47QFRA19R0001_Amendment_03_-_RFP_Questions_and_Answers_(Consolidated).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 47QFRA19R0001
- Issued by
-
GSA Federal Acquisition Service
About this file
RFP Amendment 03 Questions and Answers (Consolidated)
View the file
Other files
Show all 14
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP Q&A (Amendment 03)
| Question # | Document / Attachment | Page # | Section / Paragraph | Question, Comment, or Clarification | Government Response |
| 37 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 9, 34 | 4.3 | The USG states "A minimum 50 percent of all Level I, II and III aircraft technicians shall be plane captain certified and 95% of all Level II and III Aircraft Power Line Technicians shall be plane captain certified." Will the USG please state if ALSS and Ordnance labor categories are considered aircraft technicians or are those labor categories exempt from the Plane Captain requirement? Is this requirement specific to VMFAT-101 or inclusive of MAG-11? Additionally, the requirement stated in 4.3 conflicts with the 75 percent power line requirement in the "LIST OF REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS (**MAG-11 ONLY)" table of the PWS. | PWS Section 4.3 has been revised to reflect the different plane captain requirements for VMFAT-101 and MAG-11. For VMFAT-101, a minimum 50 percent of all Level I, II and III aircraft technicians shall be plane captain certified, and 95% of all Level II and III Aircraft Power Line Technicians shall be plane captain certified. For MAG-11, 75% of all Level II and III Aircraft Power Line Technicians shall be plane captain certified. The following shops will be excluded from that requirement: ALSS, Ordnance and Maintenance Administration. |
| 38 | CLIN-Price Schedule (RFP Attachment 10) | Tab "Price Schedule" | The roll-up of prices in the Price Schedule Tab (Base Year) include the Optional CLINS but not CLIN 0011 and 0012 though a value is to be placed in the highlighted cell for those CLINS. Also "Optional" cells highlighted in yellow are not rolled up in each of the corresponding "Total" cells for the Option Years. Will the Government please confirm these mathematical calculations are correct and will the USG confirm those values are the expressed intent of the Government? | All CLINs should be calculated as part of the corresponding "Total" cells in the base and option periods. The formulas/calculations within RFP Attachment 10 have been revised accordingly. | |
| 39 | CLIN-Price Schedule (RFP Attachment 10) | Tab "Breakout" Tabs | On the Amendment 001 Breakout Tabs, there are a number of cells that are not properly multiplying the KTR Proposed Complement by the FTE FFP Hours by the Wage Rate. Those cells only multiply the FTE FFP Hours by the Wage Rate which grossly understates the total FFP. | The breakout tabs should multiply the KTR Proposed Complement by the FTE FFP Hours by the Wage Rate. The formulas/calculations within RFP Attachment 10 have been revised accordingly. |
47QFRA19R0001 - Attachment 13 - RFP Questions and Answers&11
&"Segoe UI,Regular"&11Page &P of &N
Amendment 02
| Question # | Document / Attachment | Page # | Section / Paragraph | Question, Comment, or Clarification | Government Response | |
| 33 | RFP | 45 | L.6.3 | Will the Government address the numerous labor categories in the pricing (Attachment 10) that are not in the CBA? | Amendment 02 has added RFP Attachment 14 "SCA Wage Determination 2015-5635 Rev 10" to address the labor categories that are not in the CBA. | |
| 34 | RFP | 46 | L.6.3.1.(g) | Will the USG resolve the contradiction between the referenced paragraph and Appendix A of the CBA which states the WD Adjustments on July 1st of each year as this is critical to pricing the effort? "CBA and Wage Determination adjustments will be granted on the annual anniversaries from time of award of the initial contract in accordance with FAR 52.222-43 or 52.222-44 as referenced in this contract." | Amendment 02 has revised Section L.6.3.1(g) of the RFP to remove the language regarding adjustments on annual anniversaries. | |
| 35 | CLIN-Price Schedule (RFP Attachment 10) | There seems to be an issue on the provided attachment 10, price schedule CLIN (Cell C53 of the price schedule tab) 0011, where it is asking for pricing for 7 months of transition instead of what appears to be 1 month. We wanted to ensure that this was correct and if an amendment would be coming with corrections to the pricing sheet? | CLIN 0011 (Excel cell # C53) should reflect a quantity of "1 Month." Amendment 02 has revised RFP Attachment 10 accordingly. | |||
| 36 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 35 | 8.2 | The USG said it amended the Solicitation Attachment 10, CLIN-Price Schedule, breakdown tabs for all Periods of Performance; and Section 8.2 of the Performance Work Statement, to read: | ||
| Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician II, Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician III. Though the USG changed the CLIN Price Schedule, the USG did not change Section 8.2 of the Performance Work Statement. Will the USG please amend the PWS to reflect the correct Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician II and Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician III? | Amendment 02 has revised Section 8.2 of the PWS to reflect the correct Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician II and Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician III. | |||||
| 37 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 9, 34 | 4.3 | The USG states "A minimum 50 percent of all Level I, II and III aircraft technicians shall be plane captain certified and 95% of all Level II and III Aircraft Power Line Technicians shall be plane captain certified." Will the USG please state if ALSS and Ordnance labor categories are considered aircraft technicians or are those labor categories exempt from the Plane Captain requirement? Is this requirement specific to VMFAT-101 or inclusive of MAG-11? Additionally, the requirement stated in 4.3 conflicts with the 75 percent power line requirement in the table on page 34 of the PWS. | This question will be addressed in a future Solicitation Amendment. |
&"Segoe UI,Regular"&11Page &P of &N
Amendment 01
| Question # | Document / Attachment | Page | ||||
| # | Section / Paragraph | Question, Comment, or Clarification | Government Response | |||
| 1 | RFP | 7 | F.2 | Period of Performance is listed as 8 Months in Section J, but the Period of Performance on the CLIN Price spreadsheet is 1 October 2019 - 30 April 2020 which is seven months. Will the Government advise whether the base is 7 months or 8 months? | The Transition Period (1-30 September 2019) is included in the 8-month base period, however because it is priced separately, it is on the CLIN-Price Spreadsheet as separate CLINs (0011 and 0012). | |
| 2 | RFP | 42 | L.5 | Acronym lists, list of figures, list of tabs, table of contents and Cover and Title pages are included in the page count. Will the government reconsider this requirement and remove these items from the page count? | This is addressed with Amendment One of the solicitation which revises RFP Section L.5.g to increase the total page limitation to 30 pages. Acronym Lists, Lists of Figures, Lists of Tables, Table of Contents and Cover/Title pages will still be included in the page count. | |
| 3 | RFP | 42 | L.5 (g) | The technical response page limitations stipulate 25 pages. According to L.5 (g), the table of contents, list of acronyms, lists of figure and tables and cover page are all counted towards the page limitations. On a program this large, will the government consider omitting these items from the 25 limit page count? | See response to Question 2. | |
| 4 | RFP | 43 | L.6.1.2 (b) | Will the government provide a list of GFP that is to be accounted for? Will the Government require GFP to be accounted for on a regular basis and will that become a "Deliverable"? | The contractor will have access to shared space and use of Government tools/equipment/property. Contractor shall comply with tool control program IAW COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2C and all other governing documents. | |
| 5 | RFP | 43 | L.6.1.1 (b) | The instructions to offerors make no mention of attachments or enclosures. How are the signed letters of intent to be provided? Secondly, do these pages (if included as attachments or enclosures) count towards the page limitation? | This is addressed with Amendment One of the solicitation which revises RFP Section L.5.g to state Letters of Intent are not counted in the page limit. | |
| 6 | RFP | 43 | L.6.1.1 (c) (iii) | The instruction alludes to PWS Section 8.5; however, the last PWS Section is 8.2.1. Can the government please clarify this requirement or reference? | Amendment One to the solicitation will revise RFP Section L.6.1.1(c)(iii) to read PWS Section 8.2.1. | |
| 7 | RFP | 43 | L.6.2.1 | NAICS Code is 488190, with a size standard of $32,500,000.00 set aside for a Small Business. Para L.6.2.1, Factor 3 - Past Performance states to be relevant aircraft maintenance services, at a minimum it must: 1)Have a workforce over 240 FTE's, 2) Total $150M or $30M Annually, and Cover all of the task areas of Section 4 of the PWS. How can the government set these requirements and stay within the size standard of NAICS 488190? | This is addressed with Amendment One of the solicitation which revises RFP Section L.6.2.1. | |
| 8 | RFP | 43-44 | L.6.2.1 | In this paragraph. "Relevant is defined as a contract or task order for aircraft maintenance services containing each of the following minimum characteristics: 1. Contractor workforce of at least 240 aircraft maintenance personnel. 2. Total contract value of $150 million, or $30 million annually. 3. Scope that covers all performance task areas referenced in Section 4 of the PWS." The workforce requirement is a stretch for a small business in NAICS code 488190, could this be revised to a workforce of 180 aircraft maintenance personnel or a contract value of $150 million or $30 million annually? | This is addressed with Amendment One of the solicitation which revises RFP Section L.6.2.1. | |
| 9 | RFP | 44 | L.6.2.1 | The minimum characteristics for relevant past performance appear to create an unreasonable barrier to entry for a small business competition. For example, the small business standard for NAICS code 488190 is $32.5M, and the RFP’s past performance threshold for annual revenue is $30M. |
Based on our familiarity with this market and industrial base, we know that—aside from the incumbent joint venture (JV)—companies that can provide one or more contract references meeting these relevance thresholds are unlikely to be small under the relevant NAICS code.
| Will the government consider reducing the annual revenue threshold for individual relevant past performance to reflect a capable small business in this market? | This is addressed with Amendment One of the solicitation which revises RFP Section L.6.2.1. | |||||
| 10 | RFP | 44 | L.6.2.1 | Will the government consider applying the relevance thresholds for the past performance submission in aggregate? | This is addressed with Amendment One of the solicitation which revises RFP Section L.6.2.1. | |
| 11 | RFP | 44 | L.6.2.1 | Will the government consider allowing subcontractor past performance to contribute to an offeror’s portfolio of experience? | Yes, the Government will allow past performance of major subcontractors; this is addressed with Amendment One of the solicitation which revises RFP Sections L.6.2.1 and Section M.4.2.1. | |
| 12 | RFP | 44 | L.6.2.1 | The workforce size threshold appears to exclude contracts of similar size with scope that includes tasks other than aircraft maintenance, such as logistics, administrative/professional support, and facility operations. By including these other functions to the past performance requirements, this will increase the number of competitors. |
| We understand this is a large recruiting, staffing and on-boarding effort. Will the government consider contract references that include workforces of 240 personnel that include personnel supporting a broader programs of support. | This is addressed with Amendment One of the solicitation which revises RFP Section L.6.2.1. | |||||
| 13 | RFP | 46 | M.4.2.1 | The subject paragraph states, "For each past performance effort, the government will evaluate recency and degree of relevancy, as defined solicitation Section L.6.2.1, as well as quality." We are confused by the term "as well as quality". Is it the intention to add a quality section to the past performance volume, or explain quality in the past performance narratives? | The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror's past performance based on information submitted by the offeror for either (1) the information provided by the POC provided in the Past Performance Questionnaire; (2) the most recent completed (by the agency) CPARS evaluation report submitted by the offeror in its proposal; or (3) both (1) and (2). |
Amendment One to the solicitation will also revise RFP Section M.4.2.1 to state "the government will evaluate recency, degree of relevancy (as defined in solicitation Section L.6.2.1), and quality."
| 14 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 14 | 4.9 | In the Performance Summary, is the missing cell number between 1C and 2 supposed to be 1D? Also, will the government make sure all cells are expanded in the table so no information is hidden when printing the document? See Cell 9. | Amendment One to the solicitation will revise PWS Section 4.9 to number the cell as 1D, and to reformat the Performance Summary table to ensure the content of all cells are visible. |
| 15 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 19 | 6.6 | The government states a QCP will be implemented after government acceptance but a QCP is not listed as a "Deliverable". Will the government please indicate if this is supposed to be a "Deliverable"? | Amendment One to the solicitation will revise PWS Section 7 to add the QCP to the Deliverables table. |
| 16 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 27 | 7 | Per para 6.7.1, If the Government maintains local inventory of all GFE, will the Government provide a list of GFP that will be in the Contractor's control upon issuance of the contract? | See response to Question 4. |
| 17 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 28 | 7 | Deliverable: Workforce/Management plan: The government indicates the workforce/management plan is IAW paragraph 8.0 but paragraph 8.0 makes no mention of that particular plan. Will the government correct the reference or point to the section of the PWS that addresses ths Workforce/Management Plan? | This is addressed with Amendment One of the solicitation which revises PWS Section 7 to read "IAW 8.0 through 8.2". |
| 18 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 33 | 8.2 | The Estimated Team Compliment Para 8.2 reflects a requirement for the following: |
(5) Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician I billets
(3) Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician II billets.
Due to the nature of work involved, these personnel are all required to function as (Level II) CDIs and (Level III) CDQARs.
Is it the government’s intent to reduce the level of the current billet holders in these positions or should the requirement read as follows:
(5) Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician II billets
(3) Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician III billets This is addressed with Amendment One of the solicitation which revises the CLIN/Price Schedule and PWS Section 8.2 to reflect a Team Complement of :
(5) Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician II billets
(3) Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician III billets.
| 19 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 9 | 4.4 | The subject paragraph states, "The Contractor shall perform all corrosion prevention and treatment IAW applicable directives to include repainting the surface on squadron aircraft. The Contractor shall provide qualified paint and final finish personnel to perform painting operations." The term "repainting the surface" is confusing, as painting of large surfaces requires strip and paint booth facilities. Is the paint requirement for areas larger than a couple square feet, insignias, placarding, etc.? | 4790.2C Ch10.13.3 b (9) and (10). States that Touch-up painting is restricted to only that amount required to repair damage during corrosion repair process, and repainting of entire sections of aircraft is not authorized by O or I level maintenance. Ch10.13.3 e (3) limits the job to 8 oz per 8 hour period. It does not give a diameter requirement for patch and repairs. Painting required is not for areas large enough to require a booth but to treat exposed areas after cleaning corrosion or repainting due to paint missing. There will also be requirements to paint aircraft markings. |
| 20 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 16 | Table Line 9 | The performance standard defined in line 9 appears to be incomplete. Can the government please clarify the standard? | This is addressed with Amendment One of the solicitation which revises PWS to correct the formatting of the Performance Standard table. The Performance Standard in Line 9 is: "Upon approval of the AMO and COR the Contractor shall deploy to other CONUS locations/sites as required for the purpose of maintaining and/or repairing aircraft." |
| 21 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 17 | 6.1 | The government states it will provide Fall Protection Equipment (FPE); however the FPE listed in Section 6.1 is more along the lines of PPE. FPE falls more along the lines of aircraft stands, restraint harnesses, flex rail systems, etc. Will the government please clarify if they will be providing actual fall protection equipment other than the PPE listed in 6.1? If not, is the contractor required to provide (included in our pricing) fall protection systems? | Aircraft Stands are available. No other fall protection equipment beside PPE is required on the F18. The Government will provide required PPE per NAMP and Naval Aviation Safety Regulations. |
| 22 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 18 | 6.3 | The subject PWS section states labor codes 23021, 23022, and 23023 will require Secret security clearances. Normally personnel involved with encrypted comms, ordnance, and ejection seat maintenance require Secret or better clearances; whereas, other aircraft maintainers normally do not require Secret clearances. Is the government's intention to have all aircraft maintenance personnel (23021, 23022 and 23023) be cleared to Secret? | Amendment One to the solicitation will revise PWS Section 6.3 to remove references to labor codes. The table on PWS Page 34 will be amended to rename the AVIONICS 6317 positions to AIRCRAFT COM/NAV TECH I, and the AVIONICS 6337 positions to AIRCRAFT COM/NAV TECH II, and to change the definition of Note 1. |
| 23 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 21 | 6.8.1 | Shipboard operations require different qualifications and qualifications. Will the contractor be required to deploy aboard Naval Vessels? | This is addressed with Amendment One of the solicitation which removes this section from the PWS. |
| 24 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 24 | 6.16.1 | Personnel supporting this the MAG-11 effort would have to adhere to individual squadron Local Command Procedures (LCPs); whereas, CMS members supporting VMFAT-101 would fall under 101's LCPs. If the intent is to integrate CMS personnel into the work centers (PWS Section 2.0) LCPs would nullify contractors GOPS. How is the contractor to submit GOPS (post award) for this effort, if the intent to fully integrate the CMS members into the work centers? | Amendment One to the RFP revises Section 6.6 of the PWS to add "The QCP will be revised semi-annually to include the result of semi-annual internal inspections of GOP compliance." Section 6.16.1 will be amended to add "COR, and Squadron Quality Assurance Officer" to the end of the paragraph. Section 7 of the PWS will be amended to revise the Due Date/Time Frame for QCPs to be consistent with the change to Section 6.6. |
| 25 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 31 | 8.1 Tables | The MAG-11 team complement illustrated in the table on page 30 shows 76 positions/people inclusive of the Maintenance Manager. However, the MAG-11 table on page 31 only illustrates 74 (without including the Maintenance Manager). If we add the maintenance manager as shown on page 30, the team complement is still does not match. To preclude us from proposing less than what is required, can the government please clarify the table on page 30 or 31 to reflect the correct numbers/positions? | The table on page 30 reflects the correct numbers/positions. The maintenance manger is listed in table 31 but no markings are made under the level because those levels do not apply to the position. Also the Hazmat coordinator is not listed as there are no specific experience requirements necessary as long as they have all of the necessary training per the references listed in 6.1.1 for the position. |
| 26 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | 19 | 6.7.3 | Will the Government confirm that the NDI equipment listed in 6.7.3 is either generic in nature or specific to the Aircraft being supported in the Solicitation? | This is addressed with Amendment One of the solicitation which revises PWS Section 6.7.3. to read "Contractor shall provide: Confined space gas monitor (PGM-6228 or equivalent), four NORTEC N600D-MN01 eddy current flaw detector, four NRK- 3AST eddy current standard sets, two USM 36 ultrasonic flaw detectors, two 74D110329-1001 composite flat bottom hole reference standards, two 1776AS310- 1 ultrasonic flaw detector transducer kits, respirators, cartridges, FIT training and all occupational health physicals required shall be included in Contractor’s FFP proposal. The equipment shall meet all government regulations with regards to confined space entry safety as presented in OSHA 29 CFR 1910.146." |
| 27 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | Chromium VI Medical Exams are a requirement for qualified painters that is not addressed in the VMFAT-101 RFP. Will the Government allow Chromium VI Medical Exam costs for painters to be billed as an ODC? The exam cost is approximately $1,000 per person and is not specified in the RFP. | The government will not allow this to be billed as an ODC. It is expected that the contractor provide trained and qualified workers. | ||
| 28 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | NDI re-certification training is a 5-year (Level II and III) requirement that is not addressed in the VMFAT-101 RFP. Will the government allow NDI re-certification training costs to be billed as an ODC? NDI training can cost up to $1,800 per person as it requires a third party facilitator/trainer. | The government will not allow this to be billed as an ODC. It is expected that the contractor provide trained and qualified workers. | ||
| 29 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | CPR training is requirement that is not addressed in the VMFAT-101 RFP. Will the government allow CPR training costs to be billed as an ODC? | The government will not allow this to be billed as an ODC. It is expected that the contractor provide trained and qualified workers. | ||
| 30 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | O-Level QA Admin Course is requirement to become a QAR that is not addressed in the VMFAT-101 RFP. Will the government allow QA Admin Course (C-555-0046) to be billed as an ODC? | The government will not allow this to be billed as an ODC. It is expected that the contractor provide trained and qualified workers. | ||
| 31 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | O-Level Aviation Maintenance Control Management course is a requirement to become a Safe-for-Flight qualified Maintenance Controller that is not addressed in the VMFAT-101 RFP. Will the government allow O-Level Aviation Maintenance Control Management course (C-555-0053) to be billed as an ODC? | The government will not allow this to be billed as an ODC. It is expected that the contractor provide trained and qualified workers. | ||
| 32 | PWS (RFP Attachment 11) | TD Coordinator position requires two courses; Configuration Management (C-555-0059) and Maintenance Control Management (C-555-0053) that are not addressed in the VMFAT-101 RFP. Will the government allow Configuration Management (C-555-0059) and Maintenance Control Management (C-555-0053) to be billed as an ODC? | The government will not allow this to be billed as an ODC. It is expected that the contractor provide trained and qualified workers. |
&"Segoe UI,Regular"&11Page &P of &N
ESRI_MAPINFO_SHEET
DO NOT EDIT
For Esri use only
File details come from the government source that posted it.