Q&A_Amend_0002_70Z03818RH0000002.doc

Question - Request for Proposal 70Z038RH0000002 Amendment 0002 USCG C-130H/J Progressive Structural Inspection (PSI)/Depot Level Maintenance (DLM)

Pg Number Section/

Paragraph/

Para 22.0 Given that the prime contractor is ultimately responsible for the overall quality of all processes, can the Subcontractor be deemed AS 9110 certified as long as all subcontractor (specifically depaint/paint) are monitored through the Prime’s Quality Management System assuming the Prime is AS 9110 certified?

It is our understanding as the prime, and common industry practice with Federal and DOD contracts to maintain the required Quality certifications and flow down the quality requirement to the subcontractors for each effort. The subcontractor commits to complying with the quality requirement but not necessarily achieving certification. Please clarify.

AS9110 certification is not required for subcontractors. Prime contractor shall should flow down the quality requirement to their subs and monitor compliance. See the corrected copy of the SOW attached to Amendment 0002.

HSAR 3052.204-70

1.2.3a The paragraph states The Offeror shall describe how they will track and provide 100% visibility of the work executed in regards to funds expended (see SOW 13.6); to include current total cost and projected total cost at delivery for each aircraft. (Earned Value Report – The report shall allow USCG management to determine if a certain PSI or other work order is forecasted to be under or over the task order ceiling and delivery schedule.) Since this is a T&M contract and we’re providing labor only to accomplish the PSI/DLM work, we can provide labor hours expended by CLIN. What is the expectation of the Government in response to tracking funds expended? In response to Industry Day Question Number 4 the Government said it anticipates a need for tracking using the Critical Path Method so that PSI/DLM progress and factors affecting scheduling and movement of aircraft are made known as early as possible. Please clarify the Government’s expectation on this requirement.

The Government would expect to see actual labor hours used and their cost, combined with cost of materials used to date to determine what percentage of work is complete with relation to the contract delivery date. A projection of labor hours needed and material cost to complete work should also be completed. These should be actuals as of the date of the report, not just amounts invoiced.

Page 14-15

FAR 15.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires The Key and Non-Key Position Tables provide a listing of key and non-key positions. Are all of these positions subject to compliance with SCA, or is it at the discretion of the bidders to assess which positions are subject to SCA compliance? If all positions are subject to SCA compliance, will the USCG please provide the SCA job code for the following positions: (1) C-130 PSI Production Manager, (2) C-130 PSI Cell Supervisor, and (3) C-130 PSI Structural Specialist?

The Key Positions Table on Page 14 of the RFP includes SCA job code 99610. This job code is not included on the WD provided by the USCG. Will the USCG please provide an alternate SCA job code, or additional WD, inclusive of job code 99610?

The Following Is Fill-In Data For Clause 52.212-5 Para (C)(2): FAR 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires Table. The labor category “C130 PSI Quality Assurance Manager (GS-12)” is labeled as SCA Job Code (99610) however the Wage Determination attachment provided by the customer does not have a rate for the 99610 SCA job code. Can the customer clarify if this position is an SCA position and if so can the customer confirm the SCA job code the offeror is to use and to also provide an updated Wage Determination revision for Elizabeth City to reference the SCA rate?

The Key and Non-Key Positions Tables on pages 14/15 of the RFP provide SCA job codes. For certain positions, the job titles do not map to the job title for the listed SCA job code. In instances in which the job title differs between the tables and the SCA WD, are bidders to use the SCA job code provided, or determine the appropriate SCA job code independently?

The code 99610 for the Quality Assurance Manager is not correct and has been deleted.

Offerors should use the job codes provided on pages 14-15.

For those positions that have no job codes (C-130 PSI Production Manager, C-130 PSI Cell Supervisor, and C-130 PSI Structural Specialist, PSI Quality Assurance Manager), the Offeror should assess whether or not the labor category is subject SCA compliance. If determined yes, Offerors should follow instructions in the SCA Conformance Guide found at https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/wage/SCADirV5/SCA_Conformance_Guide.pdf Information regarding conformance may also be found at https://www.wdol.gov/sca_confrmnce.aspx

Para 11.1-11.2

Pages 6-7

Para 2.8-2.9 Both of these sections refer to a list of engine components included in SOW Attachment 9. Attachment 9 is a blank form. Attachment 8 is a list of Rolls Royce engine parts.

Will the government correct the reference in 2.9 to Attachment 8 and correct or delete the requirement in section 2.8?

Corrected to read Attachment 8.

Solicitation

Provisions

Para 2.5

9 cont.

RFP

Page 42-43

Para 1.3a Paragraph #2 - Is it the Government’s intent for offerors to provide a PPQ to only points of contact pertaining to the contracts cited in Factor 3: Past Performance?

Paragraph #3 - Is it the Government’s intent for offerors to provide additional PPQs to references pertaining to contracts in addition to those contracts cited in Factor 3: Past Performance?

Paragraph #2 – This paragraph is the Offeror’s opportunity to describe and provide their own information regarding past performance for at least two (2), but no more than three (3) contracts. This will serve as an Offeror’s “self evaluation” of their past performance.

Paragraph #3 – PPQs provided to references for return to USCG are separate from the past performance information requested in Paragraph #2.

USCG expects to receive past performance information for 2-3 efforts for the Offeror’s own information, and 2-3 PPQs forwarded to references of the Offeror’s choice.

Whether or not the self-described past performance information (Para #2) and the separate PPQs (Para #3) are for the same or different efforts is at the discretion of the Offeror.

Question 5 In Amendment 0001, the answer to question #5 states, “Pricing information should not appear in Volume I.”

The Subcontracting Plan includes references to Total Current Contract Value and Planned Subcontract Dollars.

Subcontracting goals are not part of the Price Analysis. Subcontracting Plans should be submitted in Volume I.

Question 6 Given the lack of a clearly defined scope of work for each of the back shops, can the government

1) Clearly define the scope of work for sheet metal shop, engine shop, and machine shop beyond providing support”; or

2) Define the staffing required for each back shop beyond that of the Lead Positions?

3) Amend 1.2.2b to not include the Back Shop Matrix as part of the evaluation criteria

The scope of work varies for each shop based on inspection results for components removed from the aircraft. Lead positions are defined in the SOW, but staffing with the appropriate labor categoriesis determined by the Offeror. This back shop matrix will not be excluded from 1.2.2b.

Question 48 Review of the SOW revealed two (2) sections (5.5.2 and 13.12) that contained responsibilities of the “Contractor’s Program Manager.” Given the solicitation clearly defines responsibilities of a Program Manager and Attachment A does not contain a Labor Category for a Program Manager, can the Government clarify their response and define how Offerors are to price the Program Manager?

5.5.2 (page 29-31) This is standard verbiage used in all ALC RFPs/Contracts. “Program Manager” refers to whomever the Offeror designates to ensure compliance with the Security requirements. This may be the on-site Project Manager, or other personnel. This is not to be separately priced.

13.12 (page 55) Should be changed to Project Manager.

Question 55 Industry question #55 states:

“Does the Government intend that PPQs be included in the proposal submittal? If so, where?”

The Government’s response states: “Yes”

Can the Government please clarify the response they provided for question #55?

See Question 9 above. Refer to instructions on the PPQ. PPQs submitted by Offerors’ references will become a part of the source selection file.

Question 67 The Government has clearly stated industry should provide fully burdened rates for the labor categories identified in Attachment A. Although the Government does not believe the items are ODCs, accounting for the cost in overhead results in Offerors providing a higher burdened rate for each labor category. In turn, this exposes the Government to unnecessary cost.

In the interest of lowering program total life cycle sustainment cost, would the Government entertain a firm fixed price CLIN for items associated with material and equipment required to establish operations to eliminate Government exposure to unnecessary program sustainment cost?

No.

Question 26

Para 1.4

Para 1.4 Will the Government consider removing the requirement for an express warranty, given that the USCG retains engineering and airworthiness authority for all actions performed under the contract and work will be performed at a Government Facility?

If there are no specific issues or concerns that led to the inclusion of Warranty as an evaluation factor, would the Government consider modifying the Solicitation so that Warranty is not an evaluation factor?

The requirement for an express warranty is at the discretion of the Government.

Para 1.4

Section 7.1

Can the offeror assume that all travel related to the contract will be reimbursed under CLIN 52?

Reimbursement will be made in accordance with the SOW and the terms and conditions of the contract utilizing CLIN 51 for materials and CLIN 52 for travel as appropriate.