RFP_A0001_06062019_CBP_P-3_RFP_Questions_and_Answers_V.2_FINAL.pdf

Question Number

RFP

Reference

Page No. Paragraph Discussion/Comment/Issue Question Government Response

1 L.4.1 RFP L.4.1 states “Oral Presentation shall be in alignment with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) structure.” Later in the section, under “Presentation Requirements”, the RFP provides four Sections the offeror must address in the oral presentation. The content of these four Sections do not align with the PWS.

Can the Government clarify the exact structure desired for the oral presentation? RFP has been updated to clarify the oral presentation requirement in Section 4.1

2 L.4.2 RFP L.4.2 states “After all oral presentations have concluded, Offerors will receive an Advisory Notification in writing either that it will be invited to participate in the resultant acquisition or, based on the information submitted, that it is unlikely to be a viable competitor.”

How long after conclusion of oral presentations will offerors receive the Advisory Notification?

The Government does not have a timeline for providing the advisory notifications to the offerors. The offerors will have 30 days from the receipt of the advisory notifications to submit the Written Proposal.

3 PWS C.1.3.2 In PWS C.1.3.2 (and other paragraphs), the Government designates some requirements as (T) and (O).

Please define (T) and (O) and describe their significance to the solicitation requirements, and particularly to the evaluation criteria.

Threshold (T) and Objective (O). Threshold meets the contract requirements and the Objective exceeds the contract requirements. The PWS has been updated to define the (T) and (O) in Section C.1.1.3. Offerors that meet some objective requirements may be rated higher than those that do not.

4 Section L.4.1, PWS To address the Section L.4.1 requirements for the Oral Presentation and all the PWS requirements, the presentation will have to address approximately 170 individual requirements. Two hours seems an insufficient time to thoroughly address this magnitude of requirements.

Will the Government consider descoping the volume of requirements to be addressed, or, alternatively, increasing the time for the presentation?

RFP has been updated to clarify the oral presentation requirement in Section 4.1.

5 Section L.15 Section 4.0 Specific Instructions

Volume II – Cost/Price is limited to 25 pages in addition to Attachment J- 5 pricing template.

Would the Government consider expanding the Cost/Price page count from 25 pages to 50 pages to ensure adequate discussion of supporting price documentation for Sections 1 – 3?

The RFP page limit has been updated to 40 pages.

6 Section L 5.3 Cost/Price Proposal Instructions Cost Reimbursable CLINs Specific Instructions

Columns provided in Attachment J-5H Other Direct Cost may include additional cost elements that are in accordance with the Offeror’s accounting practices, however the elements provided in the attachments shall be provided at a minimum. The Summary Table Attachment J-5A Cost and Price Summary is a synonymous to Section B;

the dollar amounts in Attachments J-5H shall be crosschecked with the dollar amounts in the CLINs.

1. Are Section B cost reimbursable plug values subject to indirect cost burdens?

2. If so, do the Section B plug values include the offeror’s indirect burdens, or does the offeror apply indirect burdens to the plug values and input the sum of these two figures into Attachment J-5H?

3. Since dollar amounts in Attachment J-5H shall be cross-checked with the dollar amounts in the CLINs, is it the government’s intent that the offeror simply write to the indirect burdens that will be applied to CR line items during execution?

4. Does the offeror provide percentages by CLIN in the cost narrative?

1. No. The Section B plugged values are not subject to indirect cost burdens for the purpose of proposal preparation.

2. Attachment J-5H has been revised to delete all lines for items where the Government provided plugged values.

3. Yes, each offeror shall identify your indirect burdens that would be applied to the cost reimbursable lines during execution.

4. see 3 above.

Note: RFP L.15, Volume II Business Management, Section 5.3 Cost/Price Proposal Instructions, Section 4. Cost Reimursable has been revised.

7 RFP L.4.3.2.e PWS C.1.2.2.(b) PWS C.1.2.2.24.(b) PWS C.1.2.2.24.(c) Section I Clause 110 3052.215-70

RFP Section L.4.3.2.e states: “Provide resumes for the Key Personnel listed in Section C.1.2.24 of the PWS.”

PWS C.1.2.2.(b) states: “All Contractor program management personnel considered direct reports shall be classified as key personnel, see Key Personnel Section 1.2.24.”

PWS C.1.2.2.24.(b) Identifies the following Key Personnel:

Program Office

• Program Manager

• Deputy Program Manager

• Major sub-contractors Manager

• Program Quality Assurance Manager

• Configuration Manager

• P-3 Structural Engineer Operations Centers

• Site Manager

• Supervisors

• Quality Control Inspectors

• Detachment Leads Material Management/Inventory Control Management

• Manager

• Supervisors

• All Staff Depot

• Managers

• Supervisors

• Engineer (Full time, dedicated)

• Quality Control Inspectors

Will the Government consider limiting the Key Personnel resumes required by Section L.4.3.2.e to the following: 1) Program Manager, 2) Deputy Program Manager, 3) Program Quality Assurance Manager, 4) Configuration Manager, 5) P-3 Structural Engineer 6) Site Manager (NAS Corpus Christi) 7) Site Manager (NASOC Cecil Field) 8) Material/Inventory Control Manager 9) Depot Manager?

RFP updated as follows: Key Personnel resumes required by Section L.4.3.2.e to the following: 1) Program Manager, 2) Deputy Program Manager, 3) Program Quality Assurance Manager, 4) Configuration Manager, 5) P-3 Structural Engineer 6) Site Manager (NAS Corpus Christi) 7) Site Manager (NASOC Cecil Field) 8) Material/Inventory Control Manager 9) Depot Manager 10) Depot Engineer

8 RFP M.4 Section M, Evaluation Criteria, states” This group of non-cost factors has a potential rating of HIGH CONFIDENCE.”

Are there potential ratings for non-cost factors other than HIGH CONFIDENCE? If so, please describe them.

The potential ratings are No Confidence, Some Confidence, High Confidence

9 RFP L.4.0. M.5.2 L4.0 Specific Instructions, Proposal Structure, stipulates a 25 page limit for Volume II Cost/Price. Later in Section l, paragraph 5.3, Cost/Price Proposal Instructions, Section 6, the offeror must provide, for any subcontractors for which the total value of the subcontract is greater than $750,000 copies of annual financial statements including CPA certified balance sheet, profit/loss statement and statement of retained earnings covering each of the offeror's last three annual accounting periods, including the most recent partial period, if currently available.

Further, the offeror must specify the financial capacity, working capital, and other financial resources available to perform the contract.

Please confirm that items such as financial statements, balance sheets, etc., are excluded from the 25 page limit for Volume II.

Documents required by Section 6 - Financial Capability and Accounting System are excluded from the page count

10 RFP L.5.1. L.5.3 Section M.5.1, Section 5 lists the contents for Section 5 of Volume II.

Section M.5.3, Proposed Cost/Price also lists the contents for Section 5 of Volume II. These two sections are different.

Please clarify the exact contents of Volume II Section 5. Correction: L.5.1 and L.5.3 Section L.5.1 provides the listing of information required. L.5.3 provides the detail for each listing. The two match now.

11 PWS C.1.4.13 The contractor shall manage, perform maintenance and repairs in accordance with OEM, NAVAIR, CBP PIMIC, bulletins, letters, technical data, CBP/DoD policy and procedures and will comply with all mandatory directive and regulations when directed by the COR for CBP engines and propellers (power plant).

The contractor shall establish an engine and propeller major repair events and overhauls (depot services) contract with a certified vendor.

It is critical for CBP to closely manage the operational efficiency and reliability of CBP’s major components

Please clarify which certification is required for engine and propeller vendor: OEM or

NAVAIR?

Both the OEM and NAVAIR certifications are required.

12 PWS C.1.2.24 We intend on offering jobs to the existing incumbent personnel to the maximum extent possible, and we are actually required to do so (per

RFP

I.46 52.222-17 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers (MAY 2014)). This also reduces risk and smooths transition. A long list of key personnel gives a major advantage to the incumbent.

Is it acceptable to submit incumbent personnel or is there some way the Government will relax the key personnel requirements?

It is not acceptable to submit key personnel from the incumbent unless a tentative offer of employment has been made and accepted. The Government will not relax key personnel requirements.

13 PWS C.1.1.4 CBP encourages the use of Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) certified mechanics and Inspection Authorization (IA) certifications

Is there no longer a requirement for aircraft mechanics/supervisors for A&P certification and IA certification for Inspectors?

PWS C.1.1.4 has been updated to remove "encourages the use of" to state "requires".

14 RFP L.5.1 L.5.3 L.5.1 Volume Content Section 6 Section Attachments lists the Section 6 contents for Volume II Cost/Price.

L.5.3 Cost/Price Proposal Instructions, Section 6 Financial Capability and Accounting System also lists the Section 6 contents. Both the Section 5 titles and contents are different in L.5.1 and L.5.3

Please clarify the title and contents of Volume II, Section 6. Section L.5.1 provides the listing of information required. L.5.3 provides the detail for each listing. The two sections now match.

15 PWS

Appendices, Appendix 1.7.18

The following CDRLs do not appear to be addressed within the PWS;

A013 Aircraft Consumption Report (ASUP822A) A014 Aircraft Utilization Report (ASUP823A) A015 Aircraft Consolidated Consumption Report (ILS803AA) A016 old A005 Aircraft Consolidated Utilization Report (ILS804AA) A019Personnel Report A020 Overtime Report A026 Special Inventory Summary Report A028 Non-Propulsion Major Components Report A032 In House Repairs (IHR) Report

While some of these are self-explanatory, some are not. Will the Government please clarify these CDRLs in the PWS?

All CDRLs are addressed in Attachment J-7 Appendix 1.7.18. However, CDRLs: A013, A014, A015 and A016 are generated from the Government Provided Maintenance System, to which the contractor will have access to.

16 Appendix 1.7.14 Other References lists “COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.B CH-1-17, Appendices A-F, June 2013”

This reference doesn’t appear to be current. Is this correct, or should it be the

COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2C?

Appendix 1.7.14 has been updated to reflect the use of all series.

17 PWS C.1.1.3 The PWS paragraph states: “In addition, this contract will support Other Government Agencies (OGA) that also fly P-3 aircraft. This contract will allow OGA’s to leverage organizational and depot level maintenance effort to support their aircraft.”

Will the Government provide the historical data on OGA work performed? Historical Data on OGA (if available) will be provided prior to any work being completed under this contract.

18 PWS 1.2.9.1 The PWS paragraph states: “Space requirements: CBP currently has approximately 35,000 sq. ft. of warehouse space and 2,000 sq. ft. of sensor repair space housed within the ICP Office. It is anticipated that requirements for up to 75,000 sq. ft. would be necessary over the next few years as well as the following requirements.”

Is it the Government’s requirement that the offeror propose and price a 75,000 sq. ft.

warehouse?

CBP has a requirement for a minimum of 35,000 sq.ft. of warehouse and 2000 sq.ft. of office space. CBP has an anticipated requirement for up to 75,000 sq.ft. of warehouse/office space that will be needed to meet future requirements of this PWS.

19 PWS 1.2.19 The PWS paragraph states: “CBP is currently in the process of transitioning from a legacy mainframe maintenance management application known as Computerized Aircraft Reporting and Material Control (CARMAC) system to a new aircraft maintenance management systems.”

Will this new system be in place before contract award? If not, what will the contractors role be in transitioning to the new system? Will experience in use of CARMAC be considered during evaluation?

CBP does not anticipate the new system being in place prior to award. CBP will provide all necessary training on both the current system and the new system. The use of CARMAC will not be considered during evaluation.

20 PWS 1.2.28 The PWS paragraph states: “This contract will involve controlled cryptographic equipment with secret-level encryption. In accordance with DHS policies, the contractor will be required to comply with National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) policies for handling, transporting, using, and storing classified materials.”

Will the contractor be required to provide storage facilities for the classified equipment?

The Contractor may have to store classified equipment at the Depot.

21 PWS C.1.4.15 The PWS paragraph states: “CBP will assist the Contractor with avionics and other related services that are only available through DoD, the incumbent contractor or other third party vendors. Current agreements are in place with:”

Will these current agreements be in place throughout the contract, or is the contractor required to establish their own agreements?

CBP will maintain agreements listed in the PWS C.1.4.15

22 PWSC.1.4.18 The PWS paragraph states: “The Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining, updating, configuration changes, system updates, integration, troubleshooting and testing the CBP P-3 Mission System.

The current Mission System is owned and maintained by Lockheed Martin. The mission system was designed by Lockheed Martin for CBP, this will be a single source vendor. CBP will be moving to a new Mission System during the contract timeframe that is owned by CBP .”

Will the new Mission System require a modification to the aircraft or will it be a plug and play? If the aircraft must be modified does the Government know how long an aircraft will be out of service for this change?

CBP will be modifing the aircraft to intergrate the new Mission System.

Time-frame for aircraft out of service will be monitored by the Govenment. The contractor shall expect to meet the requirements of the PWS during the duration of the contract.

23 RFP F.3 (Pg. 41) Anticipated Award Date In order to ensure all Offerors are bidding consistently, would the Government please provide a notional award date?

Offerors need to propose according to the period of performance timelines in Section B and Section F of solicitation.

24 RFP L.15 –

Subsection 5.2

General Ground Rules and Assumptions For planning and bidding purposes, would the Government please advise how many Government personnel will be assigned, and on site, at the commercial depot (i.e. how many offices, phones, general office equipment, etc. should we be planning for and bidding to)?

PWS C.1.2.9.1 and PWS C.1.5.6. There will be one full time CBP DAR at the Depot. One land-line phone, with speaker. Appropriate office furnishings to include a conference table that fits 6 or more people, and high speed internet access external to the contractor's firewall.

25 RFP Section L, Section 4.1, Section Program Management (Pg. 83), PWS

Section C.1.1.4 (Pg. 8)

Technical Library - Section L requires Offerors to address, during orals (and presumably in their written response), their familiarity with the Technical Library. The PWS also requires all work to be performed in accordance with the “applicable publications, technical directives, instructions, standards, etc….” Further, it is stated that “CBP Procedures will be used and will be provided by the Government, as applicable.”

In order for all Offerors to bid to those specific CBP requirements, will the Government be providing access to the current technical library for preparing for the orals, and for bidding purposes?

RFP Section L, Section 4.1 Section Program Management has been revised to clarify the Technical Library.

26 RFP M, M.3

and M.4

The first paragraph of Section M.3 states “BASIS FOR AWARD (LOWEST

EVAULATED PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE SOURCE

SELECTION).” Paragraph (c) below that states “a contract will be made to an Offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable and represents best value.” Section M.4 & M.6 discuss trade-off analysis and best value determinations

Would the Government please clarify whether this is a LPTA or Best Value source selection, and what are the actual evaluation criteria? This section conflicts as to whether it is a technical pass fail, and then lowest price, or best value.

This is a best value source selection. M.3 states "provision entitled EVALUATION CRITERIA or BASIS FOR AWARD (LOWEST EVALUATED PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE SOURCE SELECTION) in this solicitation..."

The only clause referenced above contained in this solicitation is

EVALUATION CRITERIA.

27 PWS C.1.5.4 (Pg. 52), Attachment J-5, Tab J-5G & RFP Section L, subsection

5.3 CPFF CLINs (Pg. 94)

Depot Drop In Maintenance The J-5G table requires Offerors to bid drop-in maintenance and indicates a number of events per year. In order for all bidders to bid the same task, would the Government identify a sample task for bidders to bid; and for provision of their write-ups which describe their approach and their basis for pricing as identified in Section L?

Updated Attachment J-5 TAB J-5G Depot to include two examples of "drop-in" repairs to be used for pricing.

28 Attachment J-14 Pages 24-46 of the Government Property list are blank. For bidding property management and GFP maintenance, should the list have only been 24 pages, or would the Government please provide the missing section?

CBP has updated the GFE list - Attachment J-14.

29 Attachment J-5, Tab J-5G

O&A Estimates Most responsible bidders with past P-3 experience have worked on 50 year old aircraft that are being revitalized or are having OWA and other replacements. Only CBP and the incumbent have a fair sense of potential O&A requirements for aircraft coming back in for DLM, post Wing, Horizontal and Vertical replacements. Would the Government provide realistic estimates (by year) for all bidders to ensure Offerors are neither over -nor under- bidding O&A costs?

CBP has provided the TRD that outlines the Depot Inspections to be completed. All CBP P-3 have new wings and horizontals. The future requirements of O&A are unknown.

30 J12 Work sheet J12 call out DLM requirements in column title Actions to be completed at DLM.

There are several tasks called out in attachment J- 12, “Notational Inspection Document” listed in column Q and Row 4, cells V,W,X,Y,Z,AA and AB. These tasks are not called out in the TRD or SOW, nor is there any referenced technical publications. Is it the Government’s intent to provide the technical publication, task card or associated guidance needed to perform the bid associated with these tasks, or would these be O&A to the basic contract?

CBP's intent with Attachment J12 is to provide the contractor a notational inspeciton criteria to bid out the DLM O&A.

31 J5/12 Work sheet J5 calls FFP pricing and J12 calls out a fuselage inspection, but we cannot find any reference in PWS or TRD for inspection requirements.

We assume all of these requirements are above and beyond the TRD requirements; is this correct? What are the requirements for the Fuselage?

CBP has added Maintenance Inspection Cards document as J-17.

32 J12 Work sheet J12 call out a Horizontal Stab Repair for aircraft 155299

(AEW1).

Can the Government provide the engineering results, findings, and requirements beyond that of the SR&M? What is the specific defined details of the repair that needs to be bid?

CBP's intent with Attachment J12 is to provide the contractor a notational inspeciton criteria to bid out the DLM O&A. The reference repair Horizontal Stab (155299) will be completed prior to contract award

33 J5 Work sheet J5 requires FFP pricing for Tank 5A. We are assuming all of these requirements are above and beyond the TRD requirements; is this correct?

Is the requirement to replace the Tank 5A bladder with a new bladder, and if so, will the bladder be provided as GFE? Or is the requirement to comply with the note in item 5.9 Fuel Compartment Internal?

Tank 5A inspection is referenced in the TRD. Each offeror shall price a tank 5A repair in accordance with the maintenance cards provided as attachment J-17.

34 J12 Work Sheet J12 calls out APU Compartment. We are assuming all of these requirements are above and beyond the TRD requirements; is this correct? What is the technical requirement for the APU compartment?

The APU compartment inspection is incorporated into the TRD.

35 J12 Work sheet J12 calls out FS 288 BLKHD at BL34. What Is the technical requirement: inspection or replacement? Is the Government requesting FS288 Bulkhead 7,200 FH life limited repair, bulkhead replacement, or an inspection? There are no requirements called out in the TRD.

CBP's intent with Attachment J12 is to provide the contractor a notational inspeciton criteria to bid out the DLM O&A. The reference repair FS 288 is an inspection, that may or may not turn into a repair.

36 C.1.5.5 Government Furnished Equipment Listing Will the Government provide the list of GFE available to the Depot referenced on page 53, App 1.7.9? Or is it embedded in table J14?

CBP has updated the GFE list - Attachment J-14.

37 J5 / J12 Worksheet J5-G (Depot Pricing Tab) and J12 (Inspection Document) The quantities of CBP aircraft inductions on J12 do not align with the quantities requested for pricing on J5-G. Please provide the correct quantity of aircraft inductions.

CBP Intent with Attachment J12 is to provide the contractor a notational idea of prior and future requirements. J5-G should be used for pricing.

38 TRD 3.6 Exterior Paint Priming. This paragraph 3.6 references CBP drawings listed in Section 10.

No drawings are listed in section 10 of TRD. Is the Government going to provide the drawing Specification in order to support bidding process?

CBP has updated the Operational Procedures - Attachment J-18.

39 TRD 9.14 This paragraph lists the P-3B AEW Peculiar Publications Will the Government provide these publications? Also, we need the phase maintenance cards to comply with TRD 7.17.

CBP has updated the Operational Procedures - Attachment J-18.

40 SOW C.1.2.20 DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT Will the Government provide a library of CBP Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and Maintenance Operating Procedures (MOP) so that we can perform a cross reference to our internal SOP and GOPs?

CBP has updated the Operational Procedures - Attachment J-18.

41 PWS C.1.2.24.(c) The referenced section states “that all identified key personnel will already have the clearance required for the work space(s) where they will be required to perform.” It further states that “key personnel shall be available to begin performance at time of award”. This requires the clearance process to be completed by both the contractor and Government prior to award.

Does the government intend on providing a path to accomplishing this since there has to be a need before requesting a clearance and not anticipation of award? This heavily favors the incumbent and places competitors at a disadvantage for competition.

Will the Government reconsider the wording of this section or provide a process for pre-award clearance processing?

PWS Section C.1.2.24 revised to state key personnel must be capable of favorably passing a CBP BI and obtaining a CBP Secret Level clearance.

See also PWS C.1.2.28 - Security

42 RFP L.4.3, 3.

Transition/Pha se In, Sect.B1, Phase -In CLINS, J-5

The referenced section requires a transition plan with milestones and the second reference requires CLIN pricing for the transition. Without some sort of top level guidance from the Government, it is unclear when the contractor should plan to actually take over site operation or ILS responsibility. Without having the opportunity to plan repairs or a firm cut-over date from the incumbent, no rational basis can be established for pricing such things as repair and services during this period. J-5, the pricing template, does offer some additional information. This would allow competitors to make assumptions that could vary wildly.

Will the Government provide a top-level transition milestone plan and reconsider what they want for transition pricing to ensure competitors are bidding to the same requirement?

The PWS C.1.2.31, C1.2.32 and other areas of the PWS idenfies key milestones for the Contractor.

43 RFP B1, Part D, base and all option years, J-5

The section requires monthly pricing for Repairs and Services, Rotodomes, Engines and Props, as well as Depot and OGA Over and Aboves. No usage data has been provided or information on type of unscheduled events. The repairs and services line is undefined.

Please provide usage data, estimates, or a description of repairs, so an offeror can have a reasonable chance of bidding this section realistically.

The Contractor per the PWS shall establish and manage this program.

Appendix 1.7.11 has been updated to include the current number of Engines, Props and Rotodomes.

44 RFP L4.3 The written proposal instructions require submission of Key Personnel resumes in both the 2.e Staffing Plan and 3.c.3 Transition/Phase-In

Does the Government want two sets of Key Personnel resumes? If not, please clarify where in the proposal the resumes are to be placed. Also, please confirm that the resumes are not included in the page count.

Resumes shall be provided in accordance with RFP Section L.15, Volume I, Staffing Plan. Resumes are excluded from the page count but are limited to 5 pages per resume.

45 RFP L.4.3, 4.1

Comparative Analysis

The section refers to “the corporate experience requested in Section 3.” We are unsure of which Section 3 in the solicitation is being referenced.

Please identify the location of the Section 3 referred to. This has been corrected to read Section 4, Corporate Experience

46 L.4.2 L.4.2 Prime Contractor Management states “For this element, demonstrate the extent to which the offeror performed O-Level and D- Level aircraft maintenance in accordance with technical publications while managing aviation programs.”

If a prime contractor managed an aviation maintenance program where D-level aircraft maintenance was performed by a subcontractor, does that meet the requirement for this element?

Please refer to RFP Section 4.2 Prime Contractor Management for instructions on whose corporate experience may be included. Refer to L.15 for further definition.

47 RFP B.1 8 n/a Section B table includes a number of CLINs for Phase-In that wouldn’t be expected to be actively supporting Phase-In – for example, CLINs for Depot (00003A/B/C, 00014A/B).

Are offerors expected to perform actual work on aircraft during Phase-In?

Section B for referenced DEPOT CLINs are grayed out. Areas that are grayed out are not required to be filled in or performed.

48 RFP Section B 8 of 101 N/A Note (2): CLINs 0008, 0009, 0010 & 0011 (PHASE IN Part C) already have $$$$ populated into the Schedule B. Would this mean that PHASE IN Parts A, B, & D are not to be priced? There is no description in the Section L towards how these Phase In "Parts" or associated CLINs are to be priced.

Phase in Parts A, B, and D are to be priced by the offeror.

49 RFP B.1 8, 10, 12-

13, 1518, 20, 23, 25, 28, 30-31, 33, 35- 36, n/a Section B tables provides fixed values for X0008A/B/C, X0009A/B, X0010A/B/C/D and X00011.

These numbers appear to be "fully loaded" values, which would include offerors' indirect loads and possibily fee. As such, the Government will not be able to evaluate the differences in indirect rates that various offerors apply to base costs. Therefore, what would be highly meaningful cost comparisons will not be considered. Offerors with low indirect rates will not be differentiated in the evaluation, when in execution their actual costs to the Government will be much lower than an offeror with less competitive rates. This eliminates the real, possibly significant advantage provided by offerors with lower indirect rates. It is therefore suggested that the Government idenitfy these values as base costs and require offerors to load them accordingly in order to accurately measure the true cost differences amongst offerors.

Phase in Parts A, B, and D are to be priced by the offeror.

50 RFP B.1 8, 10, 12-

13, 1518, 20, 23, 25, 28, 30-31, 33, 35- 36, n/a Section B tables provides fixed values for X0008A/B/C, X0009A/B, X0010A/B/C/D and X00011.

By requiring all offerors to propose the exact same values for these CLINs, the Government eliminates the ability to differentiate the resulting cost-effectiveness of varying offerors’ solutions. For example, an offeror with an innovative or efficient parts or transportation solution will not be differentiated or advantaged in the evaluation.

Equalizing all Cost Reimbursable values therefore appears to be an unfair evaluation technique. It is therefore recommended to allow offerors to compute the cost of these CLINs based on their proposed solutions to parts, transportation, etc. with the Government providing a basis for each estimate (e.g. a list of parts, trips/shipping quantities, etc.)

There will be no change to the values presented in Section B.

51 RFP H.3 44 A Will the Government make documents 1400-05C and DHS 4300A available in an acquisition library?

DHS 4300A is available at https://www.dhs.gov/dhs-security-and-training-requirements-contractors

CBP HB 1400-05D form can be requested by email at P3Maintenance1@cbp.dhs.gov

52 RFP H.3 45 B.3

Requiring "all contractor employees requiring access to CBP facilities, sensitive information or information technology resources" to have "favorably adjudiated" BI or SSBI "prior to commencing work" restricts the labor pool to current and recently separated CBP-cleared personnel. In so doing, it substantially and unfaily advantages the incumbent and may eliminate competitors. We recommend that the Government clarify that its "exceptions" will cover personnel with active DoD Secret clearances or greater and/or require adjudication on day one of full contract performance. (See also C.1.2.24)

CBP does not accept prior or active clearances from other Government Agencies.

53 RFP H.3 47 B.3 Individuals that maintain current clearance eligibility (Secret or TS) showing in JPAS/DISS meet Federal Investigation Standards as they are 'adjudicated'cases;

however, these cases do not include the CBP Interviews. Will adjudicated investigations (Secret or TS) showing in JPAS/DISS be considered 'favorable'?

CBP does not accept prior or active clearances from other Government Agencies.

54 RFP H.3 47 B.4 Please confirm that for those individuals that do not have current clearance eligibility, CBP will initiate and process the CBP investigation.

CBP will process the BIs.

CBP BI process is outlined in the PWS C.1.2.28 Security.

55 RFP H.3 47 For individuals that maintain current clearance eligibility (Secret or TS) showing in JPAS/DISS, do they require any additional 'clearance adjudications' specifically conducted by CBP (such as additional processing for Entry on Duty)?

CBP does not accept prior or active clearances from other Government Agencies.

56 RFP I.1.I 56-59 n/a Most Government contracts requiring this type of work include a Ground and Flight Risk clause, such as provided by 48 CFR § 252.228-7001 - Ground and flight risk. No such clause was included in the RFP. Without such a clause, an undue liability burden is placed on the contractor which will lead to significant insurance costs as required to cover the potential of an aircraft loss.

Recommend the Government include an applicable contract clause(s) that limit contractor liability for major losses where it is following Government-approved maintenance procedures; i.e., FAR 52.246-25, Limitation of Liability – Services, FAR

52.228-7 INSURANCE - LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS, FAR 52.246-24 LIMITATION OF

LIABILITY--HIGH-VALUE ITEMS.

FAR 52.246-25, Limitation of Liability – Services, FAR 52.228-7 INSURANCE - LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS are included in the RFP. FAR 52.246-24 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY--HIGH-VALUE ITEMS is not applicable to this acquisition and will not be included in the RFP.

57 RFP Section J 67 Per the note from the RFP, Section J Attachment Number J.15, we are requesting the Collective Bargaining Agreement for this solicitation, to ensure we provide accurate pricing.

Please request CBA by email. P3Maintenance1@cbp.dhs.gov

58 RFP L.15 77 last para "The following entities are defined as principal entities: (a) the prime contractor; (b) Joint Venture Team Members; and (c) other entities that perform at least 15.00% of the proposed total cost/price for the contract costs. “Critical Subcontractors” are subcontractors that perform a critical technical function in the performance of the resulting contract. For this solicitation, the following items are critical functions: Engine, Propulsion and Depot Level maintenance on aircraft within Customs and Border Protection inventory. For evaluation purposes, only principal entities and critical subcontractors will be used in the corporate experience evaluation" Would the Government consider reducing the threshold from 15% to 10% to qualify as a "principal entity"? This will allow key small businesses to be considered.

CBP will not consider reducing the percentage.

59 RFP L.15 77 & 78

of 101

2nd Paragraph of L.15 & then 3rd Paragraph of Para 2.0

Last sentence of 2nd Paragraph - "Cost/Price Information" states that this information is only to appear in Volume II, however the 3rd paragraph of Para 2.0 - Proposal Content and Volumes states "Cost/Price information shall not be included in any areas other than Executive Summary, SBSP/SB Goals; and Volume II...". Executive Summary is part of Volume I, therefore this contradicts 2nd paragraph reference. Can the Government please clarify?

Last sentence of 2nd paragraph revised to read: With the exception of Small Business Subcontracting Plan/Small Business Goals; Volume 2 Cost/Price, and Volume 1 Executive Summary, no cost or price information, (e.g., dollar values and/or hourly rates) shall appear in any other volume.

60 RFP Section L 80 4.1 The instructions state that oral presentations shall be in alignment with the PWS structure and that offerors shall "be prepared" to cover all areas of the PWS. Would the Government please clarify how it would like the presentations to be organized: by PWS topic, with the advanced questions integrated, or by advanced questions? If organized by advanced questions, is the Government's expectation that each element of the PWS be integrated within the advanced question responses? If not all elements of the PWS need to be integrated into the advanced questions, does "be prepared to cover all areas of the PWS" mean to expect coverage during the Q&A period?

RFP has been updated to clarify the oral presentation requirement in Section 4.1

61 RFP L.4.1.2.b, M.4 81, 98 L (b), M.4 (1) The significant weighting and rules (e.g., regarding the number of current employees) for the orals advantages the incumbent, who will obviously have much more intimate insight into issues and challenges, as well as a large number of existing employees. Will the Government consider altering the criteria to reduce the number of current employees required for the orals presentation?

The limit for the presentation team is 6. You are not required to have a presentation team of 6. However, no more than 2 presenters shall be subcontractors and/or consultants

62 RFP L.15 81 4.a.i-iii Will the Government provide time in the schedule for breaks? Specifically, breaks between sections and a lunch break?

The Government will provide a one hour lunch break after the offeror presents for the on the spot question and before clarification questions.

63 RFP L.15 82 4.a.i-iii.a Will the offeror's participants be permitted to consult with team members in person or by cell phone or computer during it's 60 minutes of preparation time for the On the Spot Questions? Will offeror's be able to use a computer to develop and/or present it's response to the On the Spot Questions?

The Contractor is expected to provide individuals that will be able to respond to the PWS. No additional consulting will be permitted. No computers or other electronic equipment will be allowed to develop or present answers to the On the Spot Questions.

64 RFP L.15 82 4.a.i-iii.d Will the Government electronically project the presentation submitted to the Government by the Offeror?

The Government intends to electronically project the presentation.

mailto:Please%20request%20CBA%20by%20email.%20%20P3Maintenance1@cbp.dhs.gov

65 RFP L.15 82 4.a.i-iii.d Does “paper and markers” include flip chart paper and easels? Those specifics are not available at this time. The Government only commits to providing paper and markers as stated in the solicitation.

66 RFP L.15 82 4.a.i-iii.f Does the phrase “…text in its written submission” refer to the slides submitted to the Government by the Offeror?

Yes, "text in its written submission" does refer to the presentation material submitted to the Government in advance, with the exception of on the spot questions

67 RFP L.15.4.1 Section 2 83 5 Section 2, 5th bullet states, “…must show letters of intent with engine and propulsion contractors;” We have confirmed that one likely offeror has engaged one or more key engine and propeller contractors exclusively. As a result, these contractors are unwilling to execute a letter of intent with other offerors. We believe this is an unfair requirement, since engine and propulsion contractors will likely work with the successful offeror after contract award. Furthermore, it would result in only one offeror being able to submit a compliant proposal leading to a sole source contract, which is not in the Government’s best interest.

To encourage competition, recommend removing the requirement for sowing letters of intent with engine and propulsion contractors. Rather insert the requirement for offerors to identify these contractors and propose the type of arrangement they intend to have with these contractors. Alternately, modify the requirement to state that no offeror may engage any of these contractors exclusively.

CBP removed the following statement from the RFP: "must show letters of intent with engine and propulsion contractor".

68 RFP Section L 83 bullet 2 With regard to "offerors shall demonstrate their rationale for section of key personnel stated in the PWS". The Government has a very broad definition of key personnel (e.g.

all Material Management/Inventory Control Management personnel), including many positions for lead and supervisory personnel that a new prime may rebadge. Please confirm that offerors will not be expected to name personnel that are planned to be rebadged.

Offerors are expected to demonstrate their rationale for selection of all key personnel.

70 RFP Section L 83 last bullet Will the Government consider dropping the requirement for letters of intent because all engine and propulsion contractors will service CBP no matter who the prime is and pricing for these contractors is not required?

CBP removed the following statement from the RFP: "must show letters of intent with engine and propulsion contractor".

71 RFP L.15.4.2; M 85;

98-100

Section L.15.4.2 states, “…the Oral Presentation is the most important factor in the overall evaluation (See Section M, M-1 Evaluation Factors).” However, the relative weighting or importance of the Oral Presentation vs. the Technical/Management factor is not provided anywhere in Section M, including M-1.

For consistency between Sections L and M, suggest the following:

L.15.4.2 – Change “(See Section M, M-1 Evaluation Factors)” to (See Section M, M.7).”

M.7 – Add a new first sentence, “The Oral Presentation factor is more important than the Technical/Management factor.”

L.15, 4.2 Advisory Notifications: (see Section M, M-1 changed to M-7. The following text has been added to M-7: Oral presentation is the most important evaluation factor. Technical/Management is the 2nd most important evaluation factor and Cost/Price is the least important evaluation factor.

72 RFP L.15 86 & 90

of 101

Para 4.3 Volume I - Exec Summary &

As referenced above and in the Volume I Exec Summary description on page 86 "The purpose of the Exec Summary is to provide the Government with an overview of the Offeror's entire proposal, excluding cost/price.", however, in Vol II description (Para 5.1(b)) states again that "With the exception of SBSP/SB Goals; and Volume 2 Cost/Price, and Volume 1 Executive Summary, no cost/price information shall appear in any other volume.". Can the govenrment please clarify this statement as it contradicts the statement on page 77?

The words "excluding cost/price" deleted from 1. Executive Summary on Page 86.

73 RFP L.15.2.e) and 3.c)3. 88 1, 2 2.e) requires offerors to provide resumes for Key Personnel positions. 3.c)3. Also requires offerors to submit resumes of Key Personnel. It appears these two requirements are duplicative.

Recommend eliminating one of the above requirements or consolidating into a single requirement in either 2 or 3.

Resumes shall be provided in accordance with RFP Section L.15, Volume I, Staffing Plan. Resumes are excluded from the page count but are limited to 5 pages per resume.

74 RFP L.3.c.3 88 It is required to submit resumes of Key Personnel. The definition of key personnel is very broad, to include supervisors, leads, all Materials Management personnel, who may be re-badged. Is it required to provide resumes for positions that the offeror plans to offer to incumbent personnel?

RFP updated as follows: Key Personnel resumes required by Section L.4.3.2.e to the following: 1) Program Manager, 2) Deputy Program Manager, 3) Program Quality Assurance Manager, 4) Configuration Manager, 5) P-3 Structural Engineer 6) Site Manager (NAS Corpus Christi) 7) Site Manager (NASOC Cecil Field) 8) Material/Inventory Control Manager 9) Depot Manager 10) Depot Engineer.

Yes, resumes are required for positions the offeror plans to offer to incumbent personnel.

75 RFP Section L 89 2 "If proposing as a team, offerors shall include the corporate experience of the teaming companies as a whole , as well as the corporate experience for each teaming member."

Would the Government clarify this statement? Is this a reference to a joint venture? If not, please provide a definition of "team".

CBP has revised RFP Volume I, Section 4 - Corporate Experience to define teams.

76 RFP L.15 89 4

Corporate Experience factor states, “Corporate experience information provide shall be:

…at the same physical location (e.g., with the same CAGE code/DUNS) as referenced in Attachment J-1 (Offeror Summary).” While we understand that the Government wishes to evaluate the experience and performance of elements of an offeror that are within the same management and business entity rather than varying subsidiaries or widely varying divisions, some offerors manage contracts within a common business entity and management team that are assigned different CAGE code/DUNS. Therefore this requirement may unfairly eliminate fully relevant offeror information from consideration.

Because the Government is allowing multiple CAGE codes/DUNS for the same physical location, which would allow multiple legal entities, would the Government consider allowing multiple CAGE codes for a single legal entity that operates out of more than one location, allowing consider proof of common management, organization, support infrastructure (HR, Finance, Contracts, Purchasing, etc.) as opposed to CAGE code/DUNS to more accurately and completely assess offerors’ corporate experience.

CBP has revised RFP Section 4 - Corporate Experience and has removed the requirement "at the same physical location" and replaced with "by physicial location". Updated J-1 Attachment.

77 RFP L.15 - 4.4, M.4

Factor 2

90, 99 The Aircraft Maintenance requirement states, "the offeror shall describe how the O- Level Aircraft Maintenance and D-Level Maintenance experience of each contract referenced for the prime and other principal entities".Corporate experience is allowed for other critical functions and for other entities (e.g., M.4 states, "Corporate Experience

– The Government will evaluate the offeror’s previous corporate experience performing requirements similar to those required by this solicitation. Please confirm that corporate experience for O- and D-Level Maintenance may be provided by and be evaluated for teaming entities performing work share that meets the definition of "principal entity"?

Please refer to RFP Section 4.2 Prime Contractor Management for instructions on whose corporate experience may be included. Refer to L.15 for further definition.

78 RFP Section L 96 of 101 Section 6 Subpara (e) (In bold) is duplicate of subparagraph (a), (b), and (c); Please clarify. Was Subpara (e) supposed to be a different paragraph / description?

The Government has deleted section e.

79 RFP M.4 99 1

The evaluation methods and criteria are not detailed and therefore give the impression of being overly subjective. For example, the first sentence on p. 99 states, “This group of non-cost factors has a potential rating of HIGH CONFIDENCE.” No further details are provided as to other possible ratings (such as SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE, MARGINAL CONFIDENCE, NO CONFIDENCE) or how each rating would be justified. For example, it doesn’t characterize whether the Government will assign strengths, weaknesses or deficiencies in performing each factor evaluation and selecting a rating. It does not define whether or how deficiencies may affect the evaluation.

Recommend the Government consider providing additional detail regarding all the available ratings for each factor, and what criteria will be used to determine each rating.

The potential ratings are No Confidence, Some Confidence and High Confidence. No additional information on ratings will be provided.

80 PWS C.1.1.4 8 b) The PWS states that "CBP encourages the use of Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) certified mechanics and Inspection Authorization certifications."

The Appendices states, "b) Personnel Certifications

• Inspection Authorization (IA’s) The contractor shall ensure all Quality Control personnel possess a FAA Inspection Authorization (lA) certification. At least one fully qualified non-destructive inspection technician will be assigned to each P-3 Operations Center.

• Aircraft Mechanic Certifications The contractor shall ensure all employees filling a labor category entitled "Aircraft Mechanic" possess an FAA-A, FAA-B or FAA A&P (Airframe and Power plant) certification. Depot personnel are required to have a Repairman’s certificate for their area of expertise. A&P personnel are desirable."

Are A&P and IA Certifications encouraged, or required?

A&P and IA Certifications are required.

FAA-B should read FAA-P (powerplant) As stated in the Appendices there is a requiremnt for personnel filling the labor catogory of Aircraft Mechanic to possess an A&P or Airframe or Powerplant certificate. Depot personnel are required to have repairman certificate in their area of expertise. The Depot question relates to FAA repair stations only.

CBP updated PWS and Appendices.

81 PWS C.1.2.7 13

PWS states, "The Contractor’s overarching Quality Management System shall be compliant with AS9100, Quality Management systems". The Appendices states, "Certifications: AS9100 Certification" Is third-party AS9100 certification required, or is AS9100 compliance required?

The Prime Contractor shall have AS9100D Certification. The Prime contractor shall have policies in place regarding third-parties. The PWS C.1.2.7 Quality Control Plan has been revised.

82 PWS C.1.2.9.1 16 Would the Government clarify the definition of Government contract employees vs.

contract employees in the table?

Government Contract Employees - Contractors provided by the Governement. Contract Employees - contractor under this RFP

83 PWS C.12.19 20 Will the Government make system interface documents available? If not, will the Government provide additional detail on any interface (date import/export) protocols or restrictions with the Government provided maintenance management system in fairness to non-incumbent offerors?

Government provided system shall not interface with Contractor systems.

84 PWS C.1.2.24 23

"The Contractor shall ensure that all identified Key Personnel will already have the clearance required for the workspaces where they will need to perform. Key personnel named shall be available to begin performance at time of award." In this case, is clearance referring to a BI or SSBI? The requirement the labor pool to current and recently separated CBP-cleared personnel and substantially advantages the incumbent and may eliminate competitors. We request that the Government require a CBP/DHS clearance at full contract performance or state whether DoD clearances will be granted exceptions. (See also H.3)

PWS Section C.1.2.24 revised to state key personnel must be capable of favorably passing a CBP BI and obtaining a CBP Secret Level clearance.

See also PWS C.1.2.28 - Security

85 PWS C.1.2.8 25

"The Contractor shall ensure that all identified key personnel will already have the clearance required for the workspaces where they will need to perform. Key personnel named shall be available to begin performance at time of award." This conflicts with Section L-3 on page 88, which states "Note that it is not the Government's expectation that offerors be fully staffed during transition, only that they are able to adequately perform."

The following statement: "Key personnel named shall be available to begin performance at time of award" has been removed from the PWS. Please see PWS C.1.2.24.

86 PWS C.1.3.20 41 The text does not explain if or how OPM metric…