 3.3(g) and 3.4. Paragraph 3.3(g) states “Offerors are required to submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for employees…” and Paragraph 3.4 is Total Professional Compensation Plan.

Question: Please clarify these plans are one in the same and where we should provide, in responding to 3.3(g) or under response for 3.4.

The compensation plan referenced in Section L, Part B, paragraph 3.3(g) refers to a compensation plan for the SCA employees only. “Offerors are required to submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for employees (including temporary and part time employees) who will work under the contract and are subject to the Act, and explain how the compensation plan complies with the Service Contract Act.”

The compensation plan in Section L, paragraph 3.4 refers to a “total professional compensation plan” which are typically associated with the non-SCA employees. If the compensation plan is the same for SCA and non-SCA employees, Offerors shall submit the compensation plan under Section

L, Part B paragraph 3.4 and reference that submission under Section L, Paragraph 3.3(g).

18. Section L, pgs. 12 and 13, Part B, Section 3.1, Paragraph 3.1(d) and 3.3, Paragraphs 3.3(c).

Paragraph 3.1(d) requires POC information for DCMA, DCAA and Government Paying Office.

However, Paragraph 3.3(c) states “DCAA point of contact, with current e-mail address, must be provided for the prime and each subcontractor.”

Question: Please clarify DCAA contact information must be provided in both sections.

Yes, both sections require DCAA contact information. Paragraph 3.1(d) is a summary of

Government agency contacts associated with the Prime offeror. Paragraph 3.3(c) requires specific

DCAA point of contacts and contact information for the prime and each subcontractor for any provided documentation from DCAA, such as payroll verification, provisional billing rate agreement, Forward Pricing Rate Agreements, etc.

19. As the final RFP is anticipated to be issued in June 2018, there is a very limited time period available for an Offeror that had intended to use Subcontractor past performance in its proposal

(as AES clearly stated in its SSN response in June 2017) to now form a JV that will go forward as the Offeror.

Question: Will the Government extend the release date of the final RFP to August 1, 2018, or beyond, so as to allow sufficient time for Offerors to form a Joint Venture?

The Government cannot delay the procurement milestones associated with a procurement to accommodate one company. However, the AVMI RFP will likely not be released in June 2018, as originally anticipated. As a result, the final RFP release date will likely be July or August 2018.

20. As the entire set of section M criteria for Past Performance Relevancy is being applied to each individual contract reference; and, by not accounting for the JV’s assignment of responsibilities among the JV team members. this criterion has the direct effect of nullifying the intent of CFR 125.8(e); and, negating the basic positive benefit motivating the formation of a JV.

Question: In the instance of a JV Offeror, will the Government perform its Past Performance

Relevancy determination, for:

Scope – Based on the assignment of the technical elements within the JV?

Complexity – Based on the demonstrated capability of the JV Managing Partner?

Magnitude Dollar Value- Based on the assigned dollar value workshare for each JV Member company?

Upon review of CFR 125.8(e), it does not appear the solicitation circumvents the intent of the regulation…

“(e) Past performance and experience. When evaluating the past performance and experience of an entity submitting an offer for a contract set aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously.”

Please see the next version of the Draft RFP for any additional information and/or revisions related to Joint Ventures.