DLM Q A 11.8.23.pdf

N68520-23-R-0031 (FRCSE DLM CSS) 11/8/2023

# Question Amendment Government Answer

The recency requirement states past performance citations are to be performed "within 5 years of the solicitation release date." Question: Will the Government please consider amending this requirement from “within 5 years of the solicitation release date" to “within 7 years of the solicitation release date” to broaden competition among offerors? 1 See Amendment 1

The recency requirement states past performance citations are to be performed "within 5 years of the solicitation release date." Question: Will the Government please consider amending this requirement from solicitation release date to "within the past 5 calendar years" to broaden competition among offerors? 1 See Amendment 1

The recommended page limitation for Section 1.1 Management Approach of Volume 1.0 Technical is 5 pages;

however, L.1.1.3 requires Offeror's to provide a Contractor Quality Control Plan. Question: Will the Government please allow the QCP requirement to be exempt from the recommended page count? 1 See Amendment 1

The recommended page count limitation for Section 1.1 Management Approach in Volume 1 is 5 pages; however, Section L 1.1 – L.1.1.3 outline requirements that will significantly exceed the recommended page limitation.

Questsion: Will the Government please increase the recommended page count limitation for Section 1.1

Management Approach from 5 pages to 15 pages to allow for offerors to adequately address all the requirements? 1 See Amendment 1

Per the provided BOE, LCATs and labor hours are consistent across years, with the exception of the Aircraft Mechanic and the Engine Aircraft Mechanic (not lead mechanics).

Question: Will the government please provide additional rationale as to the change on these 2 labor categories from year to year?

1 See Amendment 1

L.B.1.4.a states, "The estimated Level of Effort of the first task order to implement upon completion of the Mobilization period will be 658,650 straight time hours (approximately 317 full time employees) covering 1-year." ATT 5 LOE labor hours calculate to XXX,XXX hours, or 356 personnel.

Question: Please explain the large difference in these estimates, or clarify which takes precedence, the ATT 5 LOE or Section L.

1 See Amendment 1

The Section L Instruction on Page 78 of 92 stipulates that each attachment L-3 Past Performance Information Form should include a narrative within the "Contract Effort Description" area, describing how each contract reference aligns with the relevancy definitions outlined in Section M of the solicitation. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that the Attachment L-3 Past Performance Information Form provides limited space for this detailed write-up.

In contrast, Table L1 Proposal Organization and Page Limit Recommendations, found in the RFP Section L on Page 73 of 92, explicitly indicates that there is "No Page Limit" for the Past Performance Information Form.

Question: Will the Government accept a "Contract Effort Description" presented in a digital format that extends beyond the confined space designated within the form? This extended content would be accessible through the scroll option, conveniently located in the lower right corner of the "Contract Effort Description" box.

Please clarify whether such a format would be acceptable to the Government, as it would allow for a more comprehensive and detailed description of the contract efforts, thereby ensuring a thorough alignment with the relevancy definitions outlined in Section M of the solicitation.

n/a

Yes, the Government will accept a "Contract Effort Description" presented in a digital format that extends beyond the confined space designated within the form.

As per the Section L Instruction on Page 78 of 92, the solicitation clearly specifies that the Offeror should complete the Section L Past Performance Information Form (attachment L-3) for each past performance reference, including contracts or delivery/task orders, performed within five years of the solicitation release date. Additionally, for contract references containing delivery/task orders, the solicitation requests that the Offeror provide work descriptions for each specific delivery/task order that is deemed relevant to this solicitation's requirements.

Question: Given this guidance, will the Government accept the past performance reference of a Multiple Award Contract (MAC) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) with multiple task orders that have been aggregated to meet the Section M requirements? Are there any additional documentation or details required to support this submission?

n/a

No, the Government will not accept the past performance references of multiple individually procured MAC IDIQ task orders that have been aggregated to meet the Section M requirements.

Past Performance narrative seems to be confined to the PPIF. Question: Confirm there are no other past performance narrative requirements. n/a

No other Past Performance Narrative Requirements.

Also, See question 7 regarding PPIF.

L.B.2.0 states, "The primary source of past performance information will be PPIRS. If a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) exists for multiple years for the same contract/order, all periods of performance within the recency period specified above, for that contract/order, will be used for evaluation."

Question: Clarify if CPAR will be submitted as part of the offeror's proposal or retrieved by the USG during evaluation. If CPAR are to be submitted with proposals, should they be included in Annex A?

n/a The United States Government will retrieve during evaluation.

L.+D10:D15B.1.1.3 states, "Contractor Quality Control Plan (QCP): The Offeror shall propose a QCP that describes internal controls and establishment of procedures for evaluating each of the major service areas (who, method, how often) for reporting to the Government and documentation (as listed in the SOW, CDRL Data Item A002) reflecting quality control inspections and any corrective actions taken."

L.B.4.1.1 states, "Include a copy of the proposed Quality Control Plan (QCP) from Volume 1 to be attached upon award, if selected as the successful offer."

Question: The Management Plan must be written in 5 pages which is not enough space to include a full Quality Control Plan. Please confirm that the Quality Control Plan can be referenced in Vol 1 Technical and provided in Vol 4 Cost Price.

1 See Amendment 1

With regards to question 7, released as part of Amendment 01, the Government responded that they will accept a

“Contract Effort Description” presented in a digital format that extends beyond the confined space designated within the form.

Question: Will the Government please clarify that it is acceptable for Offeror’s to provide their Contract Effort

Descriptions for each citation outside the constraints of this form field as a traditional word narrative that would begin on a separate page after each form?

Rationale: The “Contract Effort Description” form field has limited formatting functionality that does not allow for the use of tables or graphics. Allowing for Offeror’s to structure and submit their “Contract Effort Description” narratives outside of the “Contract Effort Description” form field will allow Offeror’s to present their information in a more structured manner that will aid greatly evaluators during scoring.

Yes, the Government will accept extended descriptions as a word narrative. L‐3 PPIF has been updated to note‐ "**DUE TO FORM TEXT

LIMITATIONS, AN ALTERNATE FORMAT WILL BE

ACCEPTABLE, HOWEVER, ALL FIELDS IN

ALTERNATE FORMAT MUST MATCH THE FIELDS

IN L‐3 PPIF"

Section M.C.2.0 states that the combined technical risk assignments are provided in the table below. The table only includes Unacceptable through Good ratings.

Section M.A.3.0 states that Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors, which are listed below, where Technical is the most important factor followed by Past Performance and when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

See also excerpt from page 24 of Source Selection Procedures for the Department of Defense:

3.1.2.1 Methodology 1: Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process.

3.1.2.1.1 Technical Rating. The offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement. Unless a waiver is granted, technical evaluations shall utilize the ratings listed in Table 2A and Table 2B. Table 2A. Technical Rating Method shows ratings from Unacceptable to Outstanding (which is not what is included in the subject solicitation). Table 2B matches the Technical Risk Rating Method included in the subject solicitation. The Outstanding rating has been left out of the Combined Technical/Risk Rating table in Section M.C.2.0.

Question: Does the USG concur that Outstanding should be included in the rating table? Offeror understands that a waiver may have been obtained to remove this rating, but in case this was omitted in error, we ask that the solicitation be updated to add this evaluation rating back to the Combined Technical/Risk Rating table in section M.C.2.0 on page 90. 2 See Amendment 2