Response_to_Industry_Comments_on_30DEC_RFP_27Jan2016.pdf

Unique ID Document Title Reference Comment Rationale Government Response

RFP Model

Contract Sections A‐M

Section I (A) DFARS 252‐246‐7007, Counterfeit Electronic Part Detection and Avoidance System (May 2014) (Section I, Pg 81) has been superseded by an August 2016 version and DFARS 252.246‐ 7008, Sources of Electronic Parts (Aug 2016 ). The Model Contract references DFARS 252‐246‐7007.

Recommend incorporating the most recent DFARS clause.

Updated Model Contract DFAR incorporation.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to update DFARS 252.246‐7007 and add DFARS 252.246‐7008.

RFP Model

Contract Sections A‐M

CLIN 0023

CLIN 0023 is deleted so offerors, therefore, have no clear mechanism to bid GBTS site standup activities (site survey, GBTS networking infrastructure equipment, etc.) costs. These costs must be accommodated somewhere within our proposal. We request that CLIN 0023 be reinstated or for concurrence to include these cost as part of CLIN 0001. All other GBTS CLINs are otherwise limited with regard to timeframes or IDIQ nature, and therefore become problematic to homing these costs.

The final RFP eliminated CLIN 0023 (Site Activation) which orphaned site level GBTS labor and material cost components, including facility site surveys, local GBTS networking equipment, etc. It appears the only remaining home for these costs is with individual training devices, however, to do so will unnaturally skew the TEP given the IDIQ contract structure. Specific guidance is required.

The set‐up, delivery, and installation of devices (SOW, paragraph 3.9.2.3) including labor and material, shall be priced on CLINS 0007‐0012 for EMD devices and CLINS 0045‐0056 for production devices. Development activities shall be priced as part of CLIN 0001. Standup planning activities such as facility site surveys (SOW, paragraph 3.9) shall be priced as part of CLIN 0022. Reference Annex I in the SOW.

Section L Attachment 12‐

Flight Test Procedures

Northrop Grumman notes the flight test procedures for the Constant AOA Maneuver with Air‐to‐Air Tracking has been deleted from Section L, Attachment 12, Flight Test Procedures; however, the document is watermarked DRAFT. Has the maneuver been deleted and is the document FINAL? If the maneuver has been deleted from flight test we recommend deleting references to it in the Aircraft System Specification at paras

4.1.2.6 and Appendix D para 3.1.2.6.

Clarification

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming and the "Draft" watermark will be removed.

The requirement remains as written in the Aircraft System Specification.

Section J Attachment 17‐

Section L Instructions to

Offerors iv Regarding Subfactor 1.2 – Systems Engineering/Program Management, given that the offeror shall provide a qualitative assessment to identify risks to achieving the required capabilities by the Required Assets Available (RAA) date (1 June 2024) and describe its approach to managing and mitigating these risks, what contract award date should be assumed by the offeror?

Clarification The Tier 1 schedule previously provided (dated 10 Aug 2016) to the offerors on FBO indicates the planned Contract Award date of Dec 2017.

Section J Attachment 17‐

Section L Instructions to

Offerors

2.1 Section L, paragraph 2.1 states the requested proposal validity date as 18 months. However, Section A of the Model Contract contains 365 days in block 12. Please clarify the desired validity period.

Clarification The discrepancy shall be corrected in a forthcoming RFP Amendment, to clarify an 18‐month proposal validity date.

Section L

Attachment 1a‐ TEP Worksheets

Instructions The TEP and Affordability Worksheet Instructions direct the offeror to populate various cells with ceiling prices for all FPIF CLINs derived by multiplying the Target Prices by the mandated Ceiling Price Adjustment percentage. We believe the government may have intended to state ‘Target Cost’ versus ‘Target Price’. Recommend the government revise the instructions to use Target Cost to calculate Ceiling Prices.

Revise Ceiling Price calculation to reflect industry standard.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to correct the discrepancy and provide instructions that for FPIF CLINs, the offeror shall multiply the sum of the Target Costs in the cells identified in Column E by the Ceiling Percentage in Column F and enter that value into the corresponding cell in Column G.

Section J Attachment 2‐ SOW for APT Program

3.2.6.2

The APT Statement Of Work (SOW), Section J Attachment 2 of the RFP, paragraph 3.2.6.2 states in part, “The Contractor shall develop and implement a program‐specific QMS that meets the requirements of AS9100C.” The International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) prepared and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) published AS9100D in October 2016. After June 2017, recertification to AS9100C is not possible.

Recommend the Government revise the SOW to reference AS9100D.

Clarification

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to revise the SOW for the new revision of AS9100 that was released in October 2016.

Section J ‐ Attachment 4

System Specification for the Advanced Pilot Training (APT) Program Ground Based Training System

3.3.2.3.11 3.4.6.1

In paragraph 3.3.2.3.11 of the final GBTS SS the words “real time” were replaced with a quantified latency description. This revised wording requires the image generator “to produce visual imagery with less than 16.6 milliseconds of latency from physical user input to on‐screen display.”

The above revision comingles ‘latency’ with ‘transport delay’ resulting in a conflict with para. 3.4.6.1. which states the “ATD transport delay shall be 100 ms or less IAW the international Level VII (International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 9625, Ed 4) standard.”

Recommend the government restore the DRAFT‐2 RFP language to Final GBTS SS para. 3.3.2.3.11: The visual environment shall be processed by the image generator (IG) to produce real‐time visual imagery.

The ICAO document establishes clear boundary conditions for real‐time performance for the ATD and provides standardized definitions for both latency and transport delay.

Resolves the conflict with para. 3.4.6.1.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to revise Paragraph 3.3.2.3.11 and the accompanying verification paragraph 4.3.2.3.11 of the GBTS SS to "The visual environment shall be processed by the image generator (IG) to produce visual imagery with at least a 60 Hz update rate (less than 16.6 milliseconds per frame)."

Section J Exhibit C‐CDRL Other

Data CDRL C236 Blk 10, 12, 13

Blocks 10, 12 & 13: the Contractor shall submit the draft 90 days prior to Aircraft SVR. The Contractor shall submit an update IAW Air Vehicle System Specification 4.1.3.1 minimum durability test duration of two lifetimes 30 days after Government approval.

Recommend the government modify the sentence to read: “The Contractor shall update to the Test Report in accordance with Aircraft System Specification para. 4.1.3.1 minimum durability test duration of two life times and shall submit the final 30 days after Government approval.”

An updated Test Report aligned with DID DI‐SESS‐ 81485A through two lifetimes will inform any changes or repairs required to ensure airframe integrity through the 8,000 hour design service life. Also satisfies MIL‐STD‐ 1530 guidelines 5.3.4.2 Test scheduling and duration:

One lifetime of durability testing plus an inspection of critical structural areas shall be completed prior to a full production go‐ahead decision. Two lifetimes of durability testing plus an inspection of critical structural areas shall be scheduled to be completed prior to delivery of the first production aircraft.

CDRL 236 is written as intended.

Section J‐

Attachment 17‐ Section L

Section L notes, “Fifteen‐year (15) IDIQ ordering period (Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) / Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP), Production, Limited Sustainment)”. Should read “Sixteen‐year” per the Model Contract noting “Period of performance under this contract shall be 16 calendar years from the date of contract award”?

Language is accurate as stated. Ordering of supplies/services cannot take place past 15 years; however, performance of services ordered in year 15 will extend into year 16.

6011 General I do not see the due date for the response. Can you share that with me please? See detailed instructions in Section L and SF30 page of model contract.

APT FINAL RFP COMMENT RESPONSES

Section J‐

Attachment 17‐ Section L

Recommendation: Table 17, Ground Based Datalink Equipment, was added and inadvertently affected the table sequencing in Section 6.3.1 (Tables 17 through 27, and Table 32) and 6.3.2 (Tables 17 through 27, Table 32 and Table 33. We recommend it read “Tables 18‐28 and table 33” for L6.3.1 and “Tables 18‐28, 33 and 34” for L6.3.2.

From: 6.31‐ Pricing curves used for pricing all possible variations in quantity within a given one year ordering period for each applicable table.

The applicable tables for these pricing curves are Tables 6B and 6C, Tables 9 through 15, Tables 17 through 27, and Table 32

6.3.2‐ 2) Pricing curves (i.e., Learning and Rate curve) used for pricing requirements across the life of the contract (Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) through FY34). For tables containing possible variations in quantity, one pricing curve used for pricing requirements across the life of the contract should be provided for each possible variation in quantity. The applicable tables for these pricing curves are Table 4, Tables 6B and 6C, Tables 9 through 15, Tables 17 through 27, Table 32, and Table 33.

To: 6.3.1‐ Pricing curves used for pricing all possible variations in quantity within a given one year ordering period for each applicable table. The applicable tables for these pricing curves are Tables 6B and 6C, Tables 9 through 15, Tables 18 through 28, and Table 33.

6.3.2‐ 2) Pricing curves (i.e., Learning and Rate curve) used for pricing requirements across the life of the contract (Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) through FY34). For tables containing possible variations in quantity, one pricing curve used for pricing requirements across the life of the contract should be provided for each possible variation in quantity. The applicable tables for these pricing curves are Table 4, Tables 6B and 6C, Tables 9 through 15 Tables 18 through 28, Table 33, and Table 34.

Table sequencing as listed in Section L currently effects they ability to provide pricing curves.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to correct the discrepancy and will provide instructions in Section L, Paragraph 6.3 1) that will read "The applicable tables for these pricing curves are Tables 6B and 6C, Tables 9 through 15, Tables 18 through 28 and Table 33." In addition, instructions will be given in Section L, Paragraph 6.3 2), that will read "The applicable tables for these pricing curves are Table 4, Table 6, Tables 9 through 15, Tables 17 through 28, Table 33 and Table 34." It is the Government's intent for the offeror to provide one pricing curve for each quantity in its given life cycle that may include fewer order periods than Lots 1‐11 or Years MS C to MS C+10.

Section J, Attachment 3

"Aircraft System Specification"

Appendix D, Paragraphs

3.2.4.6 and 3.2.4.6.1; also, APT Statement of Work Paragraph 3.2.15.3

Discrepancy:

There appears to be a conflict between the Aircraft Specification and Statement of Work related to the number of GSSs needed at each base.

The Aircraft SS and Appendix D state the embedded training datalink connectivity shall support up to 3 Ground Support Stations (GSS) operating concurrently on the network. The Aircraft SS and Appendix D state the requirement for voice communications for up to 3 GSSs operating concurrently. The Statement of Work states the contractor shall deliver and install six (6) GSS at each of the 5 bases.

Request:

Please provide concurrence on the number of GSSs required for simultaneous connectivity on the network if the intent is to install six GSSs at each base.

An RFP Amendment will be forthcoming to the Aircraft SS to adjust the stated quantity of GSSs in the Aircraft SS paragraphs 3.2.4.6 and 3.2.4.6.1 from 3 to 5. An adjustment to the SOW in paragraph 3.2.15.3 will be made to replace the second sentence with "The Contractor shall deliver and install eighteen (18) GSSs between the 5 bases and shall successfully accomplish acceptance tests upon delivery to the Government.”

Section J, Attachment 4

"System Spec for APT Program

GBTS"

Paragraph 3.3.2.3.11

RFP:

"The visual environment shall be processed by the image generator (IG) to produce visual imagery with less than 16.6 milliseconds of latency from physical user input to on‐screen display."

Discrepancy:

Because the requirement defines the latency from physical user input to on‐screen display, the requirement implies a trainer transport delay of

16.6 milliseconds. Paragraph 3.4.6.1 states the ATD shall have a transport delay of 100 ms or less. We believe the intent of the requirement to specify the update rate of the IG to be 60 Hz. This is not a true latency measurement and should not be called latency.

Recommendation:

Delete "of latency from physical user input to on‐screen display" from the end of this paragraph. The new paragraph will read “The visual environment shall be processed by the image generator (IG) to produce visual imagery with less than 16.6 milliseconds.”

An RFP Amendment will be forthcoming to revise Paragraph 3.3.2.3.11 and the accompanying verification paragraph 4.3.2.3.11 of the GBTS SS to "The visual environment shall be processed by the image generator (IG) to produce visual imagery with at least a 60 Hz update rate (less than 16.6 milliseconds per frame)."

Section J, Attachment 17 "Section L

Instructions to Offerors" and Section J, Attachment 18 "Evaluation Factors For Award"

Section L Paragraph 2.9.2 "Instructions for Technical Volume 1(b)"; Section M Paragraph 3 "Discussions"

RFP:

Section L Paragraph 2.9.2: "Submission of Volume I(b) is limited to only Section L, Attachment 14a and 14b and up to an additional 50 pages to the technical volume, specific to Subfactor 1.6, Aircraft Performance. Submission of Volume I(b) is not an opportunity for updates to previously submitted proposal volumes/content. Any attempts to submit updates to other areas of the proposal with the submission of Volume I(b) will not be accepted or evaluated. Evaluation of Volume I(b) will occur prior to establishment of the competitive range, and the commencement of discussions, if the Government so chooses.

Section M, Paragraph 3: Exchanges with offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions. The Government also reserves the right to award a contract without discussions to the offeror that represents the best value to the Government. To prepare for that possibility, each initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from both a price and a technical standpoint. In the event the Government opens discussions with offerors found to be in the competitive range the offerors may be given the opportunity to update their proposals.

If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the offerors’ responses to Evaluation Notices and the Final Proposal Revision will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Discrepancy:

Based on Industry discussions with the USAF, there was an anticipation the RFP would include language providing USG approval for offeror’s to submit periodic updates to their Volume III Price Proposals. Section L indicates that the submission of Volume I(b) does not provide offerors an opportunity to update their Pricing Volumes. Section M indicates that their may be an opportunity to update, should discussions be initiated by the USG.

Recommendation:

Update Section L to include language authorizing offeror’s to make periodic updates to their Volume III “Price Proposal”. Also, please provide the process by which the USG will determine the need for discussions as set forth in Section M. The USG has also indicated to Industry during discussions that the FAR may permit periodic pricing volume updates. Please provide this FAR reference.

Tables 4, 17 and 32 appear to have no variation in quantity, thus we are unable to provide a unit cost curve for these tables. Also, no table referred to in the instructions begins earlier than FY22 (MS C), thus we are unable to provide curve data prior to FY22.

FAR 15.306 will govern exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals, including the potential for pricing updates resulting from discussions, if conducted. As Section M indicates, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions, in which case an offeror would not have the opportunity to revise its pricing volume.

Section J, Attachment 17 "Section L

Instructions to Offerors"

Paragraph 6.3 "Variation of Quantity Pricing

Curves"

RFP:

"Offerors shall provide a narrative of its pricing approach and the methodology used to develop the following:

1) Pricing curves used for pricing all possible variations in quantity within a given one year ordering period for each applicable table. The applicable tables for these pricing curves are Tables 6B and 6C, Tables 9 through 15, Tables 17 through 27, and Table 32. For example, the pricing curve for pricing all possible variations in quantity for Spare Engines in FY MS C (LRIP 1) should include all of the total prices found in Table 14, Cells E7 through E17.

2) Pricing curves (i.e., Learning and Rate curve) used for pricing requirements across the life of the contract (Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) through FY34). For tables containing possible variations in quantity, one pricing curve used for pricing requirements across the life of the contract should be provided for each possible variation in quantity. The applicable tables for these pricing curves are Table 4, Tables 6B and 6C, Tables 9 through 15, Tables 17 through 27, Table 32, and Table 33."

Discrepancies:

Table 17 CLIN0042 "Ground Based Datalink Equipment", Table 32 CLIN0065 "Program Management", and Table 33 CLIN0070 "Depot Level Contractor Support" do not appear to offer variations in quantity.

Recommendation:

Remove reference to these tables from the instructions in Section L, 6.3.

Clarification Requested:

(Scenario 1) Is it the Government’s desire for offerors to provide one pricing curve for each quantity across the life of the program if that quantity spans across the entire contract and includes all order periods (Lots 1 ‐ 11 or Years MS C to MS C+10) as referenced in the (10) Spare Engines example? (Scenario 2) Or is it the Governments desire for the offeror to provide one pricing curve for each quantity for its given life cycle that may include fewer order periods than Lots 1 ‐ 11 or Years MS C to MS C+10? Our observations for Scenario 1 is that the only Tables that meet this criteria are: 14, 15, 20 – 25, and 27.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to correct the discrepancy and will provide instructions in Section L, Paragraph 6.3 1), that will read "The applicable tables for these pricing curves are Tables 6B and 6C, Tables 9 through 15, Tables 18 through 28 and Table 33." In addition, instructions will be given in Section L, Paragraph 6.3 2), that will read "The applicable tables for these pricing curves are Table 4, Table 6, Tables 9 through 15, Tables 17 through 28, Table 33 and Table 34." It is the Government's intent for the offeror to provide one pricing curve for each quantity in its given life cycle that may include fewer order periods than Lots 1‐11 or Years MS C to MS C+10.

Section J, Attachment 3

"Aircraft System Specification"

Appendix D, Paragraph

3.1.2.6 "High Angle‐of‐

Attack (AOA) Maneuvering"

RFP:

The aircraft shall perform high angle‐of‐attack (AOA) maneuvering to include, but not limited to the following:

a. 1 G Deceleration with pitch (+2° to ‐2°) and roll (+30° to ‐30°) captures

b. 1 G Constant AOA Roll

c. Constant AOA Maneuver with Air‐to‐Air Tracking Discrepancies:

The first sentence, Subparagraph a, and Subparagraph c are not consistent with Section L Attachment 12 "Flight Test Procedures".

Recommendation:

In the first sentence, delete "to include, but not limited to the following".

Subparagraph a, delete "1 G Deceleration with" and change "roll" to "bank" to be consistent with Attachment 12. Delete all of Subparagraph c to be consistent with Attachment 12.

The requirement remains as written in the Aircraft System Specification.

Section L, Attachment 12 "Flight Test Procedures"

All Pages

Discrepancy:

Entire attachment is marked "Draft".

Recommendation:

Remove "Draft" watermark from all pages in the attachment.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming and the "Draft" watermark will be removed.

Section L, Attachment 12 "Flight Test Procedures"

2.1 (6) "Ground rules in accordance with Aircraft System Specification,

3.1.2.6 High Angle‐of‐

Attack Maneuvering"

RFP:

"Decrease pitch attitude by 2° within 2 seconds and maintain that attitude for at least 7 seconds. Add power as required. Aggressively maintain zero (0) degrees of pitch attitude error at the new condition. The pilot shall provide verbal qualitative comments on the aircraft handling qualities to be recorded during the maneuver" Discrepancy:

Steps 9, 10, 12 and 13 do not contain the word "aggressively".

Recommendation:

Please update the RFP to either delete or consistently use the word "aggressively" among all the steps.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming with a change to Section L Attachment 12 Flight Test Procedures to the third sentence of L‐12 Para 2.1 step (6) to read: "Attempt to maintain zero (0) degrees of pitch attitude error at the new condition."

RFP Model Contract

Section I, 252.204‐7008, (DEC 2015) "Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense

Information Controls"

Discrepancy:

The DEC 2015 version of this clause is dated, and does not contain the latest governmental requirements.

Recommendation:

Replace this clause with the most current version dated OCT 2016.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to update the clause to OCT 2016 version.

RFP Model Contract

Section I, 252.204‐7012 (DEC 2015) "Safeguarding

Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting"

Discrepancy:

The DEC 2015 version of this clause is dated, and does not contain the latest governmental requirements.

Recommendation:

Replace this clause with the most current version dated OCT 2016.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to update the clause to OCT 2016 version.

RFP Model Contract

Section L

Discrepancy:

The previous draft RFPs contained the FAR Provision 52.232‐28 "Invitation to Propose Performance Based Payments (MAR2000)". This provision allows offerors flexibility in proposing payment plans that may reduce administrative costs to the USG.

Recommendation:

Re‐insert clause 52.232‐28.

Performance Based Payments will not be considered until FRP Lot 5.

6023 Section L Attachment 1a ‐ TEP/Affordability

Worksheets

The updated Attachment 1a TEP Worksheets instructions indicate that the TEP will be calculated utilizing the target price values provided in the Attachment 1b Pricing Tables vs. the typical USG standard of target cost (e.g.120% of cost). This will result in a calculation that exceeds the maximum which the USG would ever actually have to pay. Can the USG confirm this is the intent?

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to correct the discrepancy and provide instructions that for FPIF CLINs, the offeror shall multiply the sum of the Target Costs in the cells identified in Column E by the Ceiling Percentage in Column F and enter that value into the corresponding cell in Column G.

6024 Section L Paragraph 2.1 and 7.1.1

Paragraph 2.1 (Overview) of Section L states: "The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the Model Contract. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of its Proposal Documentation volume that its proposal is valid for 18 months from the date proposals are due to the Government."

It is unclear as to what constitutes the "Proposal Documentation" volume as this designation is not used elsewhere in Section L and unclear what would qualify as a "clear statement" as there does not appear to be an obvious place where such an additional statement should be added.

Additionally, the 18 months noted in Section L conflicts with the "365" calendar days that was newly inserted into the blank in Block 12 of the SF33 that is part of the Contract Documentation volume.

Can the Government clarify a consistent requested validity timeframe and confirm that the intent is for that timeframe to be listed in Block 12 of the SF33 as part of the Contract Documentation volume and that no other action is required? If yes, recommend the model contract SF33 and/or Section L paragraphs 2.1 and 7.1.1 (Section A ‐ Solicitation/Contract Form) be amended accordingly.

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly.

The discrepancy shall be corrected in a forthcoming RFP Amendment, to clarify an 18‐month proposal validity date.

6025 Section L Paragraph 4.2.1.2 Please clarify if Offerors are allowed to submit an EMD schedule which is shorter in duration than the 54 months identified in the Pre‐Decisional APT Schedule released on 10 Aug 16 (based on FY17 PB). If early delivery is achieved, will the Government accelerate milestones and associated funding accordingly?

An understanding of Government constraints related to milestones and funding would allow Offerors to propose the most appropriate schedule and best value offer.

Nothing precludes an offeror from submitting an EMD schedule which is shorter in duration than the 54 months. However, the offeror should not assume the Government will accelerate milestones or funding.

6026 Section L Paragraph 4.2.1.2

Offeror concurs with the Government's removal of the contractual IMP narratives previously required in Section L paragraph 4.2.1.2 from the final RFP. We do, however, request clarification regarding how to appropriately respond to the remaining requirement that, "Details of the offeror’s integrated processes shall be addressed in the IMP to include all necessary activities performed by all functional disciplines to produce the product required by this RFP." As this information does not clearly fit into the IMP categories of Events/Significant Accomplishments/Criteria, should offeror actually address this elsewhere in the Technical Volume?

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to remove "Details of the offeror's integrated processes shall be addressed in the IMP to include all necessary activities performed by all functional disciplines to produce the product required by this RFP" from Section L 4.2.1.2 1) a).

6027 Section L Paragraph 7.1.4

Paragraph 7.1.4 (Section D – Packaging and Marking) of Section L states: "The offeror shall identify any items that require special packaging/marking. Attach MS Office product pages as necessary or desired to the Model Contract / RFP included in Volume IV of its proposal."

It is unclear as to where within the Model Contract/RFP such attachments should be included. Can the Government clarify whether these should be included as an insert to Section D, or as a separate attachment to Volume IV and if as a separate attachment how that should be numbered and labeled? Recommend that Section L be updated accordingly.

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly.

Include the MS Office product pages to the end of Volume IV. The intent is to then add the information submitted as full text to Section D at contract award.

6028 Section L Paragraph 7.1.9

Paragraph 7.1.9 (Section I – Contract Clauses) of Section L states: "The offeror shall provide an expenditure profile, not to exceed (NTE) the Government Funding Profile found in the DFARS 252.232‐7007, Limitation of Government’s Obligation, in Section I of the Model Contract. The Offeror shall provide the expenditure profile as Section L, Attachment 11. The expenditure profile shall include, at a minimum, monthly forecasted expenditures from contract award through 31 December 2019."

As Section L is typically reserved for instructions to be given in the RFP to offerors and not responses to be submitted with the proposal from offerors, it is unclear exactly what is meant by the direction to submit Section L attachments as part of Volume IV. Is it the Government's intent that offerors mark these attachments with the provided Section L attachment number and insert them immediately preceding Section K in accordance with the order outlined in Section L (if yes, note that the Expenditure Profile has been omitted from paragraph 7.1.11, Other Section L Attachments)? Recommend that Section L be updated accordingly.

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly.

Reference Paragraph 8, Table 2 (Section L), "Referenced Attachments."

The Table 2 "Description" column identifies which of these attachments must be submitted as part of an offeror's proposal, and the Table 2 "Submit With" column identifies which volume the attachment shall be provided with. Paragraph 2.5.1, Table 1 "Proposal Organization" identifies the page limit for each volume, and Paragraph 2.5.1 states: "Specifically requested plans...shall be included as attachments to the proposal...and will not be included in the page limitations." This specific quote is intended to be applicable to all the attachments identified in Table 2. Therefore, the expenditure profile shall be provided as an attachment to Volume IV.

6029 Section L Paragraph 7.1.10.2 and 8

Paragraph 7.1.10.2 (Chief Executive Officer Certification of SS and SOW) of Section L indicates the required attachment will be incorporated into the contract as Section J, Attachment 13 which is consistent with Section J of the Model Contract (page 86). Table 8 of Section L indicates that the Section J number will be Attachment 3. Recommend that the conflict between these sections be resolved to clearly indicate whether this attachment will be 13 or 3.

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly.

The mandatory template is provided as part of the RFP as Section L Attachment 3 and when the offeror provides certification by signing the letter it will be contractually incorporated as Section J Attachment 13.

Note: Industry reference to Table 8 is actually Section L, Paragraph 8, Table 2.

6030 Section L Paragraph 7.1.10.3

Paragraph 7.1.10.3 (Aircraft SS, Appendix D) of Section L indicates that the required attachment will be incorporated into the contract as Section J, Attachment 3b. Section J of the Model Contract (page 86) and Table 8 of Section L (Attachment Number 9) indicates that the Section J number will be 3a. Recommend that the conflict between these sections be resolved to clearly indicate whether this attachment will be 3a or 3b.

Additionally, recommend that the final version of the Section J spec attachments be separated accordingly with the correct headers as the RFP version currently includes the Appendix with the main document.

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to correct the reference to Section J, Attachment 3b in Section L, Paragraph 7.1.10.3, to Section J, Attachment 3a. As offerors will only submit Aircraft SS, Appendix D (Section L, Attachment 9) as part of Volume 1(a), not the entire System Specification, the incomplete Appendix D currently part of Section J, Attachment 3 will be removed at contract award.

6031 Section L Paragraph 7.1.10.4

Paragraph 7.1.10.4 (GBTS SS, Appendix G) of Section L indicates that the required attachment will be incorporated into the contract as Section J, Attachment 4b. Section J of the Model Contract (page 86) and Table 8 of Section L (Attachment Number 10) indicates that the Section J number will be 4a. Recommend that the conflict between these sections be resolved to clearly indicate whether this attachment will be 4a or 4b.

Additionally, recommend that the final version of the Section J spec attachments be separated accordingly with the correct headers as the RFP version currently includes the Appendix with the main document.

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to correct the reference to Section J, Attachment 4b in Section L, Paragraph 7.1.10.4, to Section J, Attachment 4a. As offerors will only submit GBTS SS, Appendix G (Section L, Attachment 10) as part of Volume 1(a), not the entire System Specification, the incomplete Appendix G currently part of Section J, Attachment 4 will be removed at contract award.

6032 Section L Paragraph 7.1.10.8

Paragraph 7.1.10.8 (Section J ‐ Offeror‐proposed Contract Attachments) of Section L indicates that offeror‐proposed Section J attachments should be submitted in the appropriate volume. Can the Government confirm that "appropriate volume" is to be in accordance with Section L Table 8 (i.e. those attachments that are listed as a requirement of the Model Contract in Section L Paragraph 7.1.10 should only be submitted in Vol I(a) or Vol III as applicable and not also submitted with the Model Contract) and that Government provided attachments which require no Contractor change do not need to be resubmitted with Section J? If yes, the result would be that Section J of the Model Contract as signed by the Contractor would directly include only Attachments 5, 12, and 13 and all others would be incorporated by reference to other parts of the proposal and/or the RFP ‐ is that the Government's intent? Recommend that Section L be updated accordingly.

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly.

Yes, this is the Government's intent.

6033 Section L Paragraph 7.1.11.1

Paragraph 7.1.11.1 (Earned Value Management System) of Section L indicates that the required documentation shall be provided as Section L, Attachment 24. As noted above, it is unclear what exactly is meant by the direction to submit Section L attachments as part of Volume IV.

Additionally, while this requirement appears to be intended to be part of Volume IV, and while the Volume III instructions are explicit about not submitting additional data therein, Table 8 of Section L indicates that this information should be submitted with Volume III. Recommend the Government provide clarification on how to submit Section L attachments as well as reconcile the disconnect as to within which volume to include the submittal.

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to change Section L Table 2's Attachment 24 "Submit With" column from "Vol III" to "Vol IV."

6034 Section L Paragraph 7.1.12

Paragraph 7.1.12 (Section K ‐ Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors) states: "...The original signed copy should be provided under separate cover directly to the PCO."

Can the Government provide clarification as to how this requirement works in conjunction with the direction in Section L Paragraph 2.9 (Proposal Submission and Distribution)? Is the intent that for Section K two "originals" should be submitted ‐ one as part of Volume IV and one under separate cover, or something else? How is the "directly to the PCO" requirement for Section K different from the requirement to address all volumes to the PCO and deliver to the address stated in Paragraph 2.9? Recommend that Section L be updated accordingly.

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly.

The Section K "original signed copy" referenced in 7.1.12 is a portion of the entire "original signed copy" referenced in Paragraph 2.9. Only one signed copy, which includes Section K, should be submitted.

6035 Section L Paragraph 8

Paragraph 8 (List of Referenced Attachments) of Section L states that Attachment 18 (Tailored Airworthiness Certification Criteria): "Will not be incorporated into the contract." This conflicts with Section J of the Model Contract (page 86) which appears to indicate that this attachment will be included in the contract as Section J, Attachment 9. Recommend that the requirement be reconciled so that, as with other attachments, it is clear how this attachment should be labeled within the appropriate volume and whether it will be incorporated into the contract.

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly.

The TACC was provided to industry as Section L Attachment 18. The Offeror‐tailored TACC submitted with the proposal WILL NOT be incorporated into the Contract. As part of the Contract execution the Contractor is required to submit a TACC tailored to their offering at SRR/SFR; this will be submitted to the Technical Airworthiness Authority for review, revision, and approval at that time. This TACC will then be placed on contract after TAA approval as Section J Attachment 9.

APT Model

Contract, Section B

CLINs 0002, 0003, 0004, 0039, 0040, and 0041

Please change all the data CLINs to NSP.

Data is not usually priced separately as a price is not representative of the true value of the data. Right now, some of the data CLINs are separately priced and some aren't.

RFP is clear on what the Government requires.

APT Model

Contract, Section B

CLIN 0042 Please insert unit of measure for subject CLIN. CLIN is missing a unit of measure.

RFP Amendment is forthcoming to update Section B CLIN 0042 unit of measure to Lot.

APT Model

Contract, Section B

B040 Clause appears to have inadvertently omitted Spares, Support Equipment, and Trainers from gaps in ordering. Recommend the following CLINs be added to Paragraph (e): CLINs 0037, 0038, 0044, 0045 through 0061.

Clarification/correction will fully address potential gaps in service.

Clause B040 remains as written.

APT Model

Contract, Section H

H006 COMMERCIAL

COMPUTER SOFTWARE

LICENSE (DEC 2016)

Please clarify the format for submittal of the diagrams described by paragraph 7d) of Alternate I.

Clarification is needed to ensure proper placement in the proposal documentation.

Contractor format is acceptable according to requirements of the RFP.

APT Model

Contract, Section H

H003 "Small Business Subcontracting

Requirements” (DEC 2016)

Please refine the language of H003 to make it clear that any price decrement for failure to reach the 20% target be levied on service CLINs only.

All service CLINs on a delivery order should be aggregated when calculating the small business content and assessing compliance with the 20% requirement.

One possible approach would be to add the following definition of "service Delivery Order" to paragraph a: "Service delivery orders are comprised exclusively of service CLIN(s) as defined in paragraph a) Table 1."

If non‐service CLINs are on a delivery order with service CLINs, the small business content percentage could become skewed. The current language may inadvertently result in a decrement to non‐service CLINs which are not subject to the 20% requirement. This makes it difficult for the Contractor to plan small business work and unfairly penalizes the Contractor for something outside of its control: the product/service mix on any given delivery order.

Para (a) Table 1 of the H003 Clause specifically identifies CLINs that are subject to the 20% small business subcontracting requirement. CLINs not identified in Para (a) Table 1 that are issued as part of a delivery order will not be subject to the 20% small business subcontracting requirement.

APT Model

Contract, Section H

H003 "Small Business Subcontracting

Requirements” (DEC 2016)

Please provide additional insight into how the Government plans to execute delivery orders under this IDIQ. (i.e. will one delivery order be issued per year with all authorized CLINs. Will there be separate delivery orders for separate CLINs?)

This is important to maintaining continuity of contractual performance and ensuring compliance with the Small Business provision which is assessed at the delivery order level.

The Government anticipates issuing a single Delivery Order for all EMD activities at the time of contract award. For subsequent Delivery Orders, the Government will issue Delivery Orders in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, understanding that the terms and conditions of the contract allow the Government flexibility in how it issues Delivery Orders (i.e., one Delivery Order per year, encompassing everything, or multiple Delivery Orders at the discretion of the PCO, at the time the Delivery Order(s) is/are issued).

APT Model

Contract, Section H

H003 "Small Business Subcontracting

Requirements” (DEC 2016)

If the Government chooses not to exercise certain CLINs that make up part of the calculation, or to exercise them in lower quantities than the probable quantities denoted in the pricing tables, will the Contractor have the ability to propose a change to its 20% target or receive relief from the penalties associated with failure to reach the target?

Since this is an IDIQ structure, the Contractor does not know the exact quantities to be procured by the Government when it is developing a plan towards achieving the 20% target. Some CLINs present more opportunities for partnership with small businesses than others. Therefore, if certain CLINs are not exercised, this could impact the Contractor's overall progress towards the 20% goal. Since the requirement is at the delivery order level basis, the Contractor may not find out in sufficient time to reallocate work to achieve the goal.

For any Delivery Order for which the contractor believes the 20% small business subcontracting requirement is not practical, the contractor can request a waiver of a portion, or all, of the total small business subcontracting requirement, in accordance with paragraph e of H003. In accordance with H003, approval of a waiver, either in part or in whole, of the small business subcontracting requirement is solely at the discretion of the PCO.

APT Model

Contract, Section H

H003 "Small Business Subcontracting

Requirements” (DEC 2016), Paragraph (c)2

The calculation for actual percentage shortfall for failure to meet the small business requirement does not contain detail on rounding. Please clarify the rounding rules.

Rounding could have an impact on any giveback required, should the Contractor fail to reach its target.

Clarification now prevents disputes later between the Parties.

No rounding will be utilized.

APT Model

Contract, Section H

H004 ECONOMIC PRICE

ADJUSTMENT FOR NOT‐

TO‐EXCEED (NTE)(JUL

2016)

Please add CLIN 0038 to the table and specify that the appropriate index used to calculated adjustments is PPI 336412 ‐ Aircraft Engines.

Section B states that CLIN 0038 is subject to EPA, but it is missing from the table.

RFP Amendment is forthcoming to correct the omission.

APT Model

Contract, Section H

H004 Economic Price Adjustment for Not To Exceed (NTE) (JUN 2016)

Recommend adding in the following CLINs to the EPA provision: CLIN 0032, CLIN 0033, CLIN 0034, CLIN 0037, CLIN 0038, CLIN 0045, CLIN 0046, CLIN 0047, CLIN 0048, CLIN 0049, CLIN 0050, CLIN 0058, CLIN 0059, CLIN 0060, CLIN 0061, CLIN 0062, CLIN 0063, CLIN 0064, CLIN 0065, and CLIN 0070.

Even the early lots of the program occur years in the future, so an EPA provision is merited.

RFP is clear on what the Government requires.

APT Model

Contract, Section I

FAR 52.215‐10 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing

Data (AUG 2011)

Please clarify that this clause only refers to the NTE CLINs.

Only the definitization proposals will require the submittal of cost and pricing data, as the original competition will be awarded on the basis of adequate price competition.

The clause is clear where it is applicable.

APT Model

Contract, Section I

FAR 52.215‐12

Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data (OCT

2010)

Please clarify that this clause only refers to the NTE CLINs.

Only the definitization proposals will require the submittal of cost and pricing data, as the original competition will be awarded on the basis of adequate price competition.

The clause is clear where it is applicable.

APT Model

Contract, Section I

FAR 52.222‐41 Service Contract Labor Standards

(MAY 2014)

Contractor requests the Government clarify that this only applies to CLINs 0025, 0026, 0029, and 0030 (Field Service Representatives). Please provide DOL wage and benefit determinations for all regions which may require FSR services as this was omitted from the RFP.

The contractor is primarily a manufacturer and its repair/remanufacturing work is generally done in association with a manufacturing facility. As such, most work under this contract is not subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards Act. Clarification in the RFP helps clarify expectations and logistics of contract execution.

The clause is clear where it is applicable. The appropriate regions will be provided on issuance of the individual Delivery Orders.

APT Model

Contract, Section I

FAR 52.230‐2 Cost Accounting Practices (OCT

2015)

Applicability should be limited to FPIF CLINs.

Per 9903.201‐1 CAS applicability, paragraph(b) (15), Firm‐ fixed‐price contracts or subcontracts awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without submission of cost or pricing data are exempt from all CAS requirements.

The clause is clear where it is applicable.

APT Model

Contract, Section I

FAR 52.245‐01

GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

(APR 2012)

The Contractor has identified the need for Government Furnished Property (GFP) beyond that anticipated by the Government and described in a response to a previous draft RFP. Where should this be addressed in the proposal volume?

Clarification needed to ensure the information is put in the proper volume.

As previously communicated via FBO on 8 November 2016, it is the USG's intention that no Government Furnished Property (GFP)/Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be provided on this contract, other than the possibility of providing engines as GFE for FRP. There is no allowance for offerors to specify GFP as a basis for their proposal and pricing.

APT Model

Contract, Section I

FAR 52.246‐18

WARRANTY OF SUPPLIES

OF A Complex NATURE, FAR 52.246‐19

WARRANTY OF SYSTEMS

AND EQUIPMENT UNDER

PERFORMANCE

SPECIFICATIONS OR

DESIGN CRITERIA and

DFARS 252.246‐7001

WARRANTY OF DATA

Please clarify to which CLINs the subject warranties apply. For example, the Warranty of Data (Basic) provision should be limited to the various data CLINs (0002, 0003, 0004, 0039, 0040, and 0041).

The warranties are mutually exclusive, and right now it is unclear which items fall under which warranty.

Clarification is needed to ensure all offerors price appropriately.

The clause is clear where it is applicable.

APT Model

Contract, Section I

DFARS 252.211‐7003

ITEM UNIQUE

IDENTIFICATION AND

VALUATION (MAR 2016)

To clarify the fill‐in for (c)(1)(ii), does the Contractor have an action to identify any subcomponents greater than $5,000 that it intends to label with UID in the schedule of the contract? If so, in what volume should this be submitted?

The fill‐ins refer back to the SOW; however, the SOW does not provide this level of detail.

This clause is for use during execution of the contract.

APT Model

Contract, Section I

252.204‐7012

SAFEGUARDING COVERED

DEFENSE INFORMATION

AND CYBER INCIDENT

REPORTING (DEVIATION

2016‐O0001)(OCT 2015)

Please remove the OCT 2015 Deviation of this clause.

This Deviation is no longer active and has been Archived (reference DPAP website:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/archive/2016/class_ deviations.html ). The December version is already on contract (p. 88 of 99), and the two clauses are duplicative/mutually exclusive.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to remove OCT 2015 Deviation of 252.204‐7008 and replace with OCT 2016. Clause 252.204‐7012 will change from DEC 2015 to OCT 2016.

APT Model

Contract, Section I

DFARS 252.213‐7000

NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE

SUPPLIERS ON USE OF

PAST PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL

SYSTEM ‐ STATISTICAL

REPORTING IN PAST

PERFORMANCE

EVALUATIONS

Please remove subject clause. Past performance factor has been removed An RFP Amendment is forthcoming to remove DFARS 252.213‐7000.

APT Model

Contract, Section I

252.232‐7007 LIMITATION

OF GOVERNMENT'S

OBLIGATION (APR 2014)

(TAILORED)

Please provide the full funding profile for EMD, as associated with DFARS 252.232‐7007.

It is currently unclear what time period the cum Nov 2018 funding is intended to cover. Additional funding insight for the entire period of EMD would further help offerors respond appropriately.

Section L directs offerors to prepare the funding profile through Dec 2019.

Additional insight into the EMD funding profile is not needed.

APT Model

Contract, Section J

Attachment 16, QUALITY

ASSURANCE

SURVEILLANCE PLAN

Please remove QASP from list of contractual attachments.

Per paragraph 3 of the Introduction to the attachment "The QASP is published separately from and is not part of the contract." In addition, it says that "the QASP can be changed unilaterally by the Government at any time". This does not give the Contractor a basis upon which it will be measured.

An RFP Amendment is forthcoming that will remove the first sentence from Paragraph 3 of the Introduction in the QASP.

APT Model

Contract, Section J

List of Attachments

Section L and Section M are currently listed as attachments to Section J (Attachment 17 and 18 respectively).

Per FAR 15.204‐1, "contracting officers shall not physically include Part IV in the resulting contract, but shall retain it in the contract file."

Recommend that Section L and M, which are included in Part IV be removed from the Section J of the Model Contract accordingly.

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly.

Awarded contract will not include Section L (Section J Attachment 17) and Section M (Section J Attachment 18).

APT Model

Co…