Questions_final_RFP_2018_10_09.pdf

Question # Source Document Section Number Page Number Question/Comment Government Response RFP Revision Needed?

SOW

RFP Section M

3.1.9.4, 3.2.2, 3.4.1.5

Part B – Specific

Information, 1, B, 1), b), (3)

The requirements for a Contractor Facility Clearance and JPAS access in support of a classified Secret contract are the same whether one individual is assigned to the contract or “a majority of individuals” require secret clearances under a single contract. Furthermore, a contractor may simultaneously support multiple classified contracts, which would then attest to the Contractor’s ability to manage a large number of cleared personnel along with their associated periodic reinvestigations using JPAS.

Similarly, the Government requires IT-Level-1, IT Level-2 and IT Level-3 positions to be vetted with background investigations to access/use Government IT systems, which closely parallels the process for cleared contractor personnel.

Question 1: As the process is the same for one employee as it is for many, will the Government restate this Complexity requirement to read as follows: “Contractor has, at a minimum, a Secret

Facility Clearance and cleared contractor personnel on the cited Past Performance.”

The Government will not restate the Complexity requirement related to security clearances. As part of the Past Performance evaluation, the Government is looking for similar complexity as compared to the AVMI requirement, which involves the management of a large number of personnel that have a SECRET clearance on a single contract. This level of complexity impacts both on-site contract management as well as corporate contract management and aligns with the AVMI requirement. To clarify, a large number of personnel with security clearances spread across multiple contracts, where any given contract might only have 10% of the personnel requiring a clearance is not considered similar complexity to the AVMI requirement.

No

SOW

RFP Section M

3.1.8

Part B – Specific

Information, 1, B, 1), b), (2)

The referenced Ground and Flight Risk clause DFARS 252.228-7001 pertains to aircraft maintained, hangared, flown, operated from or in the open at the Contractor’s premise. It is the understanding that this AVMI effort will be conducted 100 percent at the Government’s locations per SOW 3.1.2.

The requirements of SOW 3.1.8 specifically pertain to NAVAIRINST 3710.1 Ground Operating

Procedures (GOPs).

Question2: Since the Contractor is not required to hangar, operate, fly or store aircraft in the open on Contractor premise in support of this AVMI contract, will the Government provide an alternate more applicable clause other than the Ground and Flight Risk clause (DFARS 252.228-7001) and then restate the requirement with that clause and how it relates to “Complexity” for any relevant aviation maintenance (NAICS 488190) contract past performance that does not contain the Ground and Flight Risk clause (DFARS 252.228-7001)?

Based on the DFARS reference 252.228-7001, the Ground and Flight Risk Clause applies to this contract and the Government will not consider restating the requirement with a different, inapplicable clause.

No

3 RFP Section M Part B – Specific

Information, 1, B, b

The cited reference (Non-displacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts (Section I

(52.222-17)) to support the above statement does not specifically include Service Contract Act wording. What it says is “Service employee,” as used in this clause, means any person engaged in the performance of a service contract other than any person employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity, as those terms are defined in 29 CFR part 541. The term

“service employee” includes all such persons regardless of any contractual relationship that may be alleged to exist between a contractor or subcontractor and such persons.

Question3: Since there are service contracts other than SCA contracts, such as Collective Bargaining

Agreements, that require the same clause, will the Government make the requirement more inclusive and to read: (1) Providing contract support services in accordance with any service contract that also includes Executive Order 13495, “Non-displacement of Qualified Workers Under

Service Contracts (Section I (52.222-17))?

Part of the definition of a Relevant contract as defined in Section M of the solicitation is a contract with “Similar Complexity”. The AVMI requirement falls under the Service Contract Act and is subject to the Non-displacement of

Qualified Workers clause, FAR 52.222-17. The AVMI requirement has never been performed by a contractor under a Collective Bargaining Agreement or any other type of service contract. Therefore, the Government’s interpretation of contracts of a “similar complexity” would be those contracts falling under the

Service Contract Act that are subject to the Non-displacement of Qualified

Workers clause. As a result, the Government will not revise the solicitation.

No

4 RFP Section M B), 1), b) Similar

Complexity, (2)

In evaluating Past Performance, one of the areas of similar Complexity that is desired is that the referenced contract contains the DFARS 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk Clause (GFRC). The RFP also instructs offerors that, in consideration of past performance, Recency may include contracts that were awarded more than 5 years ago, as long as the tendered effort occurred within 5 years of the solicitation release date. Surprisingly, these two criteria create an incongruity that precludes submitting certain efforts for consideration.

Prior to June 2010, the GFRC (Sept. 1996) existed alongside the DFARS 252.228-7002 (Sept. 1996) Aircraft Flight

Risk Clause (AFRC). These two clauses shared the same purpose: to indemnify contractors of liability under

Government aircraft contracts and to bind contractors to the operating procedures found in the Contractor’s

Flight and Ground Operations policy. The only major difference between the two clauses was that the GFRC was mainly used for Firm Fixed Price contracts and the AFRC was mainly used for Cost Reimbursable contracts. In June

2010, the GFRC was revised for clarity and consistency, subsuming the AFRC as part of the revision, resulting in the current GFRC (June 2010). Attached is the following documentation:

• 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk Clause (1996)

• 252.228-7002 Aircraft Flight Risk Clause (1996)

• 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk Clause (2010)

• Contractor’s Flight and Ground Operations (Air Force Instruction 10–220, Army Regulation 95–20, NAVAIR

Instruction 3710.1 (Series), Coast Guard Instruction M13020.3, and Defense Contract Management Agency

Instruction 8210.1)

Section 1.32.6 of the Contractor’s Flight and Ground Operations Policy provides a brief overview of 252.228-7002

Aircraft Flight Risk Clause and advises that this clause was available for use in contracts until the subsumption of the 1996 versions of 252.228-7001 and 252.228-7002 in June 2010.

Question: We respectfully request the Government to revise Final RFP, Past Performance, Section B), 1), b)

Similar Complexity, (2), page 104 to state, “The referenced contract contains the Ground and Flight Risk clause

(DFARS 252.228-7001). For contracts implemented prior to June 2010, the referenced contract must contain either the Ground and Flight Risk Clause (DFARS 252.228.7001) OR the Aircraft Flight Risk Clause. (DFARS

252.228-7002). (SOW 3.1.8)

This was updated in Amendment 2. See Section M, Part B, paragraph 1 (Past

Performance), B, 1, b) Similar Complexity, (2) Yes.

RFP Section L P2

– Past Performance

Contract Data Excel File

1.3 Evaluation, a.

Relevancy Instruction

Tab and PP(n) tabs

FRFP states, “For each Scope and Complexity area, provide a cross reference of each RFP SOW paragraph or sub-paragraph or contract clause reference to the Offeror’s Past Contract’s

SOW/PWS/Specifications paragraphs and/or contract reference. Include in this cross reference rationale explaining in technical terms if applicable, why it should be considered similar. Instead of including this cross reference information in P2, Column C, the offeror may provide this information in a separate table, or excel file, that provides for each scope and complexity area a row for each RFP reference or SOW paragraph/subparagraph and three columns for the RFP reference, past contract references, and the similarity rationales. The instructions for Cells C18-C20 (which should be C16-

C24) state, “Provide the applicable PWS/SOW (Annex A) paragraph numbers from the contract reference to show which portion(s) of the contract reference are relevant to this RFP.” However, in

Cell 15 and Cell 28 of the PP(n) tabs, it 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,“ and, “For the attributes below, briefly describe how the past performance contract demonstrates relevance and list PWS/SOW references that document the AVMI Contract complexity element of the past performance contract submitted”, respectively.

Question 1: Is the Offeror required to include the rationale explaining in technical terms why it should be considered similar in the P2-Past Performance Contract Data Excel File or can the Offeror create a separate table or excel file for the required rationale?

Per Amendment 2, the instructions tab for P2 has been updated.

The Offeror is not required to include all of the rationale explaining in technical terms why it should be considered similar in the P2 Excel File. A short sentence or two can be included here, along with the information required to allow the

Government to find the similar Scope or Complexity element in the referenced

SOW/PWS or other contract documentation that the Offeror provided. See the pre-solicitation conference brief (slides 74-76) that is posted on FBO for an example of a completed P2.

If additional explanation is required, that should be submitted in your Past

Performance Volume in a separate table, or Excel File, that provides the information required for each scope and complexity area.

Yes

RFP Section L P2

– Past Performance

Contract Data Excel File

Instruction Tab and

PP(n) tabs

FRFP states, “For each Scope and Complexity area, provide a cross reference of each RFP SOW paragraph or sub-paragraph or contract clause reference to the Offeror’s Past Contract’s

SOW/PWS/Specifications paragraphs and/or contract reference. Include in this cross reference rationale explaining in technical terms if applicable, why it should be considered similar. Instead of including this cross reference information in P2, Column C, the offeror may provide this information in a separate table, or excel file, that provides for each scope and complexity area a row for each RFP reference or SOW paragraph/subparagraph and three columns for the RFP reference, past contract references, and the similarity rationales. The instructions for Cells C18-C20 (which should be C16-

C24) state, “Provide the applicable PWS/SOW (Annex A) paragraph numbers from the contract reference to show which portion(s) of the contract reference are relevant to this RFP.” However, in

Cell 15 and Cell 28 of the PP(n) tabs, it 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,“ and, “For the attributes below, briefly describe how the past performance contract demonstrates relevance and list PWS/SOW references that document the AVMI Contract complexity element of the past performance contract submitted”, respectively.

Question 2: If the rationale doesn’t have to be included in the P2-Past Performance Contract Data

Excel File, is it still due with the Early Past Performance Submission?

Early past performance data is requested to assist the Government in performing an efficient evaluation. Certain items were requested as part of this early information, but the Offeror is not limited to only those items for the early submission.

If the referenced Contract’s SOW/PWS or other contract documentation does not clearly demonstrate a similar Scope or Complexity Element, it would be in the Offeror’s best interest to include that rationale with the Early Past

Performance Submission to allow the Government to successfully determine relevancy. Otherwise, the Government would be in the position of needing to wait until the Final Proposal was delivered to be able to successfully determine relevancy, thus eliminating any benefit to receiving the past performance information early.

No

P2 - Past Performance

Contract Data Instruction Tab

In the Instruction Tab guidance, the cell numbering is off and does not match up to the cells in Tabs

PP1-PP5. Please update to match Tabs PP1-PP5.

See Amendment 2 for the updated P2 which corrects the discrepancy. Yes

P2 - Past Performance

Contract Data Instruction Tab

In the Instruction Tab guidance, does "cell" refer to the Excel automated row number or the manually inputted row number?

The "cell" is the automated row number from Excel. No

P2 - Past Performance

Contract Data Instruction Tab

The Instruction Tab guidance (first highlighted area) refers to Block 14 "Description and/or Program

Responsibility". However, Block 14 within Tabs PP1-PP5 states "Date Contractor Assessment

Questionnaires were sent." Please clarify which block you are referring to in the highlighted area.

See Amendment 2 for the updated P2. Yes

P2 - Past Performance

Contract Data

Instructions For Cells

C4

The Instruction Tab guidance for Cell C4 is to provide "the contract reference used in the Executive

Summary Table ES-2, Relevant Contract Summary". However, there is no Executive Summary Table ES-

2. Please clarify what should be provided in this cell.

Amendment 2 removed the reference to the Executive Summary. The P2 instruction tab now references Table 1 Relevant Contract Summary for Past

Performance .

Yes

P2 - Past Performance

Contract Data

Instructions For Cells

C6

The Instruction Tab guidance for Cell C6 is to "complete Table PP-1 for only relevant contracts..."

However, there is no Table PP-1. Please clarify what should be provided in this cell and what table to complete.

The updated P2 in Amendment 2 now instructs Offerors to complete a new PP# tab/sheet within the P2 excel file to satisfy this requirement.

Yes

P2 - Past Performance

Contract Data

Instructions For Cells

C6, C8 and C12-13

The Instruction Tab guidance for Cells C6, C8 and C12-13 includes "note to drafter". This looks to be instructions for Workbook Author and not something we have to complete, correct?

See Amendment 2 for the updated P2. Yes

P2 - Past Performance

Contract Data RFP

Section L

Instructions For Cells

C16 Part B

The Instruction Tab guidance for Cell C16 states "Acquisition Phase(s) of Contract, if applicable (e.g.

Production, SDD)". However, there are no cells in Tabs PP1-PP5 that correlate with this. Please clarify where the Acquisiton Phase is presented.

See Amendment 2 for the updated P2. Yes

P2 - Past Performance

Contract Data RFP

Section L

Instructions For Cells

C18-C20 Part B

The Instruction Tab guidance for Cells C18-C20 states "Provide the applicable PWS/SOW (Annex A) paragraph numbers" There was no Annex A provided, should that read Attachment 1? Please clarify.

Corrected per Amendment 2 to reflect Annex 2 instead of Annex A. See

Amendment 2 for the updated P2. Yes

15 P4

Question 1:

In the workbook titled “P4_-_Subcontractor Cost Breakout Spreadsheet.xls, On worksheet “CPFF” Lines 97 and 98 the following information is listed; General Tech I, General Tech

II. On the worksheet “Burdened CPFF Labor Rates” the following information is listed; General Clerk II, General Clerk III. Will the government please clarify the labor category requirement for China Lake CA? Is it General Technician I and General

Technician II or is it General Clerk II and General Clerk III?

The rows within the "Burdened CPFF Labor Rates" tab in the P4 Attachment have been revised to be consistent with the required labor categories shown in Table

6 in Section L, Part B, paragraph 3.5.2. However, it should be noted that the referenced table in Section L, Part B, paragraph 3.5.2 is the official requirement for labor categories and associated hours at each location. The Government only added the labor categories within the P4 Attachment (and P3 Attachment) as examples of labor categories that could be proposed by the Offeror and their subcontractors. The labor categories within the tabs of both the P3 and P4

Attachments may be tailored to account for only those labor categories and associated hours that the prime Offeror (P3) or subcontractor (P4) is proposing.

It is also incumbent on the prime Offeror to ensure that all labor categories and required hours, as shown in Table 6 in Section L, Part B, paragraph 3.5.2 (Labor

Hours), are proposed in the P3 Attachment or a combination of the P3 and P4

Attachments (if applicable).

Yes

16 P3

Question 2:

In Workbook P3_Cost Summary Spreadsheet_-_AVMI (Split).xlsx in Cell C74; the formula is:

=SUM('CL + PtM (NWCF) (X005 - X008) '!G5)

Will the government consider correcting the formula to read, or will the government grant permission to the offeror to change the formula to:

=SUM('CL + PtM (NWCF) (X005 - X008) '!G6)

In Workbook P3_Cost Summary Spreadsheet_-_AVMI (Split).xlsx in Cell C90; the formula is:

=SUM('CL + PtM (NWCF) (X005 - X008) '!G21)

Will the government consider correcting the formula to read, or will the government grant permission to the offeror to change the formula to:

=SUM('CL + PtM (NWCF) (X005 - X008) '!G22)

The formulas in Cells G74 (vice C74) through G88 and G90 through G104 have been revised. See Amendment 3 for the updated P3.

Yes

17 RFP Section L Paragraph 4, Table 1

Question 3:

Section L, Paragraph 4 Proposal Submission requests Table 1 (Relevant Contract Summary for Past

Performance, Attachment P2 (Past Performance Contract Data for each Relevant Contract) and Annex

#2 be submitted no later than 21 days after the solicitation release date specified in Block 5 of the SF

33 of the solicitation (18 October). Based on the complexity of this response and the changes to the P2 since RFP release, will the Government consider extending the date of this early submission data to 28 days after the solicitation release date (25 October)?

Section L, Part A, Paragraph 4 has been updated to extend the early submission due date to 22 October 2018. See Amendment 3.

Yes