FTSS V Industry Day QA_1-76_8.3.20.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Navy Fielded Training Systems Support (FTSS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N6134021R0001
About this file
This document contains a sources sought notice for the Navy Fielded Training Systems Support V (FTSS V) multiple award contract. The notice seeks capabilities statements from potential offerors to provide a range of complex and non-complex services including contractor operation and maintenance of training simulators and devices, as well as contractor instructional services to support Navy and non-Navy training requirements. Key details include nineteen known recurring task orders valued at approximately $1 billion to provide these services at multiple domestic and international training locations. Offerors should describe relevant experience over the past five years, including on NAWCTSD contracts. The engineering services NAICS code is 541330 with a $41.5 million size standard. Responses are due by March 16, 2020 and should not exceed twenty pages.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 46
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
| Navy Fielded Training Systems Support V (FTSS V) N6134021R0001 Industry Day | |||
| Industry Questions and Government Responses | |||
| # | Date | Industry Question | Government Response |
| 1 | 4/20/20 | For evaluation of offeror Corporate Experience and Past Performance, will the Government evaluate both the Prime and Subcontractor(s)? | At this time the Navy intends to evaluate Corporate Experience (CE) and Past Performance (PP) for the Prime contractor and Joint Venture (JV) team members only. This is consistent with the predecessor, FTSS IV solicitation. Offerors shall not submit CE and PP contracts for subcontractors since subcontractor's CE and PP will not be evaluated. If a Prime intends to subcontract a portion of the effort, e.g. Contractor Operations and Maintenance Services (COMS) or Contractor Instructional Services (CIS), evaluated under CE and PP for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or both, the Prime shall provide relevant contracts for the Prime for that subcontracted effort. This will allow the Prime to demonstrate its own CE and PP for that evaluated portion of CE and PP. Contract references provided, that are performed by contractors other than the Offeror (such as teaming partners or subcontractors) will NOT be evaluated as Prime contractor CE or PP, unless those other contractors are part of a JV Offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. |
| 2 | 4/29/20 | Is there a dollar threshold under which you would do a simulator Engineering Change Proposal (ECP), upgrade or modification under COMS scope? | Typically it would be done with the COMS workforce on hand and involve no or limited design/development work, and generally contemplated within the scope of the contract, but there is not a mandatory dollar threshold. |
| 3 | 4/29/20 | What is the likelihood of opening the SBSA Lot again? | Yes, a Small Business Set-Aside (SBSA) Lot 2 is planned for FTSS V. |
| 4 | 4/29/20 | Is covering OCI an administrative need for completeness or is there the likelihood for an OCI issue to exist due to anticipated FTSS V TO requirements? Can the Government provide a specific example of how this could occur on the FTSS V? | At this point we have no awareness of an OCI or a need to do anything specific to proposal submittals. We are seeking input from industry into whether or not there is a need to include the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) clauses in the FTSS V solicitation. For example, another effort that a contractor has worked on previously could impact FTSS V. We ask you to take a look at the OCI clause in light of other work you have done and provide the requested information to us by 31 July 2020 if applicable. |
| 5 | 4/29/20 | The OCI slides were not included in the draft slides sent previously. Could you send those slides to the attendees? | The current slide deck for the FTSS V Industry Day General Session presentation, including the OCI slides, was uploaded to beta.sam.gov as an attachment to N6134021R0001 on 28 April 2020 and is available for download. |
| 6 | 4/29/20 | What will the Past Performance requirement be (Prime only or Team Past Performance)? | Please see the answer to Question #1 above |
| 7 | 4/29/20 | Will there be a Draft RFP? | Yes, there will be a Draft Request for Proposal (RFP). At this time we believe the Draft RFP will be released in December 2020. We will keep Industry informed if the timing changes. |
| 8 | 4/29/20 | Would you require a specific % of socio economics per Small Business Plan? For example, WOSB, or Hub Zone? | Presumably that is being asked to see whether we would consider further Set-Asides within the Lot 2. At this point that would not be the case. It would be a SBSA within the Lot. And any TOs would just be competed among the Lot 2 awardees. If, however, this is being asked for Lot 1, please see the answer to Question #10. |
| 9 | 4/29/20 | Can a SB provide a single proposal with SB Participation Plan in order to be considered for both Lot awards or does each Lot require a specific proposal? | That has not been contemplated yet. You will need to look for the Draft RFP in December where we intend to have Sections L & M in the Draft RFP which would give proposal instruction especially for people proposing for one or both Lots. |
| 10 | 4/29/20 | What about Lot 1? | For Lot 1 there would not be a Set-Aside within Unrestricted Lot 1, however, anyone who submitted a Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan under Lot 1 would have to identify goals that they would be tracked and evaluated against using their eSRS and the annual CPARS that is performed. In most cases we follow the DOD or NAVAIR goals, which are usually established in Oct/Nov each year. |
| 11 | 4/29/20 | How many years of averaging applies to the $41.5M Size Standard for NAICS 541330 Engineering Services? | The average for the $41.5M will be based on five years of revenue. |
| 12 | 4/29/20 | Can you make any recommendation on methods to identify likely Primes? This has been more difficult on Beta.SAM. | The list of Industry Day Attendees has been posted on beta.sam.gov as an attachment to N6134021R0001 and is available for download. |
| 13 | 4/29/20 | Does the proposal due date imply a 30 or 45 day turn-around? | At this point that still has to be determined, but it will likely be closer to 30 days rather than 45 days, especially because the FTSS V Multiple Award Contract (MAC) proposal has been streamlined to only include CE and PP Volumes, and are not currently intended to include Price and Technical Volumes. |
| 14 | 4/29/20 | Under complexity factors, you stated "devices/platforms". Does the definition of platform include actual aircraft? For instance, if a contractor has experience working on a complex aircraft itself, does that count as platform maintenance experience? | At this point it has not been contemplated to include actual aircraft, but we are actively looking at that as a consideration. Please see the Final RFP for the final decision. |
| 15 | 4/29/20 | Please clarify on Page 9 of the Industry Day slides that all items in red are expected to be Lot 2 Small Business, non-complex efforts? | Yes, all items in red on slide 9 are expected to be SBSA Lot 2 which generally lends itself to being less complex. |
| 16 | 4/29/20 | Could you provide the draft RFP earlier (Nov), given there is a 30 day RFP turnaround and December holidays? | We will endeavor to get as much information out ahead of time as we can, unfortunately based on multiple things internal to the Government, the Draft RFP including sections L&M probably cannot make it's way out to industry before December. But we will get as much information out to industry as early as possible, hopefully even some PP Questionnaires and other information to help industry in bid decisions and in generating proposals. |
| 17 | 4/29/20 | Will an Industry Day participation list be issued? | Yes, see the answer to Question #12 above. |
| 18 | 4/29/20 | If you qualify under Lot 2 as a Small Business, would that be qualified under the life of the IDIQ contract? | No, there will be a recertification clause FAR 52.219-28 - Post-Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation (May 2020) included in the RFP. Under this clause a SB would be qualified for the first 5 years of the contract unless there is a merger/acquisition or novation agreement during that time. For “long-term” contracts (defined as a contract of more than five years in duration, including options), recertification must occur within 60 to 120 days prior to the end of the fifth year of the contract and again within 60 to 120 days prior to the date specified in the contract for exercising any option thereafter. In the case of a merger or acquisition, recertification must occur within 30 days after execution of a novation agreement or within 30 days after a merger or acquisition that does not require a novation. Please see the full clause verbiage for additional details. |
| 19 | 4/29/20 | Is recertification only applicable for option periods and not during the base period? | See answer to question #18 above |
| 20 | 4/29/20 | Is there and anticipated Small Business goal for Lot 1? | The SB Goals that would be under the Subcontracting Plan generally follow along with DOD guidelines and we would work those through with the Subcontracting Plans and goal sheets at that point. Those change on an annual basis, and we are waiting until October to see what the new DOD and Navy goals are. |
| 21 | 4/29/20 | Will any of the technical refresh work currently under the TSC MAC be migrating to FTSS V COMS? | No, major modifications including obsolescence, modernization (commonly referred to as “Technology Refresh”) and aircraft concurrency generally fall within the scope of the TSC MAC. Minor modifications, generally limited in scope and complexity, may be performed under a FTSS Task Order. However, any in-scope determinations would be on a case by case basis. |
Barnes, Deborah K CIV USN NAVAIRWARCENTRASYSDI (USA): Barnes, Deborah K CIV USN NAVAIRWARCENTRASYSDI (USA):
initial answer We do not have any information on anything like that. Technical Refresh work is funded by the Program Office through PMA, not the typical COMS Sponsor. We can look into that but we have not heard anything like that yet. That is not typically something we do much of on COMS although we can do minor modifications on COMS and sometimes we've done classroom work.
| 22 | 4/30/20 | Are F-35 and MQ-25 COMS & CIS expected on FTSS V? Are there any other new task orders anticipated that aren’t listed on the Recurring Requirements slide (#9)? | F-35 is contracted through the F-35 JPO as of now. If MQ-25 COMS & CIS requirements arise, they will be publicized as part of the TO's Notice of Tentative Acquisition Strategies. As new efforts arise over the next several months, they will be added to the final version of the FTSS V Scope document as part of the RFP. If there are any new requirements that arise, an evaluation will be made to determine if a Lot 1 effort or a Lot 2 Set-Aside. |
| 23 | 4/30/20 | How does NAWCTSD envision vetting companies/personnel for increased security requirements? How is NAWCTSD handling emergent requirements for task orders beyond SECRET/TOP SECRET? | FTSS V Task Order DD 254s will only be issued at the TS or Secret level. The current plan is that an offeror (per CAGE code proposing) must possess at least a Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) for FTSS V MAC award. The majority of the FTSS V TOs are at the Secret level, but TOs up to Top Secret are planned. While our acquisition strategy is still being developed, the Government may consider sponsoring MAC awardees (with MAC CAGE code and company agreement) for the appropriate FCL beyond Secret. The Government and NAWCTSD do not guarantee the successful granting of the higher level FCL, nor the timeline for that approval. At that time it is the responsibility of the contractor's Facility Security Officer to properly process employees for the proper personnel security clearances (PCLs). Any foreign owned company will be subject to possible National Interest Determination (NID) approval for access to any proscribed information, and again, NAWCTSD does not guarantee the granting of said NID. For any TO competitions after MAC award, the contractor must possess at proposal due date a FCL level commensurate with the RFP planning DD 254. |
| 24 | 4/30/20 | Will Past Performance and/or Corporate Experience be considered at the Task Order level? | The Government always has a requirement to consider whether to use the Past Performance (PP) Factor in each evaluation. Traditionally PP has not been required on the TOs when it was recently evaluated at the MAC level. The Government is not currently planning to duplicate evaluations in TO that were performed in the MAC; however, the decision on factors to consider are made on a TO by TO basis and is more likely to be included when the MAC has been established for an extended period. If PP is utilized at the TO level it would likely be specific to the requirements of the TO. |
| 25 | 4/30/20 | Some contracts are geographically-based while others are platform-based. Does NAWCTSD envision shifting the F/A-18 CIS at Oceana over to the F/A-18 contract? Does NAWCTSD envision shifting F/A-18 and EA-18G COMS & CIS at Iwakuni from WestPAC to the F/A-18 contract? | We have contracts that are geographically-based while others are platform-based, and even further, some are sponsor/customer based. With regards to the F/A-18, or any other sites/platforms, specific TO site/platform requirements will be issued in TO Notice of Tentative Acquisition Strategies or RFP packages. A notice of intent to bundle Iwakuni with the forthcoming F/A-18 TO has been publicized (May 2020) under FTSS IV. The requirement would then likely be carried over to FTSS V. |
| 26 | 5/1/20 | Will proposal submissions be electronic, hard-copy, or both? | While the RFP has not been finalized yet, the Government is shifting to electronic filing. We anticipate that proposals will be electronic and no hardcopies will be needed, but please see the final RFP, when available, for instruction. |
| 27 | 5/1/20 | Will there be a specific timeframe for the Corporate Experience overview? | We are still developing our acquisition strategy and the RFP has not been finalized. The Recency Period will be defined in the final RFP, but will likely be either 3 or 5 years prior to the date of RFP release. The Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) database is limited to 3 years, so that may impact decisions as gathering the data to go back more than 3 or 5 years would be extremely hard to validate from the Government side. |
| 28 | 5/1/20 | Will Corporate Experience including teammate(s) capabilities also be considered and evaluated? | The RFP has not been finalized, however, currently the Government is contemplating evaluating CE and PP for the Prime and JV Team only. Please see the RFP for instruction when it is released. |
| 29 | 5/1/20 | Will Corporate Experience include a Management Approach? | Unknown at this time. We have not finalized the RFP, and will take this for consideration in the development process. |
| 30 | 5/1/20 | What will the criteria be for Past Performance references? | Please see answer to Question #1 above |
| 31 | 5/1/20 | Is there a limit or expectation of how many references will be recommended? | We are still developing our acquisition strategy and the RFP has not been finalized. Please see the RFP for instruction when it is released. |
| 32 | 5/1/20 | Will there be a Past Performance recency measurement (i.e., 5 year’s within performance, etc.)? | See Question #27 above |
| 33 | 5/1/20 | Will offerors be able to use both Prime and JV references for Corporate Experience and Past Performance? | Please see answer to Question #28 above. |
| 34 | 5/1/20 | If teammates are not evaluated for MAC purposes, is it still an expectation that Primes provide a team for proposal purposes? | The RFP is still under development. Please see the RFP for instruction when it is released. |
| 35 | 5/1/20 | Will the Government accept the addition of teammates at the Task Order proposal level and during Task Order execution? | Yes, you can even adjust your team within a given TO, but when you inhibit competition a waiver is needed. Also see the answers to Questions #59, 66 & 67 below. |
| 36 | 5/1/20 | We understand that Price is deferred to subsequent Task Order competitions. Will any Cost data be required? | Cost data will not be required at the MAC award; however, there may be some administrative information required such as an approved Cost Accounting System. At the TO level Price data will be required. Cost data is generally only required for COST Reimbursement requirements or if Reasonableness cannot be established by Price alone. It is too early to tell if Cost data will be required at the TO level. |
| 37 | 5/1/20 | FTSS IV required a Staffing Chart. Will there be one required for FTSS V? | The RFP is still under development. Please see the RFP for instruction when it is released. Since we do not anticipate TO award or a sample TO at the MAC award, a staffing chart will likely be a part of Technical Factor at the TO level. |
| 38 | 5/1/20 | Is the Government planning to publish any sample TO RFPs? | Unknown at this time. We have not finalized the RFP, and will take this for consideration in the development process. However, the Government will establish criteria for Relevancy purposes in CE and PP. |
| 39 | 5/1/20 | Will the Government be publishing a long range forecast of FTSS V TOs? | No, not to that level of detail. All FTSS efforts are publicized in the TSIS presentation/slides twice per year, and contain planned dates and estimated dollar amounts. All FTSS efforts known at the time are/will be published in the FTSS V RFP Scope document (minus dates or estimates). |
| 40 | 5/6/20 | Will the Government provide the SOW from the previous contract prior to the Draft RFP for FTSS V being released this December? | The Government is unlikely to provide historical Performance Work Statements (PWS) from prior iterations of FTSS to non-FTSS MAC holders. However, the Government has historically provided Draft PWS for review and comment by industry in advance of the RFP. This will be considered as the requirements and RFP are developed. |
| 41 | 4/29/20 | Is ECIS requirement new? | Yes. We have no additional information about this requirement at this time. |
| 42 | 4/29/20 | Will the SBSA Lot 2 get protested again? | We are unable to forecast if there will be a protest. |
| 43 | 4/29/20 | Will the TO's still involve Technical or Price? | While we are leveraging the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to not include price in the MAC award. The TO awards will still require Technical, and or PP, with Price, similar to prior FTSS orders |
| 44 | 4/29/20 | Under FTSS IV there's 9 vendors, FTSS V slides say that five or more. | The Government has no set number in mind. |
| 45 | 4/29/20 | Can a prior FTSS IV awardee be grandfathered in to FTSS V? | No. |
| 46 | 4/29/20 | Are there a limited number of FTSS seats? | See Question #44 above |
| 47 | 4/29/20 | How do you look at simulation in the future: more hours, more networked and distributed training? | It will vary per community, but expect more networked and distributed operations. |
| 48 | 4/29/20 | Would the Government consider a Cost-Plus CLIN for emerging requirements? | We do have a few Cost Reimbursement CLINs on individual TO’s for specific actions, but not a blanket Cost Reimbursement CLIN. |
| 49 | 4/30/20 | Do you want a SB to stand alone on Lot 2, or are you looking for a JV? | The Government's current contemplated strategy is that we will evaluate the CE and PP for the Prime, JV, or JV Team. This is in line with what has historically been done in FTSS IV and prior. At that time, there was no preference stated, nor was there a preference evaluated, for Prime over JV or visa versa. We hope to have many capable contractors in each lot; offerors need to make independent bid decisions on what is likeliest to present the best offer. |
| 50 | 4/30/20 | Transition to LVC [Live Virtual Construct] what does the future look like to you? | Unable to forecast at this time, our contracts for sustainment are generally reactive. We are constrained by certain security levels though, which may play into the LVC use of the MAC in the future. |
| 51 | 4/30/20 | Is incumbency viewed as an advantage or a disadvantage by the Government? | It is viewed as neither an advantage or a disadvantage. The Government only evaluates to the RFP Section L & M criteria. |
| 52 | 4/30/20 | What happens if a Small Business grows outside of the Lot? | If the SB recertifies as “other than small” at any time during the life of the FTSS V MAC, it will no longer qualify to bid in the SBSA Lot 2. (See the answer to Question #18 above for recertification timing.) If the company also wins a Prime contract award in the Unrestricted Lot 1, then it will be able to bid in that Lot only. If the company recertifies as “other than small” and only has a Prime award in the SBSA Lot, then it will no longer be eligible to bid on further work in FTSS V unless it is able to compete for and win award in the Unrestricted Lot 1. There will be a special Section H Clause in the MAC, as there was in FTSS IV, that addresses the potential addition of contractors over the life of the MAC. The clause will detail the Government's periodic assessment of the Lot 1 and Lot 2 awardee base, and determination of whether or not to re-open one or both of the Lots for competition. |
| 53 | 4/30/20 | Is the Government planning to expand beyond aviation into other areas? | We have a few surface and subsurface customers, but there is no other planned expansion at this time. |
| 54 | 4/30/20 | Are NAWCTSD contracts weighted more heavily in the CE/PP evaluations? | NAWCTSD contracts have not historically been weighed as more relevant in terms of CE/PP. Criteria for the "scope" of relevancy has not yet been finalized. |
| 55 | 4/30/20 | Is there a certain number or requirements a contractor has to bid (prefer low minimum)? | No, an offeror does not have to bid to a certain number of TOs once awarded a MAC seat. However, minimum guarantees are generally very low on NAWCTSD MACs. |
| 56 | 4/30/20 | Has NAWCTSD’s experience been positive with JVs, and how does NAWCTSD perceive JVs compared to non-JVs based on previous experience? | NAWCTSD has historically had positive experience with JVs. The important thing to consider is the criteria for contract references when the Final RFP is issued. Please also see the answer to question #48 above. |
| 57 | 4/30/20 | Are there any future contracts that will not be a part of the FTSS V scope? Will F-35 be omitted from the FTSS V scope? | As new FTSS V efforts arise, they will be added to the final version of the FTSS V Scope document issued with the RFP. Also see Question #22. F-35 is contracted through the F-35 JPO as of now and is not currently contemplate in planned FTSS V orders. |
| 58 | 4/30/20 | How can we state our Past Performance to get on the MAC? | You will have to look at the specific L&M critera in the Final RFP and what detail is required at that time. |
| 59 | 4/30/20 | Is the Government limiting Past Performance to 5 years? | See Question #27 above. |
| 60 | 4/30/20 | Can we change teaming arrangements for competition among TO's? | Presumably a teaming arrangement would either be between offerors in seperate lots, or in the same lot if a waiver was given by the Government. For any post-award non-JV teaming arrangements, the Government has no requirement for you to maintain that teaming arrangement throughout the FTSS V MAC and the Prime. Also see the answer to Question #61. |
| 61 | 4/30/20 | Can we receive award as a Prime and JV in the same Lot? | Teaming rules and regulations play into contracts within the same lot. A waiver is needed for teaming on each the TOs. That being said, generally speaking an offeror would have to provide sufficient rationale for how acting as a Prime and a JV would not inhibit competition. |
| 62 | 5/4/20 | Could a contractor be excluded or prohibited from bidding on FTSS V if it supplied any of the training systems or major components under another contract? Reference NAVAIR OCI Clause 5252.209-9510 (e) (1) discussed in the Industry Day briefing? | The specific facts of each submitted circumstance need to be reviewed by the Government regarding the potential for an OCI. The Government asked contractors for input into potential OCI's under the NAVAIR OCI Clause during the FTSS V Industry Day for assistance in determining whether or not the clause and each of its prohibition paragraphs need to be included in the RFP. Please submit any potential OCI's including instances where the contractor supplied any of the FTSS V training systems or other major components under another contract vehicle to janet.fondriest@navy.mil and jana.mcentegart@navy.mil by 31 May 2020. The final RFP will cite the NAVAIR OCI Clause if the Government determines it is warranted, and only the applicable prohibition paragraphs in the clause will be checked and completed by the Government. |
| 63 | 5/4/20 | For the recency and relevancy of COMs contracts, please clarify the Government’s heavy emphasis on Navy and recency. While we appreciate the desire and perceived relevance, discounting COMS/CIS or services type contracts simply because they are on another service seems to discount viable bidders. | The FTSS V RFP has not been finalized, therefore the relevancy and recency criteria have not yet been established. Please see the answer to Question #27 above for Recency. Historically, the FTSS IV RFP defined recent performance as performance within 5 years of the RFP release date, and specified that, in general, recent performance will be considered more relevant than older performance. This is because NAWCTSD believes the most recent performance is the best indicator of future performance. The FTSS effort is to provide COMS and CIS for primarily complex aviation full flight simulators. All experience, regardless of agency, will be evaluated in accordance with the relevancy and recency criteria specified in the RFP. An offeror proposing non-Navy devices (if allowable in the criteria) may need to provide additional explainations to communicate in its proposal the relevancy characteristics for non-Navy and non-aircraft training devices and non-Navy contracts. |
| 64 | 4/30/20 | Yesterday you talked about some of the difference between Past Performance evaluations of Primes, subs and JVs. Please elaborate so we can set up out team status. | See Question #1 above |
| 65 | 4/30/20 | We have Past Performance for things we have Primed, but we also have very relevant Past Performance where we were subcontractors. Would we be able to submit that as well? | The Final RFP criteria has not yet been finalized. Generally, it is the more relevant work that will weigh heavier in the evaluations. However, there are limiting factors just by the nature of being a subcontractor, not prime. As a Prime there are CPARS, but as a sub there is no Government review of subcontractor's work. The Government has to evaluate the information we get (i.e., CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires). Yes your work as a sub can be evaluated, but we have to evaluate the relevancy of your subcontract PWS. Also be aware that CPARS aren't provided for a sub, and not as much information is generally able to be provided in a PPQ for a sub, which could potentially impact the quality of information in an evaluation. |
| 66 | 4/30/20 | If you were an awardee in Lot II can you compete for TO awards in Lot 1 also? | You can only compete for TOs in the Lots for which you received an award. So, if you received an award in Lot 1 and Lot 2 you could compete for TO’s in both, but if you only received award in Lot 2 you could only compete for TO’s in Lot 2. |
| 67 | 4/30/20 | Can teaming be established for the TO competitions “Intra-Teaming” within the awarded members of a Lot to create the most competitive team to compete for TOs or will they be restricted from Intra-Teaming? | Please see the answers to Questions 60 & 61. |
| 68 | 4/30/20 | If we won award in Lot 2 and someone we know and have worked with won award in Lot 1, would we be able to team and be a sub for TO award in Lot 1? | Please see the answers to Questions 60 & 61. |
| 69 | 4/30/20 | When the Draft RFP is released in December will it contain sections L&M? | Yes. We intend to provide the Draft RFP with sections L&M and any attachments that we could as well. Draft RFP release is currently planned for December 2020. |
| 70 | 4/30/20 | For the evaluations the two areas for the offerors to present is PP and CE and evaluating them by themselves it is often hard to have objective measures and not subjective. Have you assessed how you will try to make that as objective as possible to establish proposal merits form each of the offerors? | Our intention is to develop fairly rigid comparison for CE and PP relevancy metric for Lot 1 and 2. Once relevancy is achieved it then becomes an assessment of whether or not a full depth and breadth of CE is demonstrated, and how well you have performed in PP through a reading of CPARS and PPQs. |
| 71 | 4/30/20 | Do you have a target for the number of awardees in Lot 1 and Lot 2? | See Question #44 above |
| 72 | 4/30/20 | Do you have a standard for recency for Past Performance? | See Question #27 above |
| 73 | 4/30/20 | How can we state our past performance USAF and FAA to get on MAC? | Some Air Force and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) contracts are of such large scope that involve things like Air Traffic Control training in tower operations, curriculum development, or maintenance training that really aren’t applicable to FTSS COMS. At this time it has not yet been determined if the Relevant contracts will be limited to Navy contracts only. If other contracts are determined to be allowable, the offeror would need to identify the pieces that it believes are truly relevant and highlight from a CE/PP standpoint. What we do under FTSS is narrowly defined as a small piece of sustainment that’s paid for by the end user. The Program Manager on the other side of NAVAIR still owns most of the lifecycle maintenance-type stuff. FTSS is targeted to the day-to-day onsite maintenance and availability statistics with regard to complex training devices similar to high-fidelity (FAA classification Level D) full flight simulators. There will be separate comparative relevancy criteria in the FTSS V RFP for Lot 1 and Lot 2 for you to base your contract submissions on for CE/PP. These criteria are still under development. A Statement of Work (SOW)/Performance Work Statement (PWS) will be required with each contract submission, for the Government to validate the relevancy of the work performed under the contract in accordance with that criteria. You should follow Section L & M instructions in the solicitation to state what you believe is relevant in your proposal in terms of the comparative relevancy criteria in the solicitation. |
| 74 | 4/30/20 | Will standard Small Business documentation be required? | A SB Subcontracting Plan will be required for Lot 1 Large Businesses, and a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) will be required of all businesses in Lot 1. |
| 75 | 4/30/20 | Can high relevancy in one criteria like Contractor Instructional Services (CIS) compensate for neutral relevancy in other criteria for Lot 1? | While CIS is important, the Government considers COMS to be at the core of FTSS. The requirements for Lot 1 are considered complex and require the provision of availability on complex, Level D, full flight simulators, and Level 6 & 7 flight training devices across multiple sites with multiple trainer packages at very high availabilities and very high operation tempo and usage rates. A company lacking that level of relevant experience would find it very hard to overcome that by virtue of just providing instructional services. |
| 76 | 4/29/20 | In the past there have been some FMS efforts are they part of the current task orders? | Most of the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Task Orders (TOs) that have been historically awarded under FTSS are sole source in which case it would not be a Lot 1 or a Lot 2 Set-Aside; it has historically been a Direct Source to a specific MAC holder. However, if there were any new FMS requirements that allowed competition, those have not been determined at this time, an evaluation would be made if they were a Lot 1 or a Lot 2 Set-Aside when the requirement was decided. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .