47QFSA26R0003_QuestionAndAnswer04_17_2026.pdf

Solicitation Number: 47QFSA26R0003

Note to Offerors: Please provide the specific paragraph reference using the Section/Sub-Section numbers in the solicitation.

PART # PARAGRAPH # PARAGRAPH TITLE QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

SOLICITATION COVER LETTER 9 SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS

Will the Government please deconflict the Proposal Due Date of April 27, 2026 and Deadline for Questions Date of April 29, 2026 and provide correct dates for both? See Amendment 01.

RFP M.2 Pass/Fail Elements

Section K references DFARS 252.204-7021 and “Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Maturity Level 1.”

Quesiton: Because DFARS 252.204-7021 is associated with Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) requirements rather than CMMI, can the Government clarify whether offerors are required to demonstrate CMMC Level 1 or CMMI Level 1?

This is changed to CMMC Level 1.

See Amendment 02.

ATTACHMENT K

OFFEROR QUESTION AND ANSWER (Q&A) TEMPLATE

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 1 of

47QFSA26R0003_AttCPriceTemplate

Base Period, Option Period 1, and 52.217-8 6-months tabs Cells F8 and G8

The Base Period, Option Period 1, and 52.217-8 6-months tabs have an extra row under the Company Information/Points of Contact (POC) section as the Price Summary Tab, resulting in Cells F8 and G8 having #REF! errors. Question: Will the USG correct the file to reflect the source cells on the Price Summary Tab?

An updated pricing sheet is included in Amendment 02.

47QFSA26R0003_AttCPriceTemplate All Input Tabs Row E (Labor Category)

The Labor Category row has drop down choices that are determined by the Data Validation feature in Excel.

There are no choices when selecting the drop down and the file does not allow the Offeror to type in specific labor categories. This results in the file giving the Offeror an error that states, "This value doesn't match the data validation restrictions defined for this cell." Question: Will the USG correct the file to have the desired labor categories in the drop down menu or the Offeror correct the error?

An updated pricing sheet is included in Amendment 02.

RFP M.2 Pass/Fail Elements

In section M.2 (c) the Government identifies a requirement for Seciton 508 Compliance. Question: Will the Government please clarify what level of Section 508 compliance is expected, especially given that the work is primarily maintenance and may not involve deliverables typically requiring such compliance?

Anything involving technology deliverables must be Section 508 compliant.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 2 of

RFP H-3 Para H.5 Security Requirements

Para H.5 states, Ensure security support included, but is not limited to, packing classified information, mailing and receiving classified material, implementing emergency procedures for protection of classified information, security checks, and internal security controls for protection of classified material and high value pilfer-able property.

However, there is no requirement in this solicitation for it to be a classified contract nor for contractor staff to possess security clearances.

Question: Can the government clarify any classified information requirements?

The Government does not quite understand the question. Please be more specific.

47QFSA26R0003_AttGProjectStaffing Plan(PSP)Template

Option Period Tabs

Security Clearance Level, Duty Station Location, OASIS+

Columns

The Base Period tab appears to have the all necessary requested data for the staffing plan; however, the subsquent Option Period tabs have additional columns that are mapped with #REF! errors because source data isn't included on the Base Period Tab. Additionally, the Fifth and Sixth Option Period Tabs have optional columns for OASIS+ Task Orders only which differs from all the other Option Period tabs. Question: Will the USG update the staffing plan to rectify all #REF! errors and remove any columns that are not applicable for offerors for this RFP?

An updated pricing sheet is included in Amendment 02.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 3 of

47QFSA26R0003_RFPSolicitationCov erLetter 1 and 2

Submission Deadlines and Instructions

The first paragraph and paragraphs at the bottom of the letter reference the Request for Proposal (RFP) multiple times. However, under Submission Deadlines and Instructions, the language states, "Each proposal shall contain Two Parts in accordance with the instructions specified in RFQ Section L.4." in addition to another "in accordance with RFQ" under a) and b). Question: The cover letter references both “RFP” and “RFQ” (e.g., Section L.4 instructions). Can the Government confirm whether this procurement is conducted under FAR Part 15 (RFP) or FAR Part 13/16 (RFQ), and clarify which instructions govern proposal preparation?

This is an RFP, FAR Part 15 acquisition.

47QFSA26R0003_RFPSolicitationCov erLetter

Submission of Questions Emails and Signature Block

Joseph Loersch is listed as the Contracting Officer (signature block) and Contracting Specialist (question section). Question: The solicitation lists Joseph Loersch as both the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. Please confirm the correct roles and identify the warranted Contracting Officer for this procurement.

Joe Loersch is the Contracting Officer. Kimberly (Grace) Nelson is the Contract Specialist.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 4 of

47QFSA26R0003_RFPMAG26_29Co rrosionControl

Part IV - Section M M.1 Method of Award

M.1 states, “All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are more important than price. Award may be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be the best value for the Government. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve superior non-price features that, in the Government’s judgment, are not substantial. While price is not expected to be the controlling factor in the selection of an offeror, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater if, in the Government’s judgment, the proposed’ non-price features are less distinguishable.”

Question: Can the USG clarify how it will determine whether a price premium is justified relative to technical merit?

The Government will not use a predetermined mechancial or mathematical formula to conduct its best-value tradeoff. The Government will determine wheteher a price premium is justified through a reasoned conclusion based on a qualitative assessment performed according to the solicitation's terms.

The Government will appropriately document the rationale for the best-value decision.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 5 of rrosionControl

Part IV - Section L & M

L.6 Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (Part II) and

M.5 Technicla Evaluation Factors

M.5 states, "The technical proposal evaluation factors are in the following order of importance, Factor 1: Key Personnel and Project Staffing, Factor 2: Technical Approach, and Factor 3: Corporate Experience. All three technical factors combined are more important than price. The Government will combine the results of the written to arrive at a rating for the technical evaluation factors as a whole.

Question: Will the USG assign strengths/weaknesses at the sub-element level within each factor, and how will those roll up into the overall rating?

The Government will evaluate each factor in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. The individual elements under each factor are not subfactors and will not be rated individually. Instead, they are areas the Government will examine when determining the factor-level rating according to the terms of the solicitation. In conducting its evaluation, the Government will assign findings, which essentially serve as a roadmap for the Government in reaching and documenting the factor-level rating.

There is no mechanical or mathematical formula for this process. Assigning a factor-level rating is a matter of qualitative judgement.

47QFSA26R0003_RFPMAG26_29Co rrosionControl L.4 Submission of Offers

Is the Government requiring a specific File naming convention for the submission Files?

The contractor shall utilize a standard naming convention when uploading deliverables in the ASSIST Collaborations. The naming convention of deliverables shall follow the following format:

[Acquisition Identifier #][Document Name][Final Document Date or Date Received][File Extension]. Date must be in this format: YYYY-MM-DD.

47QFSA26R0003_RFPMAG26_29Co rrosionControl L.5.1 Written Price Proposal

Can the Government provide clarity for the file format delivery. Is an excel file expected for the narrative sections based on the "Tab X" or is a word file expected with the Tabs to be sections?

There are no specific instructions for submission with a file as long as the Government can clearly understand the sections and submissions.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 6 of rrosionControl Section J

Attachment A "COR Designation Letter (Attached at Contract Award (CA))" was not included in the solicitation attachment zip file. Can the Government please provide this document?

That means it will be provided when a contract is awarded. It will not be provided at this time.

47QFSA26R0003_AttCPriceTemplate Period 1 Option Period 2 Option Period 3 Option Perio

The dropdown for labor category in coulmn E for tabs Base Period, Option Period 1, Option Period 2, Option Period 3, Option Period 4, 52.217-8 6-months is a Data Validation that has a incorrect Reference association.

See Amendment 02 for the updated price sheet.

47QFSA26R0003_AttCPriceTemplate Instructions

The Instructions reference the "ASTRO LCAT Xwalk tab" but that tab is not present.

See Amendment 02 for the updated price sheet.

47QFSA26R0003_AttCPriceTemplate D16 Base Period Tab

The Government has the Base period listed in cell D16 as 10 Months.

This conflicts with the RFP Section F.1 where the contract is stated as a one-year base period.

Is cell D16 listing the incorrect information or is the base period of performance 10 months to not include the transition-in/out time?

See Amendment 02 for the updated price sheet.

47QFSA26R0003_RFPMAG26_29Co rrosionControl /

47QFSA26R0003_RFPSolicitationCov erLetter L.8 Submission Of Questions

RFP section L.8 states, "Offerors are required to submit questions via GSA eBuy and make reference to the particular Solicitation Section/Subsection number."

However, the Solicitation Cover Letter states, "In accordance with RFP Section L.8, Submission of Questions, prospective offerors shall submit any questions about the RFP package via email". Can the government clarify its requirement for the submission of questions?

See Amendment 03. The mention of GSA eBuy is removed.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 7 of rrosionControl B.3 Services and Prices

RFP Section B.3 refers to Supplies or Services and Prices and the document is not included in the RFP.

Would the Government please provide the Section B Table known as Supplies, Services, and Pricing?

Refer to the Pricing Sheet Under Section J. It was updated in Amendment 02.

47QFSA26R0003_RFPMAG26_29Co rrosionControl B.4 Section B Tables

RFP Section B.4 refers to Section J, Attachment C for Pricing Table.

Attachment C is the Pricing Template which does not include the Section B Table. Would the Government provide the Section B Table?

Section B Tables is the Section J Attachment C price table. This was updated with Amendment 02.

47QFSA26R0003_AttCPriceTemplate Instructions Tab n/a

Pricing Template Instructions reference the not-to-exceed values for CLIN X002, X003, and X004.

The RFP or the Pricing Template does not include the not-to-exceed values. Would the Government provide these values to price accordingly?

See Amendment 02 for the updated price sheet.

47QFSA26R0003_AttCPriceTemplate Instructions Tab n/a

Are the not-to exceed values based on a cost reimbursement type contract?

See Amendment 02 for the updated price sheet.

47QFSA26R0003_AttCPriceTemplate Instructions Tab n/a

Does the not-to exceed values include the applicable indirect burdens or shall the offeror include their applicable burdens?

See Amendment 02 for the updated price sheet.

47QFSA26R0003_AttCPriceTemplate Price Summary

Tab CLIN Series

The Summary Tab in the Pricing Template only includes labor cost for CLIN X001. Would the Government consider inserting CLIN X002, X003, and X004 on the Summary Tab to evaluate the total price input?

See Amendment 02 for the updated price sheet.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 8 of

Attachment M Mission Essential Identified Roles

The attachment states"These contractor services are considered essential in support of mission-essential functions per DFARS 252.237-7023. They are in direct support of the MV22 squadron mission providing Mission Capable Aircraft Readiness (MCAR) to multi-service military pilot training programs." QUESTION: Will the USG clarify if this effort is primarily focused on MV-22 aircraft readiness moreso that any other Type/Model/Series aircraft that is supported? See Amendment 03.

PWS C.1.1 PURPOSE

Paragraph states "...These maintenance services will be delivered at both Organizational level (O-Level) and Intermediate Level (I- Level)." QUESTION: Will the USG what speccifically is meant by "delivered" at the Intermediate level of maintenance? Are there specific I- Level maintenance functions this CMS team is expected to perform?

For corrosion control there is both an O level and I level element.

PWS C.1.1 PURPOSE

It is this Offeror's understanding that HMLA-269 has been reactivated but is not listed as one of the Squadrons that will be supported. QUESTION:

Will the USG clarify if HMLA-269 will be supported as well? See Amendment 02.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 9 of

PWS C.2 SCOPE

A paragraph states "The contractor shall perform all services in accordance with the most current version of Commander Naval Air Forces Instruction

(COMNAVAIRFORINST) 4790,

also referred to as the Naval Aviation Maintenance Program (NAMP), and applicable maintenance instruction manuals, Technical Directives (TDs), squadron Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and such other instructions as may be applicable in the support of these tasks." There is no specific mention of NAVAIRINST 3710.1 (Contractor’s Flight and Ground Operations).

QUESTION: Since the NAMP, Chapter 11 references NAVAIRINST 3710.1 along with 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk, which is cited in the PWS, will the USG require Contractor Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) as a Deliverable?

While the NAMP, Chapter 11 references NAVAIRINST 3710.1 along with Ground and Flight Risk, which is cited in the PWS, the USG will still require Contractor Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) as a Deliverable.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 10 of

PWS C.2 SCOPE

Listed under the SCOPE are NAMPSOPs and some require clarification regarding applicability to this PWS. QUESTION: Will the USG clarify the Contractor's applicability to the following NAMPSOPs: Naval Aviation Metrology and Calibration (METCAL) Program; Central Technical Publication Library (CTPL) Program; Maintenance Control; Aircraft Records and Reports/Engine Accounting; Logs and Records; Data Analysis; and Material Control?

Are required to utilize and conform to those requirements as stated by the

4790 (NAMP).

PWS C.7 Workload Data

The Table in this section has five NOTES related to the Table.

QUESTION: Will the USG clarify what NOTE 5 relates to as NOTE 5 is not called out in the Table and it is not clear when referring to M.5.1?

Please review Section M.5.1 in its entirity.

Section L L.6.2.e. & L.6.4 QMP

Paragraph L.6.2.e (QMP) indicates a page limit of 2 pages. L.6.4 has five minimum sub-areas the QMP must address. QUESTION: Will the USG clarify if simply a "Quality summary" is desired within the Technical Proposal (Part II) and the Offeror's detailed QMP will be provided as Deliverable #8?

L.6.4 is for preaward. The Government believes 2 pages is sufficient to address a QMP for RFP evaluation Deliverable #8 is a post award deliverable and likely be more specific.

PWS C.4.1.6 & C.4.1.2

SUBTASK 6 – PROVIDE

QUALITY CONTROL &

SUBTASK 2 – COORDINATE A

PROJECT KICK-OFF MEETING

The two sections address QCP (Quality Control Plan) and QMP Quality Management Plan).

QUESTION: Will the USG clarify if these two plan are synonomous or if the Government is implying two separate plans?

Yes, QCP and QMP are used interchangably.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 11 of

RFP Section H

H.5 SECURITY

REQUIREMENTS

Paragraph states "Ensure that employees meet the personnel security clearance requirements of the National Industrial Security Program (NISPOM), Chapter 2, and Section 2. The Contractor shall provide a current listing of employees, updated when an employee's status or information changes. The list shall include the employee's name, social security number, and level of security clearance. The Contractor’s Facility Security Officer (FSO) shall validate and sign the list and provide it to the Sponsoring Agency’s Security Manager." However, there was no DD -254 issued with the RFP.

QUESTION: Will the USG clafify whether on not Avionics Technicians (at a minimum) will require a Secret clearance?

No security clearances are required for this RFP. However, it is expected that all personnel comply with security requirements on the installation.

RFP M.2 Pass/Fail Elements

In section M.2 (c) the USG identifies a requirement for Seciton 508 Compliance. Additionally, the USG responded to Offeror's questions as follows "Anything involving technology deliverables must be Section 508 compliant."

QUESTION: Since the awarded Contractor will use USG provided IT equipment (e.g., NALCOMIS OOMA, IETMS, etc.) in the performance of this effort, will the USG clarify to which specific technology deliverables are being referred that must be Seciton 508 Compliant?

If GFP is provided, it will be Section 508 Compliant.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 12 of

47QFSA26R0003_AttGProjectStaff ingPlan(PSP)Template

Option Period Tabs

Security Clearance Level, Duty Station Location, OASIS+

Columns

In the governemnt release of answers to questions, the government provided an answer related to the pricing sheet and not the staffing plan. Question:

will the Government please provide a answer to our staffing plan question re-stated below?

"The Base Period tab appears to have the all necessary requested data for the staffing plan;

however, the subsquent Option Period tabs have additional columns that are mapped with #REF! errors because source data isn't included on the Base Period Tab. Additionally, the Fifth and Sixth Option Period Tabs have optional columns for OASIS+ Task Orders only which differs from all the other Option Period tabs. Question: Will the USG update the staffing plan to rectify all #REF! errors and remove any columns that are not applicable for offerors for this

RFP?"

See Amendment 03 for the updated Staffing Plan.

Template Version 09-26-24 Page 13 of

Q&A