B08 Industry Questions and Answers 12 SEP 2023 AMMSS.pdf

Document Section/Page # Reference Question Government Response RFP J Attachment 0007 Will the Government please provide Attachment 0007, SCI Addendum to DD254 This attachment is only required for the awardee.

RFP L ( pg. 70) Element 2: Key

Personnel Will the Government please provide the referenced RFP Attachment - Labor Category Description/Qualifications?

Attachment has been included with the RFP amendment.

RFP L (pg. 60) Section 1, Questionnaire Point of Contact List

Will the Government accept an .xlsx file for the POC List? The Government will accept an .xlsx file.

RFP L (pg. 63) (1) Section 1 Contract Descriptions

There is a discrepancy between the File requirement listed on page 60 (POC List.xls) and the content requirements for Past Performance Section 1. Is the content required in Section 1 on page 63 the POC List referenced on page 60?

The Government has identified the discrepancies.

Page 63, Section 1, has been updated to match Page 60. We have also removed the page limit for Section 1's POC file.

RFP L (pg. 64) (4) Section 4 - Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire

This section requires that the POC List be emailed to the Contracting Officer within 10 days of the RFP release. Is the POC List.xls containing the Section 1 content the required deliverable? If not, please provide the file name and page limit for the Section 1 content.

The Government has removed the "within 10 days" language in this area. Past Performance info shall be delivered at the same time as the rest of the proposal package

RFP L (pg. 64) (4) Section 4 - Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire

Will the Government please provide the referenced Past Performance Questionnaire POC List attachment?

The Government is providing a (blank) sample Past Performance Questionnaire document. This is not considered an attachment in Section J. It's a standalone Sample Document. The Government does not have an opinion on the formatting of the POC List itself, so long as we (the Government) are able to quickly identify POC's to contact.

RFP L (pg. 64) VOLUME III Cost/Price Factor Content

Will the USG be providing NTE amounts for Materials, Travel, and/or ODC's?

No. The Government wants to see each Offeror's Best and Final Cost approach without any NTE or "Plug" Numbers for Materials, Travel, and ODC

RFP L (pg. 70) Element 2: Key Personnel

For Key Personnel, is it the Government's intent that offerors provide a Resume as well as signed letter of intent to ensure the actual resources proposed will be performing the position for which they are being proposed?

Yes, this is the Government's intent. Resumes and LOI's do not count towards any page limits.

The Government does not have a format for these items, so long as they are easily identified and mapped to the Key Personal section

RFP L (pg. 60) Policies, Instructions, and Standards of Conduct

Will the Government allow the MS Project Transition Schedule to be submitted as a page limit exempt attachment to the Transition In Plan?

No. The pages limits are remaining "as is" and that submission would count towards the page limits.

RFP L (pg. 60) Volume I - Technical Would the Government provide page limit increases to the Technical Volume elements as follows: PWS - 25 pages, TransitionIn - 4 pages; MGMT - 15 pages; CorpExp - 8 pages, Techniques - 7 pages.

The Government has reviewed the request, but has decided to retain the Page Limits as stated.

RFP L (pg. 60) Policies, Instructions, and Standards of Conduct

Recommend the Government require submission of an approved FOP/GOP as a page limit exempt attachment to the Technical Volume. The Government has reviewed the request, but has decided to retain the Page Limits as stated.

RFP L (pg. 62) 1. Techniques and

Control Element Is it the Government's intent that Offeror's provide fully executed Teaming Agreements for all subcontractors identified for Work Distribution and for Volume II - Past Performance?

Yes. The Government would prefer to obtain Teaming Agreements. As such, the Past Performance, Section 1, is being expanded to reflect this answer. Teaming Agreements can be sent in with the Offeror's proposal in whatever format and naming convention the Offeror sees fit, so long as it is logically labeled as such in the Past Performance Volume. The Government will not impose a page limit on the Teaming Agreement, nor will it count towards any page limitation within Past Performance.

RFP L (pg. 62) Element B: Management Plan

Please confirm that it is the Government's intent that any offeror possess the required Top Secret Facility Clearance prior to submission of the proposal.

Offeror's would need to have the required Top Secret Facility Clearance prior to the award of the overall Contract. Meaning, it would not be required at the time of proposal submission, however given how long it takes to obtain such Clearance, it would be advisable to have it in place ahead of any potential award, as it will be a firm requirement to perform the work.

RFP L (pg. 59 - 61)

Page 59 requests a proposal validity 270 days from solicitation issuance. Page 60 - Cover Letter - requires minimum validity of 180 days following the due date. Page 61 asks for 270 day validity, but no identified start. Request the Government identify the duration for proposal validity and whether it is from solicitation date or submittal date. Language will be updated for consistency.

RFP L and M Corporate Experience

The criteria for receiving an Acceptable evaluation for Corporate Experience limits competition and essentially transforms this competitive acquisition into an 8(a) sole source.

The only 8(a) company that has 4 years' experience with each of these platforms is the current contractor. The government had this requirement on the previous RFP and only two companies were able to respond. We recommend the government adjust the evaluation criteria from strict platform-specific experience to assessing broader corporate experience in terms of complexity, scale, and scope. This unduly restrictive requirement will deprive the Agency of competition by excluding fully qualified offerors and align evaluation with actual success indicators, like efficient project management and the ability to provide repair, modification and installation on multiple platforms. We urge a reconsideration of the RFP criteria to stimulate healthy competition, innovation, and fairness in assessment.

The following are recommended changes to the solicitation:

Section L C. Corporate Experience Sub-Factor 3 (to be rated as Acceptable / Unacceptable) The Offerors shall discuss meeting Corporate Experience requirements for the contract to determine the extent to which the Offerors demonstrates a complete understanding of all experience elements involved in solving the maintenance, modifications and R&D prototype development requirements presented by the PWS. The discussions will include a demonstration of Corporate Experience demonstrates Corporate Experience similar to the complexity, scale, and scope of the requirements outlined in the PWS in the last 10 years showing they are capable to perform maintenance IAW Army Tech Manuals for repair and modification and installation on similar PWS platforms. Note: There is no "Element" for Sub- Factor C.

Section M Sub-Factor 3: Corporate Experience Each offeror will be evaluated on how it meets the following criteria as an entity (not individual employees performing on the contract). Entity

The Government has reviewed this request as well as the assertion that competition is being limited by this requirement. The Government disagrees with this assertion. Additionally, Corporate Experience is only one Sub-Factor within this Request for Proposal. The Government has ensured through it's Market Research that there is the potential for Fair Competition on this requirement. The requirement will remain "as-is".

RFP L (pg. 63) Under Past Performance, Section 1 a, the requirements ask for CAGE/DUNS number. In that the SAM UEI has replaced the DUNS, should the offeror provide the UEI instead?

Each Offeror should provide the CAGE/UEI.

Section L updated.

RFP L (pg. 60) Under Volume II, Section 2, Past Performance Description page limit is 2 pages. Is this 2 pages per past performance citation?

Correct. 2 pages for each submitted example of Past Performance

RFP L (pg. 60 & 62) Management Plan Subfactor 2

Under the title formats and page limits located in Section L, Page 60, it shows the Management Plan (MGMT.pdf) page limit is 10 pages. There are evaluation factors and page limits associated with each element under Subfactor 2 Management Plan, but none identified for the MGMT document. What is the criteria on which the MGMT document will be evaluated?

The MGMT documents (Management Plan) will be evaluated by all four (4) of the elements associated with that particular subfactor.

RFP L (pg. 64)

Section 4 of the Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire references an attachment in Section J of the RFP, "The POC List shall be submitted in accordance with the Past Performance Questionnaire POC List found that will be part of Section J of the RFP. It is the responsibility of the offeror to see to it that the POC timely emails the Questionnaire to the Government." Would the Government provide the past performance assessment questionnaire ?

The Government will provide the past performance questionnaire.

RFP L (pg. 64)

The Government states, "The POC's shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the Questionnaire and e- mail the entire Questionnaire within 15 calendar days of the release of the RFP." As the Past Performance Questionnaire was not provided with the solicitation release, would the Government extend the POC's submittal and the POC List due dates?

The Past Performance Questionnaire will be due with the proposal.

RFP

L (pg. 63) Past Performance

Can the government explain the 10-year period for relevant past performance as there are very few organizations that operate the same as they did 10 years ago? Typically for solicitations of this type 5 to 7 years is the max relevancy period especially in a Past Performance / Price trade off as the past performance should be an indicator of future performance and as the most relevant factors it is questionable how relevant that performance would be in demonstrating potential performance for the future contract especially considering the rate at which new technologies are emerging.

The Government believes 10 years is still a relevant period for this type of work, and also that a 10 year period allows for a greater amount of competition, not more restrictive. The requirements are 4 out of the past 10, not the past 4 years consecutively. There will be no changes to the RFP as a result of this question and analysis.

RFP M Factor 2: Past Performance Evaluation Approach

Is it the Government's intent to evaluate subcontractor past performance only as it relates to the proposed work distribution under the Technical Sub-Factor 2?

The Government is evaluating Past Performance beyond Technical Sub-Factor 2. The Government is evaluating Past Performance as stated in the RFP: Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

RFP M (pg. 71) Factor 2: Past Performance Evaluation Approach

Will the Government please provide the referenced PWS Attachment -Airborne Vehicles and Support Equipment?

Section corrected.

PWS Para C 3.2.31.3 Will the Government clarify the type of UAS to be operated while on this contract?

All Classes of UAS of Aircraft are under consideration for this work.

PWS

Para C 3.3.8

Will the Government provide AI&E’s SOP for Controlled Exchange as GFI with the solicitation to see how it differs from other Government Approved Controlled Exchange SOPs?

All Classes of UAS of Aircraft are under consideration for this work.

PWS

In capturing this opportunity over the past year, we understand that the C5ISR Group services numerous Commercial Derivative aircraft and as such the incumbent operates a FAA Part 145 within the CFA Facilities. The current solicitation does not list the requirement for a FAA Part 145 whereas the previous solicitation required the offeror to provide this. Was this requirement intentionally removed? This will be a significant cost driver for any offeror as well as will have impact on the labor consideration both during transition and contract performance.

The Government has updated the PWS to reflect the FAA Part 145 Update.

CDRL/PWS Para 9.1.7 The date of first submission for the Flight and Ground Operations Procedures is listed in the CDRL as NLT 20 days after contract award. C.9.1.7 of the PWS states that the F/GOP is due NLT 30 days after contract award. Please clarify the timeline for submittal of this CRDL. 30 Days after Award is the correct timeline

General

As there are documents missing from the initial release of the solicitation, would the Government provide an extension to the proposal due date?

The Government has extended the due date of the proposals to 02 October, 2023 by 2pm EDT. No further extensions are going to be considered at this point. If the proposal package is completed on their end, Offeror's are encouraged to send in files in advance of the deadline and not wait until 03 Oct 2023.

General As pricing is one of the key evaluation factors for this solicitation, will the Government provide the Collective Bargaining Agreements for both the Lakehurst and Ft Belvoir sites?

The Government has reviewed this request and will not be providing the current CBA as an attachment for review.

General Will the labor categories be delineated between the two locations provided in C.1.3 Place of Performance (JB MDL and Fort Belvoir)?

The labor categories will not be delineated between JB MDL and Fort Belvoir.

Sheet1