Consolidated Draft RFP Questions_Answers-Responses_01Sep2022_Clean.pdf

W58RGZ-22-R-0090 INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE

Question # RFP Area SOW Page Reference SOW Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference

1 Section C 9 PWS 4.10

2 Section C 9 PWS 4.10

3 Section M 3 M.3.1.1.1

4 Section M 3, 6 M.3.1.1.1 ii), M.3.3.1

5 Section A 2 A-1. c) & d)

6 Section M 3 M.3.1.1.1

DRAFT RFP COMMENT / QUESTION FORM

The requirements between the LSFS-1 and LSFMA-5 contracts are essentially the same, to include facilities thresholds and objectives. Would the Government please provide more specific information about how the Government will determine if a task order flows thru the LSFS-1 or LSFMA-5 vehicle?

Will the Government reduce the logistics support operation space to a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. and an objective of 30,000 sq.

ft. ?

State question as clearly as possible, giving as much information as needed. If a certain answer will generate a follow-on question, try to anticipate this so the entire subject can be addressed initially. If the question is marked proprietary, please explain what makes your question proprietary and include a company POC so that the answer can be provided. PLEASE DO NOT MERGE / ALTER THE

CELLS.

Logistics Support Facility

QuestionDiscussion

Does the Government require bidders to own these tool kits?

The instructions in section L do not address the PWS, nor does the evaluation criteria in section M address the items specified in section L. In order for offerors to provide their best proposals possible, will the government please clarify the expectations regarding section M quality management systems?

For evaluation purposes, will the government give partner and/or subcontractor facilities/ capabilities/ certifications the same weight as the prime contractor?

The requirement states that the contractor shall possess or have ready access to tooling and equipment necessary to perform aircraft and missile system maintenance and modifications.

General Mechanic Tool Kits are often considered tools of the trade, and owned by the individual, not the company.

Section M says offerors will be evaluated on its ability to comply with contractor quality management requirements of the PWS and that it will be evaluated by assessing whether they meet/exceed PWS 6.0.

E-7 states that FAA Repair Station, 14 CFR Part 145, requirements may be met by the prime, partners, and/or subcontractors.

c) As a result of this solicitation, the Government anticipates awarding a Multiple- Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (MAIDIQ) type contract. d) These MAIDIQs will have a single five (5) year ordering period during which Task Order (TO) will be competitively awarded.

Despite the ceiling value being an order of magnitude smaller on LSFS-1 compared to LSFMA-5, the logistics facility requirement minimums and objectives are identical.

Government's Response

The Government will not provide the tools. The company must have access prior to any Task Order award with requirement.

The Government will not provide the tools. The company can own / lease.

The Government believes the requirement is adequately defined.

The Government will evaluate in accordance with the solicitation.

LSFS-1 will be service contract where as LSFMA-5 is a supply contract. Service action vs. supply action will be determined by the Government.

No. The requirement remains as written.

Will the Government please provide additional clarity on what they mean by ready access?

7 Section M 7 M.3.3.2

8 Section C

PWS

pg. 8 PWS 4.3

PWS 4.2-4-10; L.2.1,

M.2, M.3.1.1.1.ii

9 Section M Section M.2,

pg. 4 M.2 L.2

Will the Government accept past performance from NAICS other than 488190?

If so, will the Government give the same weight for past performance with NAICS other than 488190?

M.3.3.2 past performance states the Government may use data … for same or similar services compared to the NAICS 488190.

PWS 4.3 states, "Aircraft hangar space that meets only unfueled or defueled work requirements shall NOT be used for fueled aircraft workspace. In no instance shall any space be double counted. The total combined square footage cannot exceed the actual hangar space size.

Will the USG clarify both the minimum and objective for the total combined square footage of required hangar and other facility support and storage space needed to meet acceptable entry gate criteria? And explain what is meant by "not to exceed the actual hanger space size"?

M.2. states, "The government will evaluate a proposal as PASS if the Offeror has submitted the required documentation as specified in Section L.2. If the proposal is evaluated to pass, the Government will proceed to evaluate Factors 1, 2, and 3."

However, L.2 Entry Gate Criteria states, "To be eligible for evaluation of Factors 1, 2, and 3, the Offeror must first demonstrate it meets the entry gate criteria."

Will the USG clarify whether it is the submission or the evaluation of the required documentation listed in L.2 that is the prerequisite to PASS the Entry Gate Criteria to be conisdered eligible for evaluation?

Yes.The Government will evaluate past performance based on the language in the solicitation.

Space qualifying as fueled hangar not being utilized to meet the minimum requirements for fueled hangar may be allocted to meet unfueled hangar requirements. However, space only qualifying as unfueled hangar may not be allocated as or utilized for fueled maintenance. In no instance may the space be double counted.

Per Section M.2, it is the evaluation of submitted entry gate criteria.

10 Section M Section M.3.1.1.1.ii,

pg. 3 M.3.1.1.1.ii PWS 4.2-4.10

11 Section M

Section M.3.3, Pg. 7-8 M.3.3 L.3.3

12 General

13 Section C pg. 8, Section L.3.2.2

14 Section C PWS Pages 7 through

4 N/A

15 PWS Pages 7 through

Small businesses with an annual revenue stream of less than $35M, without a special status, could not afford to have the facilities, tools, and special test equipment required by this solicitation. Will the Government consider changing the NAICS code for this small business set-aside to permit additional small businesses, without any special statuses, to compete?

Will the facilities and equipment required under this solicitation be available for the offeror to use on multiple Government contracts or solely on the resulting LSFMA Services IDIQ?

The facility, equipment, and certification requirements are identical in both Draft RFP W58RGZ-22-R-0090 and contract W58RGZ-19-D- 0045. The facility and equipment requirements are extensive and expensive and it seems unlikely there are sufficient small businesses with the required geographic area to provide and sustain adequate competition.

Considering the number of small businesses that possess three past performances that would meet recency, relevancy and quality criteria is very limited, would the USG consider allowing more than one past performance example from an offeror’s major subcontractor(s) or to create a more robust environment for competition?

Will the LSFMA Services contract be subject to the Services Contract Act?

If SCA applies, labor rates proposed would need to meet SCA criteria and would periodically be updated negating any rate tables proposed. How will the Government reconcile proposed rate tables with SCA criteria?

Section L.3.2.2 requires offeror to "provide a completed LSF-1 Cost/Price Template proposing IDIQ Rate Tables (RFP Attachment 0002)."

General Question

M.3.1.1.1.ii states, "Proposals which exceed the requirements will be evaluated more favorably," and lists minimum and objective requirements.

Will the USG define the term "objective" and explain whether exceeding the minimum square footage will be evaluated more favorably in relation to design of floor plans, usage of the facility and logistics space requirements outlined in PWS 4.2- 4.10?

Threshold Value: an attribute is the “Minimum Acceptable Level” value considered achievable within the available cost, schedule, and technology at low-to-moderate risk.

Objective Value: an attribute is applicable when a “Desired Level” of performance represents a significant increase in operational utility.

No. The Government will evaluate past performance based on the language in the solicitation.

No; the requirement remains as written.

Not Solely for LSFS-1, However, adequate facilities must be available for each Task Order proposed to or awarded.

Yes. FAR 52.222-41 is applicable and inserted into the RFP.

Base level proposal will need to account for any applicable wage determinations; if offeror proposes SCLS labor at task order level, the Contracting Officer will evaluate at that time IAW Clause 52.222-43. Attachment 0002 will remain as written.

16 Section A page 2 of the RFP

17 Section A page 2 of the RFP

18 Section C PWS page 6 (section j)

19 Attachment 0002 LSFS-1 Cost Price Template

Attachment 0002 LSFS- 1 Cost Price Template

PWS para 2.0,b.

Attachment 0004 Performance Work Statement

20 Attachment 0004 Performance Work Statement

PWS, pg. 10 1.1 and 4.10 n/a

21 Attachment 0004 Performance Work Statement

PWS, pg. 7 4.0 Facility Requiremen ts

NAS 3306, paragraph 4.1

Does that limit the scope of this service contract to only those efforts that are gap fillers for those two government organizations?

Draft RFP W58RGZ-22-R-0090 paragraph A-1., b) states, “This solicitation is for a new service requirement in support of the Logistics Support Facility (LSF) to fill a capability gap between the AMCOM Field Maintenance Directorate (AFMD) and the DEPOT, and not in competition with either organization.”

Draft RFP W58RGZ-22-R-0090 paragraph 2.0., j.

mentions the requirement for “spraying of silicone ablative coatings.”

The PWS Paragraph 2.0, b., identifies that services may be provided "either at the Contractor's facility or on an operational Government site." But Attachment 0002 LSFS-1 Cost Price Template does not allow offerors to identify separate rates for Contractor site and Government site requirements.

Can the Government define the capability gap?

Please define what is meant by this and how it will be assessed.

The evaluation and award of separate rates for contractor site and Government site work would lead to better value to the Government. Therefore, please update the Attachment 0002 cost model to enable offerors to bid Contractor site and Government site rates.

PWS 1.1 states this contract will support "current and legacy aerospace platforms and systems." PWS 4.10 lists "Aircraft and missile support (Complete systems) paint facility" as an objective tool and equipment requirement. Please identify which current and legacy aircraft or identify the largest of these (e.g., DHC Dash 8, UC-35) and missile systems that the paint facility must be able to support.

NAS 3306, paragraph 4.1 requires that airfield and heliport standards and criteria must be defined.

Reference NAS 3306 paragraph 4.1 and PWS

4.0 Facility Requirements: Please identify the

airfield and heliport standards and criteria (e.g., UFC-3-260-01) that apply for the contractor's primary facility.

No

No

Silicone Ablative Coating is a standard industry process.

No separate rates will be utilized. Attachment 0002 will remain as written; offerors wil propose rates as currently identified.

It is unknown at this time what systems the Government will support.

The contractor should use para 4.3 of NAS3306 to explain what their facilities capabilities are.

22 Attachment 5 LSFS-1 Labor Category Requirements

Attachment 5 LSFS-1 Labor Category Requirements

23 Attachment 5 LSFS-1 Labor Category Requirements

Attachment 5 LSFS-1 Labor Category Requirements

24 Attachment 5 LSFS-1 Labor Category Requirements

Attachment 5 LSFS-1 Labor Category Requirements

Attachment 0002 LSFS- 1 Cost Price Template

25 Attachment 0002 LSFS-1 Cost Price Template

Attachment 0002 LSFS- 1 Cost Price Template

Attachment 5 LSFS-1 Labor Category Requirements

26 Attachment 0006 Section L Section L, pg. 1 L.1.1 n/a

27 Attachment 0006 Section L Section L, pg. 1 L.1.2.1 Content Requiremen t.

FAR 52.215-1

Attachment 0002 LSFS-1 Cost Price Template cites numerous Skill Classifications (Labor Categories) that are not listed in Attachment 0005 LSFS-1 Labor Category Requirements.

These include Sr. Provisioning Specialist, ECO/HAZ Inspector, Sr. Instructor SME 1, Sr.

Instructor SME 2, and others.

Please update Attachment 0005 to include all Skill Classifications listed in Attachment 0002.

Attachment 0005 LSFS-1 Labor Category Requirements includes several Skill Classifications not listed on Attachment 0002 LSFS-1 Cost Price Template such as Machinist, ILS 2 and ILS 1 under the Log Tab, and several Skill Classifications on the Miscellaneous Tab.

Please update Attachment 0002 to include all Skill Classifications listed in Attachment 0005.

Section L.1.1. states: "Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its Title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 5)."

Request removal of this requirement as only 1 copy is required for each volume.

Recommend that the same potential for a Government waiver of education requirements be added to the labor categories on the Program Control and Logistics tabs.

In Attachment 5 LSFS-1 Labor Category Requirements, Miscellaneous Tab, Job Description for ATE Electronics Engineering Technician Level 1, requires the following: "Must be a technical expert in Test Program Sets (TPS)." This is a higher level of capability for the level 1 than is the industry standard and is more appropriate for the ATE level 2.

Recommend revising the ATE 1 and ATE 2 job descriptions as follows: The ATE 1 "Must be familiar with concepts related to Test Program Sets (TPS)." The ATE 2 "Must be a technical expert in Test Program Sets (TPS)."

Attachment 5 LSFS-1 Labor Category Requirements, Program Management Tab, Column B, Row 3, states: For career positions that on-the-job training of 10 or more years can demonstrate proficiency for a specific labor category the education requirement "may" be waived by the Government.

Please confirm that the title page is excluded from the maximum page limitations for each volume.

Attachment 0006 updated

IAW Section L.1.2.1, Indices, acronym lists, and definitions are the only documents not included in the total page count.

Updated and Synced Attachment 2 and 5

Updated and Synced Attachment 2 and 5

Updated and Synced Attachment 2 and 5

Updated and Synced Attachment 2 and 5

28 Attachment 0006 Section L Section L, pg. 14 and

L.3.3.1.1.1, L.3.3.1.3 Factor 3 Past Performanc e n/a

29 Attachment 0007 Section M Section M, pg. 1 M.1 Basis of Award

FAR 15.304 and Draft RFP Section E, Clause 52.246-11 Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirements

30 Attachment 0014 Sample Order

Att 14, pg 6 Paragraph

5.0 Aircraft

Paint

Att 4, PWS, paragraph 4.10

31 Section C 7.18 DD254

32 Section C 7.14 DD254

7.18 states Non-SCI and SAP access is required.

DD254 Blocks 10f and 10e2 are not checked for SAP and Non-SCI.

Recommend check DD254 blocks 10f and 10e for SAP / Non-SCI

Please delete paragraph 5.0 Aircraft Paint from Sample Order 2. Rationale: Per PWS 4.10, "Aircraft and missile support (Complete systems) paint facility" is not a minimum tool and equipment requirement.

Sample orders should not include requirements that are not mandatory.

Section 7.14 of the PWS states access to Top Secret information is required. DD254 is at the Secret level.

Recommend the DD254 be upgraded to TS.

Section L.3.3.1.1.1, L.3.3.1.3 Factor 3 Past Performance requires Contractor/Subcontractor to identify the DUNS Number for reference contracts.

Should offerors provide the Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) instead of the DUNS Number?

Section M.1, Evaluation Factors/ Order of Importance states: The Cost/Price factor is more important than the Past Performance factor.

However, as identified in draft RFP Section E, Clause 52.246-11, the contractor must comply with higher-level quality standards including AS9100D, AS9110, ISO 9i001:2015, 14 CFR Part 145, and DCMA 8210.1. These higher-level quality requirements are appropriate for complex technical requirements, critical and complex items supported, and high level of professional competence and experience required to perform successfully. FAR 15.304(b)(2) provides guidance that evaluation factors must "Support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals."

Given the complex and critical nature of the LSF Services requirements, assigning a higher level of importance to past performance as a meaningful discriminator between and among competing proposals would be more consistent with FAR 15.304 guidance. Please consider assigning past performance a higher level of importance in the evaluation.

PWS updated to remove Top Secret requirement.

PWS updated to remove Top Secret requirement.

Yes, updated Attachment 0006 to reflect UEI.

Non Concur. The requirement remains as written.

Non Concur. The requirement remains as written.

33 Section L L.3.3 and M.3.3.2

34 Section A 7.14 DD254

L.3.3 Factor 3: Past Performance. States " Offerors shall submit a maximum of three relevant Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and one contract for each major subcontractors during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP."

and M.3.3.2 States "The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s maximum of three relevant prime contracts and one major subcontractor’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors."

Suggest M.3.3.2 be changed to "The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s maximum of three relevant prime contracts and one contract for each major subcontractors record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors.

Section 7.14 of the PWS states access to Top Secret information is required. DD254 is at the Secret level.

Recommend that the Government require Prime offers and any major subcontractors possess Top Secret FCL at time of submission, thus ensuring competition at task order level. PWS updated to remove Top Secret requirement.

Section L.3.3. Revised "Offerors shall submit a maximum of three relevant Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and NO MORE THAN one contract for each major subcontractor PROPOSED ON THIS

REQUIREMENT, along with the record of performance, during the past three years from the issue date of this RFP.

SMALL BUSINESSES MAY SUBMIT PAST PERFORMANCE FOR

WORK PERFORMED AS EITHER A MEMBER OF A JOINT

VENTURE OR FOR WORK PERFORMED AS A FIRST-TIER

SUBCONTRACTOR. ALL OTHER CONTRACTS MUST BE FOR

WORK PERFORMED AS A PRIME. "

Section M.3.3.2 Revised "The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s record of performance, FOR THE

MAXIMUM OF THREE RELEVANT PRIME CONTRACTS AND

NO MORE THAN ONE CONTRACT FOR EACH MAJOR

SUBCONTRACTOR, as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors."

Questionnaire