Draft RFP Questions_Answers - NAWCAD Response.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DRAFT Request for Proposal- Aircraft Prototype System Division Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N00421-23-R-0051-Draft-RFP-APSD-CSS
About this file
This document contains a draft request for proposal for aircraft prototype system division support services. The solicitation is being issued by the Department of the Navy Naval Air Systems Command Naval Air Warfare Center. Key requirements include providing engineering, logistics, and manufacturing support services for aircraft prototypes. The contract will have a one year base period and four one-year options. Responses are due within 45 days of release of the final RFP. Pricing will be fixed hourly labor rates with a requirement for all labor categories to meet or exceed SCA minimum wages. The acquisition has a small business set-aside and incumbent requirements. Evaluation criteria include past performance, staffing approach, and corporate experience.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| APSD Industry Day Brief_PublicRelease2023-698_FINAL.pdf | ||
| APSD Industry Day Attendance.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment L-3_Labor Hours Table.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N00421-23-R-0051 RFP DD-254_STILO Signed.pdf | ||
| CDRL A003_Ground Operating Procedures.pdf | ||
| CDRL A004_Contractor Training Plan.pdf | ||
| Attachment L-2_APSD CSS Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| WageDetermination 15-4279.pdf | ||
| CDRL A005_Personnel Locator Report.pdf | ||
| Attachment P-1_Minimum Rates Table.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment L-1_Staffing Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| CDRL A006_Transition Out Strategy.pdf | ||
| CDRL A002_OPSEC Plan.pdf | ||
| N00421-23-R-0051 APSD CSS Draft RFP SAM.pdf | ||
| CDRL A001_Contracts Progress and Status Report.pdf |
Show all 15
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| RFP # | N00421-23-R-0051 | N00421-23-R-0051 | ||||||
| RFP Title | Aircraft Prototype System Division | APSD CSS | ||||||
| NAWCAD Response | ||||||||
| Question | Document | Page | Section | Paragraph | Reference | Description/Background | Question | Answer |
| 1 | Draft RFP | Section B | CLIN Structure | Please define CLIN Structure. Example: CLIN 0001 unit is a Lot. How will this be invoiced? | The RFP establishes an IDIQ contract award. CLIN structure for invoicing purposes will be further defined post-award at the Order level. | |||
| 2 | Draft RFP | 17 | Section C | 2.5 Other Documents (APSD) | This section provides 3 APSD Documents: |
• APSD SWP5400-019, Standard Work Package (SWP) for Aircraft Prototype Modifications
• APSD-D-0021 APSD Quality Management System (QMS) Manual
| • APSD-D-0001 APSD Configuration Management Plan | Can the Government provide a copy of these as a reference? | The documents will be removed from the Final RFP. | |||||||
| 3 | Draft RFP | 18 | Section C | 3.1.2.2 - Meeting Support | This paragraph is requiring the Contractor to have the ability to host and conduct nonrecurring meetings with a maximum of 25 attendees, at the classification levels up to Top Secret, as well as have VTC capability. | Is this capability required on Day 1 of the contract? Is the Government requiring the a contractor facility to support TS level meeting with TS level VTC requirements/capabilities? Or only the ability to host up to TS face to face meetings? | SOW will be updated to clarify that there is no longer a requirement for TS capability within this meeting space. | ||
| 4 | Draft RFP | Section C | 3.1.2.2 Meeting Requirements | 3.1.2.2 Meeting Support – talks about TS meetings being held at Contractor Facility. There is a lot that goes into hosting a TS meeting to include permission from DCSA. Will USG clarify if these meetings will be TS meetings or just IPT meetings? | SOW will be updated to clarify that there is no longer a requirement for TS capability within this meeting space. | ||||
| 5 | Draft RFP | Section C | 3.1.3 CDRLS | CDRL A001 | The Program Status Report requires the contractor to provide cost every two weeks. This is normally done monthly. Would the government consider making this a monthly CDRL and rolling up the cost for each task order under one report? | The Government will not consider changing this to monthly reporting. The contents of the financial CDRL is defined at the IDIQ level. Consideration to approach for collection of similar requirements will be determined at the Order level. | |||
| 6 | Draft RFP | 18 | Section C | 3.1.3 CDRLS | CDRL A001 | CDRL A001 requires that the Contractor shall provide a Progress and Status Report on a bi-weekly basis. Date of first submission is required 30 DAC with subsequent submissions As Req. | Can the Government give an idea of how many day after the reporting period that this report will be required? | Block 10. Frequency, states bi-weekly after first submission. The Government will take in to consideration a specific day of the week after the first submission to provide a stable and planned delivery schedule. | |
| 7 | Draft RFP | 18 | Section C | 3.1.3 CDRLS | CDRL A001 | This section states "To enable electronic data analysis and cross-checking, personnel names and labor categories shall be EXACTLY the same across all CDRLs." | Does the Government mean that personnel names and labor categories must be exactly the same across task orders or within the same task order? Can employees be promoted to a higher labor category when applicable? | For any given reporting period, any individual's name needs to be reported the same across all CDRLs. Example: do not interchange "Joe" and "Joseph." | |
| 8 | Draft RFP | 21-22 | Section C | 3.1.9.1 Mandated Training | This paragraph requires Contractor personnel to participate in training requirements that will be provided by the Government or be an allowable cost. | Can the Government provide examples of what training is expected and would be a considered allowable cost? | Participating in NAVAIR mandatory training that represents a minimal time commitment (1 hour or less); most training is completed online. Additionally, APSD on-site Government project management and configuration management systems and process familiarization. These are direct allowable costs. | ||
| 10 | Draft RFP | 22 | Section C | 3.2.2 Investigative Requirements | 3.2.2 of SOW states all contractor personnel are required to have a favorably adjudicated T3 investigation (SECRET). However, it goes on to state that personnel shall maintain a security clearance commensurate with the level of classification on the DD-254. The DD-254 indicates TOP SECRET. If TOP SECRET, section 3.2.2 should read T5 investigation. Is that the USG intent? | The SECRET requirement is stated as a minimum requirement for all personnel. Additionally, there will be a requirement for a small cadre of TS cleared personnel and will be identified at the Order Level with the required time to escalate the clearance for those individuals. The DD254 for solicitation captures the NTE security requirement. RFP will be updated to clarify requirement on Day 1 Staffing. | |||
| 11 | Draft RFP | 26 | Section C | 3.3.1 Quality | Paragraph 3.3.1 requires the contractor to have a QMS at the site, but then sites that the APSD’s QMS takes precedence. Would the government consider stating that the Contractor will work under the APSD’s QMS while working at the APSD and under its own QMS while at Contractor Facilities and where conflicts arise between the two QMS, a notification will be provided to the APSD? Rationale: Costly to get site certified just to have a QMS on site that requires the contractor to perform work the way the Government’s processes dictate. | The Government agrees with the rationale and will provide further clarification within the updated RFP. | |||
| 12 | Draft RFP | 29 | Section C | 3.3.13.2.4 Advanced Printing | This section requires the Contractor to perform advnce printing functions. | Is this expected to be done on Government site or at Contractor site? If Contractor site, how soon after contract award would the Contractor need to have this capability? | The predominance of the requirement is performed at Government site in NAS Patuxent River, MD. Contractor will provide or have access to additional printing capability. This will be defined at the Order level and will be required for surge activities or added complexity within the manufacturing process that APSD does not perform on-site. | ||
| 13 | Draft RFP | 36 and 59 | Section C | 4.4 - Labor Category Functional Descriptions/Duties | AD-6 Secretary III and MMR-2 Janitor require Top Secret Clearances | Does this clearance level need to be at this level on Day 1 or is a Secret or Interim Secret acceptable until the Top Secret is granted? | TS will be required on Day 1 for these two LCATs. | ||
| 15 | Draft RFP | 110 | Part B Specific Instructions | 1.2 Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) Supporting Documentation | To demonstrate their experience, the Prime Contractor shall provide the GOPs cover sheet(s) signed by the Government Ground Flight Representative (GGFR). | Can a Ground Operation Procedures (GOP) be provided by a team member that is a significant subcontractor? | Subcontractor GOP cover sheets will not be considered as substitutes or supplemental documentation. The Prime contractor is required to submit previously approved GOP cover sheets that are developed by the Prime. The Government acknowledges that not all required GOPs in CDRL A003 may have been utilized or required by the Small Business prime in previous contracts. The RFP will be updated to clarify. | ||
| 16 | Draft RFP | Section J | N/A | N/A | Can pricing files (P1, P2, P3, and P4) be released so offerors can assess? | The P2 and P3 documents are to be filled out by the Offeror at time of proposal and will be released with Final RFP. The P4 document will be released with Government responses before the Final RFP. | |||
| 17 | Draft RFP | Section L | 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes | 3.0 Proposal Submission Table | Confirm 3.2 Relevant Experience Projects is an Annex to be submitted as a separate collection of required documents (Contract, SOW, etc.) | Yes, Section 3.2 will be submitted as an annex, or "file package", which contains all substantiating documentation for answers in the Attachment L2 APSD CSS Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet. | |||
| 19 | General | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Will the customer release the list of attendees from the Industry Day in August? | Yes. Will be provided in Industry Day sam.gov announcement in the near future. | ||
| 20 | General | SAM.GOV Draft RFP Announcement | Description, 1st Para | ||||||
| A 30-day response time is very difficult to meet without prior knowledge of the three Sample Task requirements. This favors the incumbent who is already performing the work and has the Subject Matter Experts in place to address the specifics of the Sample Tasks. | Request the Government consider a longer response time. We recommend 45 days. | The Government has taken in to consideration the requests for a longer response time. The RFP will be updated to reflect this change to 45 days. | |||||||
| 21 | General | Page 111, L.B.2.2.1-L.B.2.2.4 Sample Tasks | Will there be a Q&A period following the release of the Sample Task Orders? | The Government will allow a period after the Final RFP release for additional questions and clarifications. | |||||
| 22 | General | SF33 | What Defense Priorities and Allocations System rating does this contract hold? | The Government will hold a rating of DO-A1 for this contract. | |||||
| 23 | General | Other documents | Will the USG consider allowing substantiation of facility size, certifications, clearances, and Corporate Applications questions via actual certification and approval documents instead of contracts documents? | Yes, the Government will take these official records in to consideration. The RFP will be updated to clarify. | |||||
| 24 | L-1 - Staffing Matrix | N/A | N/A | N/A | First Day Staffing Matrix shows the following labor categories needing a TIER 5 (Secret W/SSBI or Top Secret Clearance): |
Analyst, Project, Senior Drafter III, Electrical Drafter IV, Mechanical Electrical Engineer, Senior Engineer, Mechanical, Journeyman Manager, Project, Journeyman Technician III, Sheet Metal Technician IV, Sheet Metal Technician III, Wiring
| Technician IV, Wiring | The Draft RFP does not specify that these labor categories need a TIER 5 (Secret W/SSBI or Top Secret Clearance). Please confirm which labor categories need TIER 5. | The Government will clarify and update the Day 1 Security Clearance requirements with final RFP. | ||||
| 25 | L-1 - Staffing Matrix | Configuration Manager | Can the Government clarify if the Configuration Manager needs to have a Security Clearance up to TS? Rationale is that CM is responsible for all drawings and data filed. | The stated security requirement of Secret for the Configuration Manager will not change. | ||
| 26 | L-1 - Staffing Matrix and L-3 Labor Hours Table | L-3 Labor Table has .5 MY listed in the Year 1 for Technical Writer II and Configuration Manager, Journeyman and the L-1 Staffing Mix (Gov't Day one Staffing) has these labor categories 1 MY each. | Please confirm that Day One Staffing is anticipated at a .5 MY each. | Day 1 requirement is for a Tech Writer III and Configuration Manager, Journeyman at one (1) full FTE each only. |
The RFP and attachments will be updated to clarify.
| 27 | L-2 - Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet | N/A | N/A | 9.1.2.7.2 and 9.1.2.8.2 Corporate Application Questions | Page 112, L.B.3.1.4 | Does past performance with design and manufacturing within the functional elements of a PLM (ex. Product Data Manager (PDM) system and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)) systems qualify as PLM tools? | At this time, the Government cannot provide a response that adequately addresses the question without directly influencing the approach, or score within the L2 Attachment. | |
| 28 | L-2 - Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet | N/A | N/A | 9.1.4 Corporate Application Questions | Will the USG consider allowing substantiation of facility size, certifications, clearances, and Corporate Applications questions via actual certification and approval documents instead of contracts documents? | The Government will accept official documentation, or final certification, that substantiates facility size, certifications, clearances, and Corporate Applications questions. The Final RFP will be updated to reflect the change. | ||
| 33 | P-1 Minimum Rates Table | Labor Category Engineer, Avionics SCA Code is 49-2091 | This assigned SCA Code is tied to a Technician vs an Engineer, please confirm that this SCA Code is applicable for this Labor Category. | The Government recognizes the discrepancy and will update the Final RFP. Additionally, this LCAT is not an SCA category and will remain within BLS. | ||||
| 35 | RFP Section L | Page 113, L.B.3.2.2 | Signed DD254 is listed as required for all relevant experience projects. Please confirm that a DD254 can be provided IF APPLICABLE to specific project experience. | The Government will accept DD-254 documentation "IF APPLICABLE" to specific project experience. The Final RFP will be updated to clarify. | ||||
| 37 | Section L | Section L | 2.2 | Section L, Para 2.2 | It will be hard to cover Assumptions, Management / Team, Facility Utilization Plan, Teaming / Staffing Plan, and Substantiation—in addition to the undisclosed a) to c) for each Sample Task in 15 pages. | Request the Government consider allowing more page count or including an overarching management approach outside of the Sample Tasks. | The Government has taken in to consideration the request for a higher page count and separating management approach . At this time, the page count and final approach will not change. | |
| 38 | Section L | Section L | 3.1 | Section L, Para 3.1 #6 | The paragraph states, “The Government will consider the corporate experience of an Offeror’s principal subcontractor, which is defined as a team member that will be responsible for performing at least 20% of the work (in terms of hours or dollar value)”. This requirement may be difficult due to the following: |
(a) As a SB contract, a team could not have more than two principal subcontractors and maintain the FAR-required 51% of the workshare
(b) A principal subcontractor used in Corporate Experience with at least 20% of the workshare will drive up costs (subcontractors with infrastructure like hangars, aircraft, etc. are typically higher priced companies)
(c) This approach does not allow bidders to optimize total scores by showing the full breadth of their team’s capabilities
| (d) Given the IDIQ nature of the contract with the Task Orders (TOs) as unknowns, defining principal subcontractors as 20% or more workshare in order to use them in the Corporate Experience evaluation may result in less-than-optimal solutions for TOs in contract execution | Request the Government consider lowering the required workshare for a principal subcontractor to contribute to Corporate Experience to 5-10%. | The principal subcontractor definition and 20% share is a common standard across NAWCAD contracts. The workshare percentage will remain 20%. | |||||||
| 39 | Section L | Section L | 2.1.1 | The paragraph states, “For each labor category proposed, the Offeror shall indicate within the associated column of Attachment L1, whether the proposed employee is current, contingent, or prospective.” The only column that allows text, other than Name, is “Rationale/Justification”. | Recommend renaming the “Rationale/Justification” column to Employee Status (i.e., current, contingent, or prospective). | The Government will provide an updated L1 document with the Final RFP to address to document limitation. | |||
| 40 | Section L | 107 | Section L | 3.0 - Volume 4 Price/Cost | Section 4.8 of the tables notates a DCMA Approved Purchasing vs L-2 Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet - Item 9.1.4.3 states acceptable purchasing system. | Can the Government provide clarification and update in the Final Solicitation? | The Government will clarify and update with final RFP | ||
| 45 | Sections L&M | Section L | Volume 3 Corporate Experience | With the Self-Scoring Matrix and supporting artifacts as the only means for evaluating an offeror’s corporate experience, there is no mechanism for determining how well they performed the work; therefore, there is no consideration for avoiding poor performing contractors. In addition, based on our evaluation of FAR 15.304 (c)(3), a Past Performance evaluation is required. | Request that the Government consider including a more traditional Past Performance to allow you to evaluate how well an offeror performed the relevant work (e.g., CPARs) - to ultimately avoid awarding to an offeror with a record of poor performance. This could be a very high-level simplified form focused on meeting performance objectives. | Past Performance will not be considered for this acquisition. | |||
| 46 | Sections L&M | Section L | 9.1.2.4 | The following wording is unclear as written, “Have you approved airworthiness artifacts under the authority of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) program for commercial platforms.” | To receive these 1,000 points, does the cited contract have to have a documented requirement for a FAA authorized DAR (Designated Airworthiness Representative) or FAA DER (Designated Engineering Representative) OR just support the approval by an authorized FAA ODA? | The Government acknowledges the benefit of both activities. The L2 Attachment will be updated in the Final RFP to clarify the requirement. | |||
| 47 | Sections L&M | Section L | Column I, Data Artifact Supporting Answer | Some contracts may have more general PWS/SOW documents that do not explicitly identify requirements for adhering to certain Government specifications (e.g., NAVAIRINST 13034). | If there is no specific artifact to support a claim, are there other means to meet this requirement (e.g., a document signed by the Contracting Officer’s Representative or the Contracting Officer validating the claim)? | The Government is willing to accept these official records as artifacts as long as the intent, contract number, period of performance, value, scope, and requirement are clearly identified. The Final RFP will be updated to clarify. | |||
| 51 | Page 123, M.B.3.1 | Can the Government provide a copy of the three documents listed in para 2.4, APSD SWP5400-019, APSD-D-0021 and APSD-D-0001? | The documents are not required for the solicitation; therefore, not necessary for the Offeror to propose. Due to sensitivity of information within them and inability to approve for public release, documents will only be provided at time of award. | ||||||
| 9 | Draft RFP | ||||||||
| L-1 - Staffing Matrix | 24 | Section C | 3.2 Security | Two paragraphs on this page contradict each other. First reference states all contractor personnel shall maintain security clearance eligibility commensurate with the level of classification of the work performed as annotated in the Contract's DD-254 (which shows TOP SECRET). Second reference states all personnel supporting the tasks under this contract must be eligible for a SECRET security clearance. L-1 lists different clearance levels for each labor category, further contradicting the statements in the SOW. Please clarify USG intent. | The SECRET requirement is stated as a minimum requirement for all personnel. Additionally, there will be a requirement for a small cadre of TS cleared personnel and will be identified at the Order Level with the required time to escalate the clearance for those individuals. The DD254 for solicitation captures the NTE security requirement. RFP will be updated to clarify requirement on Day 1 Staffing. | ||||
| 29 | L-2 - Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet | N/A | N/A | N/A | This worksheet seems to have a mixture of project/corporate experience elements. There are elements of corporate experience withing 9.1.3 and 9.1.4. | Please confirm that a separate L-2 document needs to be provided for each relevant project reference with completion of all project/corporate experience elements. | A separate L-2 document is not required for each relevant project. All relevant projects will be referenced within Column I (Data Artifact, File Name) and delivered to the Gov as part of an overall "artifact package" (3.2 Relevant Experience Projects). The RFP will be updated to clarify. | ||
| 30 | L-2 - Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet | N/A | N/A | N/A | Does your facility provide hangar accommodations to support aircraft up to the size of: |
9.1.3.14.1 H-60
9.1.3.14.2 V-22
9.1.3.14.3 P-8 This requirement appears to be excessive for a Small Business as this requirement is a Small Business Set-Aside. What are the associated runway length and weight requirements and can the awardee use government owned runways and hangar? The P-8 aircraft reference is provided for planning purposes. Requirements will be defined at the Order level and will be specific to the aircraft platform.
At this time, proposed facilities (runways and hangar) for aircraft must only be considered by the Prime Offeror.
| 31 | L-2 - Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet | Page 17, para 2.4 | States USG will fill in Column H of Attachment L2, during evaluation, based on the Offeror's "yes" or "no" response in Column E, and the review of the data artifacts that need to be identified in Column I and submitted with the Offeror's proposal. How will these points be assigned? Will it be a full points/no points score if the substantiation data provided clearly meets the criteria, or will it be any partial amount of points based on the USG's assessment of the substantiation? | No partial points will be given to projects. RFP will be updated to clarify. | |||
| 42 | Section L | Section L | 3.1 and 3.2 | Section L, Paras 3.1 and 3.2 | It is unclear whether an offeror must include one L-2 for the entire corporate entity as well as up to four separate L-2s to address the requirements in Para 3.2 for Relevant Experience Projects. | Is it a correct assumption that there are multiple L-2 Attachments required (one for the corporate entity in 3.1 and one each for each Relevant Experience Project cited in 3.2)? | A separate L-2 document is not required for each relevant project. All relevant projects will be referenced within Column I (Data Artifact, File Name) and delivered to the Gov as part of an overall "artifact package" under 3.2 Relevant Experience Projects. The RFP will be updated to clarify. |
| 43 | Section L | Section L | Page 92 |
Section L
| Para 1.0 General | The paragraph states, “Throughout these instructions, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 20% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee) for the contract or provides one or more Key Personnel.” Key Personnel are not required based on the Draft RFP. | Request that the Government clarify if there is any way for a subcontractor to be defined as principal beyond providing at least 20% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee). | The principal subcontractor definition and 20% share is a common standard across NAWCAD contracts. The workshare percentage will remain 20%. RFP will be updated to remove "Key Personnel". | ||||||
| 48 | Sections L&M | Section L | All | It is very difficult for a SB to achieve the required score of 51% on all three elements. In addition, we conducted an analysis on what we considered relevant contracts within the last five years and most did poorly. In fact, the current APSD contract did not score the 51% in each element based on our assessment of the SOW released with the RFP. We recognize there may be growth on the follow-on contract; however, these scoring requirements may limit competition. | Request the Government consider not requiring the projects to cover 51% of all three elements, but instead require them to achieve 51% of each element in at least one cited contract. | The Government's intent is for each section (9.1.2, 9.1.3, and 9.1.4) to meet or exceed 51% score with all provided artifacts in that section. Individual artifacts will not be given a percentage rating. The Final RFP will be updated to clarify. | |||
| 14 | Draft RFP | 112 | Section L | 3.2 Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet | One of the minimum conditions is that all projects shall be of the Offeror or Principal Subcontractor performed as a Prime Contractor, Principal Subcontractor or Joint Venture, and shall not include work performed by a Subcontractor through a teaming arrangement. | The definition of Principal Subcontractor may differ between contracts or contracting activities. Also, the term Principal Subcontractor is typically only identified in the original proposal response. Subcontractors are normally added in execution of a contract. Will the Government confirm that as long as verifiable contractual documentation can be provided on a project performed as a subcontractor, that it will be accepted. | Submitted artifacts must show this relationship as an official record without the added burden of verifying it outside of what has been provided. | ||
| 32 | P-1 Minimum Rates Table | Labor Category Administrative Assistant SCA Code is 01020. | Please confirm the SCA Minimum rate. | The Final RFP will be updated. | |||||
| 34 | P-1 Minimum Rates Table and Draft RFP | 58 | Section C | 4.0 Personnel Qualifications | Production Control Clerk. | Labor Category Production Control Clerk isn't listed as SCA in this attachment but is listed as SCA under the RFP - Personnel Qualifications. | This assigned SCA Code is tied to a Technician vs an Engineer, please confirm that this SCA Code is applicable for this Labor Category. | The Final RFP will be updated. | |
| 18 | Draft RFP | Section L | 3.1 Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet | In the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP), the government's evaluation criteria for Corporate Experience is based on specific projects that meet the 51% threshold in each of the three sections of the self-scoring worksheet. The current evaluation criteria does not provide a clear evaluation of the offeror’s true Corporate Experience, rather the experience performing the scope of the attached PWS or whether or not the Offeror has individual projects that are similar to the anticipated contract. Recommend the government reevaluate its approach to assessing corporate experience by adopting a cumulative scoring method from all of the offeror’s Corporate Experience derived from the self-scoring worksheet. This format has been used on other NAVAIR acquisitions (ex. RFP N0001919R0040). This would provide a more comprehensive and accurate representation of an offeror’s overall experience, expertise and capabilities. | The Government has considered all approaches and at this time the planned approach will not change. The L-2 attachment will be updated with the Final RFP. | ||||
| 36 | Section L | Section L | 2.1 | The paragraph states, “Throughout these instructions, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 20% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee) for the contract or provides one or more Key Personnel.” Key Personnel are not required based on the Draft RFP. | Request the Government consider not requiring LOIs at the time of proposal submittal. In execution, the majority of the qualified incumbent workforce will be retained (with the exception of poor performing employees and those that choose to retire). If LOIs are required, we suggest removing the salary information—it is difficult to have pricing finalized, make contingent offers, enter salary negotiations, and receive signed LOIs for nearly 100 employees within a 30-day time period. | The Final RFP will be updated to remove the Key Personnel language and update the LOI requirement. | |||
| 41 | Section L | 107 | Section L | 3.0 - Volume 4 Price/Cost | Sections 4.5 thru 4.9 of the table are not addressed under Volume 4: Price/Cost Proposal section. | Will that be updated in the Final Solicitation? | The Final RFP will be updated. | ||
| 49 | Sections L&M | Section L | Section M, Para 2.1.1 | The Day One Staffing Approach, which is the highest weighted subfactor, provides an advantage to the incumbent. Small Business bidders typically do not have the required number of current employees on overhead that could be moved onto this contract. Non-incumbent offerors would likely have to bid a combination of current employees from other contracts and contingent employees to increase their score. Given the Section M evaluation criteria, current employees score higher than contingent; therefore, the incumbent who has the workforce already will score the highest. | Request that the Government consider revising the Section M language to allow non-incumbent staffing solutions, which could possibly include scoring highly qualified contingent employee solutions as equal to current employees, given that the offeror has a solid approach for delivering proposed staffing during transitions. | The Final RFP will be updated to clarify the Day One Staffing Approach within Sections L & M. | |||
| 50 | Sections L&M | Section L | Section M, Para 3.1 | This statement in the paragraph is unclear, “The frequency, duration or other proficiency indicating attributes within a contract, and across contracts, are germane to this assessment versus solely relying on the number of contracts.” | Can the Government provide additional information on how you will assess frequency, duration, and proficiency from the data artifacts since most SOW/PWS documents do not include this level of detail? | The Offeror will be required to substantiate all claims within the L2 attachment. The Government will assess the stated attributes and will utilize all projects to establish frequency along with the predominance of the scope within to assess duration and proficiency. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .