TMAS 3 Industry Days Questions and Answers.pdf

TMAS 3 Questions and Answers

Date Number Questions Answers

7-Feb-25 1 Premium vs Standard rates – are you planning to include the same structure as on TMAS 2 or might Eglin be considered as a Premium location, for example.

The structure will be similar to TMAS 2.

7-Feb-25 2

Are there companies who are considered critical and might be considered as directed subs. There may be companies performing on contract currently that would not necessarily be in the position to provide a competitive work sample. They provide niche capability, and we might need to discuss their rate structure and requirements to ensure adequate labor categories and rates are on contract.

There are no considerations for critical subs.

The Government cannot direct the Prime who they should use as a subcontractor.

21-Feb-25 3

Can a bidding prime one TO and sub on another? Yes, a company can bid as Prime on one of the

TMAS 3 Task orders and participate as a sub on another task order.

18-Mar-25 4

Slide 9 - Would the Government please clarify where onsite staffing is required? If all locations require onsite support, is there a regional command and control hierarchy to be supported?

In reference to slide 9 and the 26 locations, the

Government do not require onsite indirect staffing. The main three bases (Edwards, Eglin and Arnold AFBs) require close proximity to the bases for the indirect staffing.

18-Mar-25 5

Slide 16 "Fair Opportunity Approach" - Would the Government please provide scoring criteria prior to Draft

RFP and Final RFP? Early availability of this information is critical for all offerors to determine their ability to prime and/or establish teaming agreements tailored to the RFP instructions and evaluation criteria so that they can provide the best value to the Government.

TMAS 2 Scoring Criteria was posted on sam.gov. TMAS 3 Scoring Criteria is anticipated to be similar to TMAS 2. The Program Office anticipates only one draft release prior to the final.

https://sam.gov/opp/718bbc8bb6024cbaa0e7

470957bfeaef/view

18-Mar-25 6 Slide 16 "Fair Opportunity Approach" - What restrictions on teaming are contemplated? Will cross-teaming or participating on multiple teams be allowed?

No cross-teaming.

18-Mar-25 7

Slide 16 “Evaluation Criteria: Vendor self-scoring provided--highest self-scored offer(s) evaluated.” - Given that the OASIS vehicle has pre-qualified bidders within TMAS Domains, would the Government consider technical proposals that indicate specific approaches and solutions?

No.

18-Mar-25 8

Slide 16 “Evaluation Criteria: Vendor self-scoring provided--highest self-scored offer(s) evaluated.” - This slide does not indicate what additional evaluation will take place. If self-scoring is a screening event, has the

Government determined a second phase to evaluate those criteria?

No, there is no second phase.

18-Mar-25 9

Slide 16 “Breadth of Experience (# of work samples).” - If the Government relies on the text in performance work statements (PWS), statements of work (SOW), or other documents prepared by Government organizations as the sole means of reflecting related work, then specific alignment to TMAS requirements may not be possible. We recommend that the Government allow for contractor narrative.

No contractor narrative required.

18-Mar-25 10 Slide 16 “Breadth of Experience (# of work samples).” - Will work samples be evaluated on how many areas are covered or are they combined in a manner that overall coverage is what is scored?

Refer to each Task Order Evaluation Criteria.

18-Mar-25 11

Slide 16 “Qty security positions, qty positions transitioned.” - Would the Government explain the intent of this requirement? The ability to hire cleared personnel or transition them from one contract to another is standard for OASIS contract holders. We recommend the Government make proof of a facility clearance one of the screening criteria.

It is the intent of the requirement to ensure the

Government has the confidence that a Prime is able to transition and manage secure positions.

Recommendation noted.

18-Mar-25 12

Slide 16 “Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR).” - CPARs are typically used as part of past performance evaluations and reflect general items like management, quality, and schedule. If the

Government is using Work Samples in lieu of past performance, it is unclear how CPARs will be used to evaluate work samples, which tend to be far more granular.

Please refer to TMAS 2 Evaluation Criteria.

18-Mar-25 13

Slide 17 “Will provide government representative rates for each labor category and skill level” and

“Compensation of Professional Employees will be evaluated (FAR 52.222-46).” - We note that there was a two step process for technical and cost realism under the TMAS 2 acquisition. How will the Government ensure cost realism? Will rates and compensation packages be evaluated on a pass/fail basis or scored on a scale for merit? How important is cost as compared to other factors.

Cost will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. Realism will be established by comparing the offeror’s proposed rates against the provided government representative rates.

In an HTRO acquisition the highest technically rated offer is selected provided that their proposed cost/price is reasonable and realistic.

Relative importance of factors is not established.

19-Mar-25 14

AEDC Eval Criteria - For Factor 1, Offerors will self-score themselves under each criterion and provide evidence (e.g. body of facts, data, proof) to substantiate that score. Is there any particular format or other requirements for substantiation evidence provided (body of facts, data, proof)?

Proof through artifacts. Please follow the

Instructions to Offerors portion of the FOPR when released.

19-Mar-25 15

AEDC Eval Criteria - Subfactor 3.1.2: Number of geographically separated work locations. In order to demonstrate effective contractor GSU management would the government consider requiring a minimum of a least 10 CME at each GSU?

The number of CMEs at each locations will be based on the Mission Owner requirement.

Questions Answers

19-Mar-25 16

AEDC Eval Criteria - Subfactor 3.1.2: Given that this Task Order is primarily centered around AEDC operations, would the Government consider revising the requirement to recognize experience across 3 geographically separated installations rather than the current 7?

Seven locations are defined by the Mission

Owner.

19-Mar-25 17

AEDC Eval Criteria - Subfactor 3.1.4:

DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of non-incumbent Engineering personnel hired a given 30 calendar day period within a single work sample. Within

30 days is defined as a single 30 consecutive calendar day period. For example, 15 April 2019 to 14 May

2019 is 30 calendar days. Non-incumbent personnel are defined as contractor personnel hired to perform the requirements of the work sample who were not previously an employee of the incumbent contractor performing the requirement prior to the Offeror winning/ performing the requirement.

1. Request clarification on the term "hired." Does this mean offer made and accepted or on-boarded?

2. Would the government consider clarifying the definition of non-incumbent personnel as personnel hired from off-site (i.e. not hired away from existing employment at the current Government work location)? It is advantageous for the Government to evaluate Offerors' ability to recruit a qualified workforce without impacting other AEDC missions.

The Government will look at clarifying the requirement.

19-Mar-25 18

AEDC Eval Criteria - Subfactor 3.1.3: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the highest number of incumbent positions transitioned within a given 90 calendar day period within a single work sample.

Does the highest number of incumbent positions transitioned within a given 90 calendar day period within a single work sample pertain to a new contract (i.e., transitioning positions from a previous contractor) or a re-awarded contract (i.e., transitioning positions within an existing contract)?

Yes, as long as there is a different contract number.

19-Mar-25 19

AEDC Eval Criteria - Subfactor 3.1.4: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of non-incumbent Engineering personnel hired a given 30 calendar day period within a single work sample.

Does "Engineering personnel" include engineering technicians, drafters/CAD operators, and technical specialists as aligned to TMAS2 labor categories?

Requirement refers to an Engineering discipline.

19-Mar-25 20

AEDC Eval Criteria -Subfactor 3.1.5: Number of personnel with current, adjudicated Secret or above clearances

DEFINITION: The Offeror shall rate itself based off of the total number of personnel across all work samples that have a current, fully adjudicated Secret or above investigation. “Current” is defined as not longer than

30 calendar days before proposal submission.

Would the Government consider allowing personnel from recently completed contracts which are approved work samples, to be included in the total count? Given that these personnel had fully adjudicated clearances while performing similar work, they remain relevant to demonstrating an Offeror’s ability to manage a cleared workforce and meet the security requirements of this Task Order.

Yes.

19-Mar-25 21

AEDC Eval Criteria - Subfactor 3.2.1: - DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of contracts/task orders that provide direct technical engineering support to

DoD RDT&E Ground Test. IAW PWS 3.1.

If the government does not remove DoD from this requirement, can the government clarify that supporting

DoD programs on a contract/TO that is awarded by another agency qualify? --- For context, supporting DoD test programs on a NASA contract.

The Program Office will consider expanding the

DoD requirement to include NASA.

19-Mar-25 22

AEDC Eval Criteria Subfactor 3.2.4: Number of Contracts/TOs that operate in a multifunctional team including military, government civilians, as well as other contractors. Of the work samples submitted, the

Offeror shall rate itself based the number of contracts/task orders in which employees operate as part of a multifunctional team consisting of government civilians, military members, and other contractors IAW PWS

3.1.1.3, 3.1.6, 3.2.2.2, and 3.3.5

Please clarify - to qualify, the contract or TO must include all categories listed (not just some): military, government civilians, and other contract's employees?

Please refer to the final TMAS 3 Evaluation

Criteria when responding to the solicitation.

19-Mar-25 23

AEDC Eval Criteria - Number of Contracts/TOs that provide support to a Lead Developmental Test

Organization (LDTO) or Executing Test Organization (ETO). (max count = 5)

DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of contracts/task orders that provide support to a Lead Developmental Test Organization (LDTO) and Executing

Test Organization (ETO) IAW PWS 3.1.1.1 and 3.3.2.

Would the Government consider expanding this to include non-DoD federal contracts that involve similar test leadership, execution, and developmental test support roles? Agencies such as NASA manage complex ground and flight test programs that require the same structured developmental test approach, rigorous engineering processes, and coordination across multiple test disciplines as DoD LDTO/ETO environments.

The Program Office will consider expanding the

DoD requirement to include NASA.

19-Mar-25 24

Given how important hypersonic ground testing is to AEDC's mission right now, would the government consider breaking this into two scoring rows in the self-scoring matrix, one for Transonic and Supersonic wind tunnel testing and one for Hypersonic wind tunnel testing?

The Government will consider.

Questions Answers

19-Mar-25 25

AEDC Eval Criteria - Subfactor 3.2.12: Number of Contracts/TOs that provide project and financial management support for DoD entities. (max count = 5) DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the

Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of contracts/task orders that project and financial management support for DoD entities IAW PWS 3.1.6, 3.1.7, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4.2, 3.3.5, and 3.3.7.

Agencies such as NASA execute large-scale RDT&E programs that require budget planning, cost analysis, earned value management, and financial reporting under federal acquisition regulations—paralleling the functions required within DoD.

Given that many of these financial management principles, compliance requirements, and reporting structures align with DoD processes, experience in these environments is highly relevant to successfully performing this Task Order. Would the Government consider expanding this requirement to include non-

DoD federal contracts that involve similar project and financial management responsibilities?

The Program Office will consider expanding the

DoD requirement to include NASA.

19-Mar-25 26

AEDC Eval Criteria - Subfactor 3.4: CPAR RATINGS

Important: The USG Eval Team must be able to validate each CPAR rating for each performance period of the contract/TO that is submitted as a work sample. For example, if a single work sample is in the fifth year of performance at time of FOPR release, the Government will need to validate all CPARs from that work sample (i.e., the base year and three option years, for a total of four annual CPARs). If the Government did not complete an annual CPAR for a work sample, a Past Performance Rating Form may be used.

Will the government clarify that CPARS for the entire period of performance for each qualifying contract/TO should be submitted, not just the previous 5 years from FOPR release date?

The Government will only consider five years.

19-Mar-25 27

AEDC Eval Criteria - Subfactor 3.4: CPAR RATINGS

How should we handle situations where one or more of the CPAR categories for a particular period were rated "N/A" by the government rater? Is it acceptable to just not count those in the numerator and denominator to calculate percentages? Would the government consider adding a category called "3.4.6

CPAR categories rated "N/A over last 5 years?"

N/A is not scored.

19-Mar-25 28

AEDC Industry Day Slides: Table, slide 20 says "Two Step Process [for Technical and Determining Realism of the Proposed Cost] is deleted. But Attachment 5 still lists Step 1 and Step 2 for Determining Realism of

Proposed Costs.

Is only Step 1 used for Determining Realism of Proposed Costs?

Attachment 5 is for TMAS 2, not TMAS 3.

Technical has a one step process. Cost has it's own process for realism.