Questions__draft_RFP_2018_9_25_(FINAL).pdf

Question # Source Document Section Number Page Number Question/Comment Government Response

P2 - Past Performance

Contract Data

Cells C14-C22 and C27-

C29

Instruction Tab and

Tabs PP1-PP5

The Instruction Tab guidance for Cells C14-C22 and C27-C29 are to provide the applicable PWS/SOW

(Annex 2) paragraph numbers from the contract reference to show which portion(s) of the contract reference are relevant to this RFP and this is further reiterated within the RFP guidance. However, the guidance within Tabs PP1-PP5 states "For the attributes below, briefly describe how the past performance contract demonstrates relevance and list PWS/SOW references from the submitted contract that document the AVMI Contract scope of the past performance contract submitted." Please clarify whether the brief descriptions for the attributes are to be placed in Attachment P2, in Volume 1

Section 1.3 (Evaluation) per RFP para 1.2, or in a separate excel file as described in RFP 1.3a, Relevancy

(para 4).

The offeror should identify the SOW/PWS or other Contract references in P2, with the brief descriptions in Volume 1.

2 RFP Section L 2.1C and 2.4C.1.e.ii 79 and 83

Section 2.1 states "demonstrate that new hires will have their clearance eligibility by day one of the

PoP." However, Section 2.4 states "all new hires shall have a clearance or interim clearance (if required) prior to start date." Please clarify what "clearance eligibility" means and if clearances or interim clearances are required prior to start date.

Clearance Eligibility means that the individual has been investigated and was favorably reviewed and adjudicated. However, this does not mean you have an active clearance, rather it just means you are eligible for one. The completed investigation is just one of the steps towards having an active clearance. An interim clearance (also known as “interim eligibility”) is based on the completion of minimum investigative requirements and granted on a temporary basis, pending the completion of the full investigative requirements for the final clearance. An interim clearance or interim eligibility is required prior to the start of the PoP.

RFP Section L and Exhibit A

CDRLs 2.1E and CDRL A031 79

Section 2.1E states guidelines to follow in plan for the development and GGFR approval of the GOPs, specifically CDRL A031. The guidelines include GGFR time for review and approval but no mention of

COR time for review and approval as stated in CDRL A031. Please clarify the amount of time the COR requires for review and approval of the GOPs as per CDRL A031.

During transition, the GOPs need to be approved by the GGFR to ensure processes are identified to properly protect the aircraft, which allows the successful Offeror to work on aircraft. After the PoP begins, GGFR approved GOPs are submitted as per the CDRL for COR review. The time it will take for the COR to review CDRL A031 is expected to be within 30 days of submission.

4 RFP Section L 3 - Table and 1.3.a 73 and 77

The table in Section 3 requires that SOW/PWS and Contract (Sections A through K) be provided in

Annex #2. However, Section 1.3.a only mentions submittal of the SOW/PWS. Are Sections A through K required for each of our submitted contracts or will the SOW/PWS suffice?

The offeror should provide all material necessary to demonstrate relevancy and experience as needed per Section L. The RFP will be revise to include contract section and other information" in Section 1.3a Also see response to question #

16.

5 RFP Section L 1.3.a 77

Is the JV legal document with agreement to be provided in Annex #1 if we are referencing a JV as a

Prime on one of the PP contracts we will be providing or for an offeror that is bidding on this AVMI submission as a JV? With this reference under the "relevancy" section of PP it is unclear. Please clarify.

The JV legal document to be included in Annex 1 is for the offeror as proposed.

For JVs on past contracts, see question #6.

6 Does the Offeror need to submit the JV agreement for past performance references involving a JV?

The Offeror should provide authoritative documentation that would enable the

Government to assess past performance with respect to the JV team member's or a subcontractor's role and responsibility on the past contract (e.g. subcontracts flow down information, JV agreements, etc.) in Annex # 2. Offerors should also provide authoritative information that clearly identifies the CAGE CODE of the subcontractor or JV member on the past contract. The RFP was revised for clarity.

Would a JV's team member past contract provide prime contractor experience if the past contract pertains to a different JV than the one proposed?

A past contract will not provide Prime Contractor experience where the Offeror's

JV member is a member of a different JV on the past contract, i.e. a different JV

CAGE Code than the proposed JV.

RFP Section H and PWS

3.4.4 RFP 40 and PWS 47

PWS 3.4.4 identifies 3 labor categories as Key Personnel - Program Manager, Senior; Engineer, Instrumentation; and Engineer, Structural. 5252.237-9501 states in part "The contractor agrees to assign only those Key personnel whose resumes were submitted and approved..." Since no resumes are required to be submitted in the proposal, can the Government explain how this process will work?

Are the key resumes to be submitted to the Government for review and approval after contract award and during the phase-in period? If so, this seems a little risky as the contractor would presumably have to recruit to fill the position, submit and wait for Government review, hire (and potentially re-locate) the employee, and have them ready to start on contract day 1. Recommend that the at least the proposed Program Manager Resume be provided and evaluated with the Contractors proposal to mitigate the risk.

The Offeror is expected to review the Key Labor Categories and devise a plan on how they would fill them. Whether the Offeror submits a resume for a key person as part of the proposal should not change their process. The Government does not presume the Offeror would hire the key people in an advance of contract award whether the resumes were requested in the RFP or not. The

Government expects the key personnel resumes to be provided after contract award during transistion period. The Government review is expected to be no more than 3 working days.

9 RFP Section L 3.2(h) and 3.2(i) 88 There appears to be a conflict regarding escalation of SCA categories. 3.2(h) states "Offerors are reminded that in accordance with FAR clause 52.222-43, proposals shall not include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided under this clause." but the third bullet in 3.2(i) states "In an effort to ensure realism of costs during contract execution, Offerors shall propose escalation for all SCA and non-SCA labor categories to account for retention of personnel." Should SCA categories be escalated or not?

The sentence in Section L, part B, paragraph 3.2(h) that includes the reference to

FAR clause 52.222-43 wil be deleted as it is not applicable to this requirement/procurement. Section L, Paragraph 3.2(i) will be revised to clarify instructions to Offerors related to escalation.

10 RFP Section M Part B.1.B).1) 101

The paragraph states in part "In order for a submitted present/past performance contract reference to merit a relevancy rating of Relevant, the effort must demonstrate scope, magnitude, complexity, place of performance and recency in accordance with paragraphs a, b, and c below." Since place of performance and recency are noted, shouldn't this be modified to state "...a, b, c, d, and e below"?

Yes. A revision will be made to Section M of the RFP.

11 RFP Section M Part B.1.B).1)a) 101

The paragraph states in part "Similar Scope from at least five (5) of the following Scope areas". If a contractor's citation has more than 5 area's that match the Scope of the contract, will that contract carry any more "positive weighting" in the PP Confidence Assessment Rating? It would seem that a contract with similar scope in 7, 8 or 9 of the Scope areas would certainly be "more relevant" than one with just 5 (or 55%) of the 9 areas.

A contract meeting the relevancy ratings will be equally relevant regardless of the number of similar attributes beyond the minimum number stated. However, the degree of relevancy of the customer feedback finding in and of itself can impact the performance area or the performance confidence assessment differently or not at all. For example, performance of a relevant contract on a task that is not relevant to performance on the future contract such that it is assessed as not being a predictor of future performance will not have a bearing on the performance confidence assessment.

12 RFP Section M Part B.1.B).1)d) 102

The paragraph states " Place of Performance: Contracts from an entity that is the Prime contractor whose CAGE code is identified in Block 15A on the Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer, and

Award." It's not clear how the CAGE code for the contract has relevancy to Place of Performance.

Contractors may have only one CAGE code for the Corporate office, but operate in other locations. Was it possibly the Governments intent to include something like "Contract has multiple geographically dispersed support locations" similar to AVMI's 3 support locations?

The Government will not revise Section L or M to reflect the proposed revision.

First of all, the place of performance as discussed with respect to the CAGE Code in this procurement is not the AVMI support locations as stated in the question.

Those are the Government sites where the work will be performed. As stated In

Section L Part B1.3a "Note: "Place of Performance" for this solicitation pertains to the physical location of the prime or other entities that are deploying personnel or responsible for the work; not the Government site where the work is being performed." Additionally, some contractors have several locations based on there division of work and/or other organizational or business reasons. History has shown that entities of a contractor at different locations aka different CAGE

Codes have different capabilities in experience and in performance. Therefore, the Government will want to consider the capabilities of the entity that will be performing the future contract versus another entity that will not. The CAGE

Code provides the best gauge to ensure the Government assesses the capabilities that are most likely to have a bearing on future performance.

13 RFP Section M Part B.2 102

The evaluation of the Technical Proposal is unclear. Will each of the four elements be evaluated individually as "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" or is this an overall integrated rating. If individually, would an "unacceptable" rating for one of the elements render the whole Technical proposal as

"unacceptable"?

There will only be one integrated Compliance Rating and one integrated Risk

Rating for the Technical factor. However, only two of the elements (Transition

Plan and Management Approach) will contribute to the compliance rating.

14 RFP Section M Part B.2 103

The 1st para at the top of the page contains the following language, "The learning increases for this element as the amount of contract performance increases until the learning curve plateaus at three years. Therefore, the amount of experience will be considered in the evaluation to be increasing between one and three years, where the offeror will be considered fully proficient once three years of experience is reached." How will this criteria be reflected in the evaluation? Would a contract that is only been performed for one year carry a higher Technical Risk Rating than one with 3+ years?

An Offeror having 3 years of experience or more will be considered to have better experience than experience that is less than 3 years. Additionally, an Offeror with

3 years of experience will be considered fully proficient and therefore essentially equal to an Offeror with more than 3 years. The number of years will be reflected in the narrative assessment of the offeror experience. However, how they will impact the rating depends on the degree of experience and other attributes being considered in the experience assessment.

As stated in the response to question # 26, the amount of experience will be based on the collective period of performance of applicable relevant contracts.

However, a contract with less than one year will not be considered in the amount of experience. The solicitation will be revised to clarify this point.

Reference P2: Past Performance Contract Data Final. This spreadsheet has 5 tabs premade for past performance references. However, the RFP doesn’t explicitly state how many past performance references Offerors’ are allowed to submit. How many past performance references are Offerors’ allowed to submit?

All contracts (not limited to 5) deemed relevant should be provided. The offerors should minimize the number of contracts submitted by ensuring that no contracts falling under the definition of "Not Relevant" are submitted.

Reference Section L, Volume1: Past Performance, page 75 and P2 – Past Performance Contract Data

File. Section L states, “The following is a list of Attachments that the Offeror shall utilize to provide past performance information for this volume. These attachments shall be submitted in Volume 1:

Attachment P1 – Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire and Attachment P2 – Past

Performance Contract Data.”

However, further down, Section L states, “For all contracts identified that do not have a CPAR, the

Offeror shall forward a copy of the Contract Performance Assessment Questionnaire (Attachment P1) to that contract’s COR, PM or PCO; or commercial contractor equivalents. Please forward all applicable questionnaires within two weeks from this solicitation’s release date to allow adequate time for the recipient to respond. Note that the Offeror should not reference this solicitation’s number when distributing the past performance questionnaires to customers. The Offeror shall include instructions for the customers to send completed questionnaires within two weeks of its receipt via e-mail to Sherry

Stewart, Contracts Specialist, at sherry.stewart@navy.mil. The Offeror shall ensure that all points of contact identified above are current and include an email address and phone number. The Offeror shall not conduct follow-up actions with regard to these questionnaires, other than to confirm receipt by the recipient.”

Are Offerors required to include an Attachment P1 – Contractor Performance Assessment

Questionnaire for each cited contract in Volume 1 of the proposal, or are Offerors only required to submit Attachment P1 – Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire to the contract’s POC and have the POC send the completed questionnaire directly to Sherry Stewart?

The offeror should not provide P1 - Contractor Performance Assessment

Questionnaires for each cited contract. Offeror should send Questionnaires to past contract points of contact only if there are no CPARs and must not perform follow up for any Questionnaires sent, but should identify to the Government those that were sent and to whom. The Government will revise Section L to improve the clarity of these instructions.

Reference Section L, Section 3, Proposal Content and Volumes, page 73. Section L states, “The Offeror must present proposal information in a manner that facilitates a one-to-one comparison between the information presented and this Proposal Instruction. 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. The Offeror must answer all parts of the section or provide reasons it will not provide information for a particular paragraph. The proposal information instructions are structured by paragraph numbers where first, second, third, and fourth parts correspond to the volume, section, and element, etc., in the Offeror’s proposal.”

In reference to Section L, Volume 1: Past Performance, 1.1 Specific Instructions for Past Performance, page 75. Please clarify if the Government wants a section in Offerors’ proposals titled, “Specific

Instructions” for Past Performance and what this section should consist of. If not, please remove the

Volume/paragraph number from the Specific Instructions for Past Performance section heading.

The instructions that the "proposal information must be structured such that its

Volume/paragraph number matches the Proposal Instructions Volume/paragraph number provided in section" pertain predominantly to the Technical and Cost

Volumes and less to the Past Performance Volume. These instructions should be followed for the Past Performance Volume where it makes sense. The RFP will be revised to provide the offerors with more flexibility in preparing the proposal.

Reference Section L, Section 4 Proposal Submission, page 74. Section L states, “It is requested that the following Past Performance information be submitted no later than 21 days after the solicitation release date specified in Block 5 of the SF 33 of the solicitation: (1) Table 1 Relevant Contract

Summary for Past Performance (2) Attachment P2 Past Performance Contract Data for each Relevant

Contract and (3) The part of Annex #2 that provides the SOW/PWS contract information for each submitted Relevant Contract. ..." The table on page 73 specifies the desired format(s) of documents for final delivery. For example: bullet one is to be submitted in hardcopy and electronic format and bullet two and three are to be submitted electronically. Is the Offeror to follow the same specified requirements listed in this Table for the early past performance information as well?

Yes. The early past performance information should be provided as an electronic copy. A revision has been made to Section L, Part A, 4 Proposal Submission to clarify.

Reference Section L, Section 3 Proposal Content and Volumes, page 73. The table on page 73 states that Annex #2 is to include SOW/PWS and Contract (Sections A through K) for each submitted contract and Release of Adverse Past Performance Authorization Letters. On page 77 (Volume 1: Past

Performance, Section 1.3 Evaluation, a. Relevancy), Section L states, “Offerors shall provide one electronic copy of the Statement of Work/Performance Work Statement (SOW/PWS) for each of the contracts identified within Table 1 and Attachment P2.” Question 1 – Please clarify if the Government is requiring Offerors to submit copies of both the SOW/PWS and Contract (Sections A-K) for each referenced contract? Question 2 - If so, would the Government like Offerors to include the Contract

(Sections A through K) for each submitted contract in the early past performance information submitted as well?

The offeror should submit all information that would demonstrate relevancy and experience as needed per Section L. SOW/PWS, Contract Sections and any other information should be provided unless the offeror can demonstrate relevancy with less information. This information should also be provided as part of the early past performance information. Section L will be revised to clarify. Also see response to question # 4.

Reference SOW 3.1.9.3 (Training) and Section L, Volume 2: Technical, 2.1 Phase-In Transition Plan, D.

The requirements within these sections include that required training (i.e., Labor Category, GOP, OHSA, etc.) be conducted during transition in preparation for full contract performance. Given the successful

Offeror will not assume any incumbent employees until Day 1 of the AVMI contract, will we have access to those individuals during normal business hours during the transition to conduct such training? Or should we assume this training would have to take place after hours/weekends? If after hours/ weekends are required, will we have access to Government facilities to conduct the training?

The Incumbent contractor is still under contract to the Government during the

Transition period. Individuals working for the incumbent contractor during transition are tasked by the incumbent. It is not for the Government to say whether the successful Offeror can or cannot have access to them during normal business hours. The Government cannot reimburse the Incumbent for time their employees are not performing under the current contract. The Offeror will not have after hours or weekend access to Govt facilities.

21 Reference Section L, Part A General Instructions, 2. In the proposal formatting requirements within this section it states, “Foldout pages are not to be used.” Given the requirement of a “time phased transition plan” for the 60-day AVMI transition, which correlates to the inclusion of a Transition

Schedule, would the Government reconsider the use of foldout pages, even if there is a restriction for limited use of foldouts (i.e., limit to 2 or 3 foldout pages)? This will allow (1) Offerors to provide sufficient detail of the RFP-prescribed tasks to be accomplished over the 60-day transition period and

(2) provide for a more comprehensive, yet easier read for proposal reviewers.

Offerors will be allowed to use foldouts as necessary. Section L of the RFP will be revised accordingly.

Reference Section L, Section 3.3, Cost Information, Limitation of Subcontracting Paragraph, page 88.

In the paragraph on Limitation on Subcontracting, there is a sentence that reads, “Cost of contract incurred for personnel includes direct labor cost, overhead that has only direct labor as its base, and the small business’s General and Administrative (G&A) rate multiplied by the labor cost.” – Are fringe benefits considered a direct labor cost for the purpose of the requested demonstration? What is the difference between “direct labor cost” and “labor cost” that is used at the end of the sentence?

Fringe benefits are an indirect cost and are consider part of the total labor cost.

The Government has updated Section L, Section 3.3, Cost Information, Limitation of Subcontracting Paragraph of the solicitation to provide clarification to the

Offeror.

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.

The Government will not evaluate subcontractors as part of the Past Performance evaluation. 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 based on the scope, complexity and magnitude criteria listed in Section M of the RFP and how they performed on those contracts.

The previous draft from March 20, 2018 had relevant experience and somewhat relevant experience requirements, but the current draft does not appear to have the somewhat relevant requirements. If the Government is removing the somewhat relevant requirements, would the Government consider lowering the cost threshold for past performance citations? Previously that magnitude was $20 million for somewhat relevant.

The Government has considered what would constitute similar magnitude for determining relevancy and will not make any further adjustments to the magnitude dollar value.

Section M indicates that the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall body of work, or aggregate past performance, but it also seems to imply that each past performance reference will be evaluated individually. 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?

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 or Not Relevant.

Relevant contracts will need to demonstrate the Scope, Magnitude and

Complexity elements that are identified in Section M of the solicitation.

Section M states that "the learning increases for this element as the amount of contract performance increases until the learning curves plateau at 3 years" How is the amount of contract performance calculated?

The amount of experience will be based on the collective period of performance of applicable relevant contracts. However, a contract with less than one year will not be considered in the amount of experience. The solicitation will be revised to clarify this point.

27 RFP Section M

Based on the CFR, it is recommended that the AVMI Solicitation, Section M be updated to include the following statement….The Government will also evaluate JV team member’s demonstrated past performance where the JV team member was the Managing Partner of a JV.

There is no need for a change to Section M to state that JV members' past performance and experience will be considered because Section M already states that "The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s (proposed Prime only) and (if applicable) the JV and JV team member’s demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services similar to the solicitation requirements."

"For Workforce Management Experience and GOPs Development Capability, the corporate experience of the proposed prime and if applicable the JV and JV Team

Members will be evaluated."

28 RFP Section M Part B.1.B).1).b).1)

b) Similar Complexity from at least 2 of the following Complexity areas:

(1) Providing contract support services in accordance with the Service

Contract Act and Executive Order 13495, “Non-displacement of Qualified

Workers Under Service Contracts (Section I (52.222-17)) It is recommended adding “or Collective

Bargaining Agreement (CBA)” to this requirement.

The Government is only concerned with the complexity associated with providing contractor support services on a contract that is subject to the Service Contract

Act and the Non-displacement of Qualified Workers clause . As such, no update to Section M will be made.

29 RFP Section M Part B.1.B).1).b).3)

The majority of personnel supporting the contract are required to have at least a Secret Security Clearance (SOW 3.1.9.4, 3.2.2, 3.4.1.5) – It is recommended to reword this requirement as follows: “Providing contract support with cleared personnel who require a secret security clearance”.

As the referenced paragraph deals with complexity of previous contracts, the

Government believes the current verbiage in the RFP is accurate and appropriate.

As a result, no change will be made to the RFP.