Final RFP N6852025R0001_QandA Part 1Answers_6.6.25.pdf

# Document Reference Paragraph Question Answer

1 SOW

Section 4.2 Potential Key Personnel Table on page 63, and 4.5 Labor Categories and Qualifications on page

The table lists a potential key labor category of *Logistics Manager, Senior, however there is no functional description for the labor category or a minimum education and experience requirements listed in section 4.5 Labor Categories and Qualifications, and no hours listed with this labor category.

Will the Government please clarify if this is a labor category Offerors should be proposing? If so, will the Government revise the B-1 Composite Rates to include hours and Section 4.5 to include description and qualifications?

Thank you for bringing this oversight to our attention.

The Government will update Section C, SOW, paragraph 4.2 Potential Key Personnel table to remove "Logistics Manager" position, as it is not a required labor category for LOGEN II

SOW

Paragraph 4.5.3.1 and 4.5.3.2 on page

The education requirements for Engineer/Electrical Engineer Journeyman and Senior state the required education is a BS degree in Aerospace, Electrical or Electronics Engineering. Would the government consider adding Mechanical Engineering or substituting it for Aerospace Engineering as an allowable degree? The curriculum for Mechanical Engineering is more closely aligned to Electrical Engineering than for Aerospace Engineering.

The Statement of Work (SOW) paragraphs 4.5.3.1, and 4.5.3.2 will be updated to read: "BS degree in Electrical, or Electronics Engineering. Mechanical or Aerospace Engineering may be considered if the candidate demonstrated experience and/or coursework relevant to aircraft electrical/power systems, avionics, navigation, communications, and/or radar systems."

3 SOW

2.2 Logistics Approach- Book 2, on

page 14 and SOW Final, Section

3.4.3 beginning on page 35

In the Logistics Approach Book 2 Volume 2 in Amendment 0001 of the RFP for Maintenance Planning, the Government identified task areas 3.4.3.1, 3.4.3.12, 3.4.3.13, 3.4.3.13.3 and 3.4.3.13.4. Does the Government intend for the offeror to respond to the other sub-task areas of 3.4.3.13?

In response to this question, the Government requires the contractor to respond to only the tasking areas listed in 3.4.3.13, 3.4.3.13.3, 3.4.3.13.4.

4 RFP

Section L, Part A, Section 2. Proposal Formatting on page 67

The Draft RFP allowed 10-point font for Tables and Graphics, however the Final RFP requires 12-point font only. We assume this was an unintentional deletion. Will the Government please allow Offerors to use 10-point font for Tables and Graphics?

Section L, Part A, Section 2 will be revised to add the statement: "The Offeror may use 10-point font for Tables and Graphics" into the RFP.

5 RFP Page 67 RFP Section L, Part A Section 2 Proposal Formating

The Draft RFP allowed 10-point font for Tables and Graphics, however the Final RFP requires 12-point font only. Would the Government please allow Offerors to use 10-point font for Tables and Graphics?

See answer to Question #4

6 RFP

Section L, Part A, Section 2. Proposal Formatting

Would the Government please confirm that 10-point font is acceptable in tables and graphics? Because this is a significant change in formatting between the draft and final RFP, we request that this question be answered very quickly or that the Government grant an extension to the due date.

See answer to Question #4

7 RFP

Section L, Part B, Section 2. Volume 2 - Technical on page 75

The RFP states Offerors shall complete and submit Table T-1 within each of the three books (Engineering Approach, Logistics Approach and Management Approach). Will the Government please confirm that Table T- 1 for each of the three books is not included in the page count?

Table T1 in each book is considered an administrative page and does not count toward the page limit.

8 RFP page 94 RFP Section M, III. Definitions, B.

Other Evaluation Definitions Table

The Government has updated the Chart on page 101 to reflect Very Relevant for Protégé Offerors as a possible relevancy assessment. Please update the wording on page 94 to include Very Relevant as a relevancy assessment to match the updated Chart. The word Very was omitted from the bottom of page 94.

The word "Very" will be added before "Relevant", in Section M, Part B; Past Performance, Paragraph 4. This update will be reflected in Amendment 002 of the

RFP.

9 RFP

Section L, Part A, Section 4.2 Solicitation Questions Submission

Will the Government please consider answering questions prior to the June 9, 2025 due date. With the required proposal submission of June 23, if questions are not answered until after June 9, Offerors aren't given a lot of time in which to respond.

The Government will provide answers to questions prior to June 9, 2025.

Attachment P6 Cost Summary

Spreadsheet Page 87, Section 4.3.3

In this RFP, the Government is requesting pricing in a Seaport NxG related P-6 format. Will the Government please consider using a standard (non- Seaport NxG) P6, with each year as a separate tab and a separate Summary Tab?

The Government will provide a revised version of Attachment P6 under Amendment 002, which will contain separate tabs corresponding to each ordering year.

Attachment P6 Cost Summary

Spreadsheet

RFP Page 87, Section 4.3.3/Attachment P6 Cost Summary Spreadsheet Tab

The Government has submitted a Seaport IDIQ Contract related Attachment P6 format. Please consider removing the pass through analysis at the bottom of the Spreadsheet (Rows 58-59), or use a standard (non-Seaport IDIQ) Attachment P6. Would the Government please consider using the Attachment P6 version that has a separate tab for each year, as well as a summary tab for all periods.

See answer to question #10

12 NA

For a program of this size, a 30 day proposal period does not provide enough time for offerors other than the incumbent to review all the final RFP documents and solicitation requirements, adjust risk analyses and proposal content, and complete final pricing requirements. Will the Goverment consider providing a 2-week extension to the due date to 7 July 2025?

The RFP will be amended to extend the proposal due to June 30, 2025 at 2:00 PM

EDT.

13 NA

The transition period of 30 days is prohibitively short for a transition from the incumbent to a new contractor with multiple locations and personnel clearances to be transitioned. Will the Government consider allowing a 45-or 60-day transition period?

The Government understands the concern regarding the feasibility of a 30-day transition. While we acknowledge the challenges, this is achievable given the staggered nature of the pending task order awards.

To clarify, the initial estimated task orders will have minimal requirements and are expected to begin approximately 30 days after the award date. The majority of task orders are anticipated to be awarded starting 60 to 90 days after the initial 30-day transition period and continuing through 180 days following the transition.

This staggered approach allows for a phased onboarding of personnel and resources. The initial 30-day period is intended to focus on establishing key infrastructure, communication channels, and initial personnel onboarding. The subsequent task order rollout provides additional time to complete remaining clearances and fully integrate into the program.

14 NA

The requirement for contractor facilities at Jacksonville, FL severly limits competition as this is a significant investment for small businesses. Will the Government consider altering this requirement to a post-award requirement?

The RFP does not require potential Offerors to have a facility located at the primary FRC sites during the pre-award solicitation phase. However, during the post-award phase, the work is to be performed off-site site at Contractor site(s), which shall be within 45 miles of the FRC Primary sites.

Final_Request for Proposal_N6852025R0001_Questions & Answers_Part 1 Logistics and Engineering Support (LOGEN II)