QUESTIONS_AND_RESPONSES_TO_SOLICITATION_AG.pdf

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SOLICITATION AG-024B-S-15-0011

1. QUESTION: Para C-26,A,1 contradicts para E.4 (2) (i) as one states to provide resumes/certifications at time of award, and another requires resumes of sourced candidates with the proposal. Is it the government’s intent for all contractors bidding, to source and enter into contingent contracts with all listed key personnel? The likelihood of both applicant lists being the same is small as technicians will opt for readily available employment during source selection. This approach drives HR costs un-necessarily as the work is duplicated. Would the government consider naming the site manager/lead mechanic as sufficient as is typically seen with Government contracting?

RESPONSE: The statement at C.26 indicates that the names will be entered at time of award. The names will be entered by the Contracting Officer into the conformed contract based on the individuals proposed and accepted by the Government during the evaluation of the offers. The Government needs to have the resumes and certifications submitted with the offer to be able evaluate the Key Personnel offered.

2. QUESTION: Please clarify if it must be USCG HC-130H experience and if so why since the C-130 is a common aircraft in use throughout the world.

RESPONSE: The aircraft being utilized for the IOC phase of the USFS HC-130H Program will be maintained in accordance with USGC Engineering and Maintenance policies, procedures, and processes.

The Lead Mechanic position is integral to the successful communication between the USFS Project

Inspector and the Contractor. The Lead Mechanic will be responsible for ensuring the contracted maintainers adhere to USCG Policies, Procedures, and processes as detailed in the contract. Therefor it is essential that this individual have a full working knowledge of and experience in the USCG Engineering and Maintenance system.

3. QUESTION: Lists duplicate each other, is it the governments intent that the contractor procure the same equipment the government is going to provide? As an example there would be two tow bars for two aircraft. Additional equipment the contractor buys drives the cost to the government/tax payer up.

Suggest using government furnished equipment to hold cost down.

RESPONSE: The USFS IOC HC-130H Program will utilize existing USCG tooling and ground support equipment during the IOC phase of the program until the aircraft are permanently transferred to the USFS as per the NDAA of 2014. Due to the nature of the USCG mission, tools and equipment may not be available at certain times. Therefore the government has determined the contractor shall possess the required tools and equipment and make them available to the USFS when requested to ensure mission capabilities of the aircraft.

4. QUESTION: Please clarify you want the contractor to provide GSE, government supplied equipment?

Please clarify, does the government want a copy of the contractor’s calibration and equipment maintenance tracking program or actual current calibration status and where the tool currently is stored?

RESPONSE: GSE as referenced in this section of the solicitation refers to Ground Support Equipment also referred to as AGE Aircraft Ground Equipment. Contractors shall have in their possession at the time offers are submitted the required tooling and equipment and submit an auditable list of Ground

Support Equipment in the contractors possession. This requirement will be utilized as a selection factor to determine the level of support available and the level of C-130 maintenance capabilities of the offeror.

The solicitation requires the contractor to provide the contractor’s Calibration Program. This requirement should also include the processes and procedures the contractor uses to ensure the tooling used to return an aircraft to service is calibrated to a national standard and remains in calibration. The program should list all tools that require calibration by part number and serial number and the frequency of calibration, the date last calibrated, and the next date calibration is due. The program should also include processes and procedures for tools past their calibration due date or other requirements of the contractors program.

5. QUESTION: Is there a CBA with this requirement?

RESPONSE: There is no CBA for this requirement. See response to Question 7 above.

6. QUESTION: Would the government accept military veterans who do not hold an A&P certificate but with equivalent experience to fill those roles? This will allow contractors to fill positions with highly qualified patriots and meet the intent of the Governments “Hire a Vet” program? Training and qualifications required for C-130 Maintenance in military are exceptional.

RESPONSE: In lieu of the government requiring USCG experience for all positions the USFS will require the positions to be 14 CFR 65 Certificated Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic. The Government has determined that the qualification most closely matches the AMT position with in the USCG Engineering and Maintenance program. While many military MOS qualify for the A&P, many do not.

Reference AC 65-30A. In support of the government’s position reference the excerpts from the

EVALUATION OF US MILITARY AMT TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO

CIVIL QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (Raymond P. Goldsby Aviation Industry Advisor, Jean Watson Federal Aviation Administration. October 15, 2000)

The Coast Guard technician’s work is almost identical to civil aviation. Comparing the USCG to all the other service branches, transitioning of their maintainers to A&P certification will require the least amount of additional training and/or experience. There are two basic courses for Coast Guard aviation maintenance technicians: 1. Aviation Maintenance Technician – A near direct parallel of the Part 147 A&P curricula, excluding non-Coast Guard technology subjects (no reciprocating engines nor wood/fabric airframes, etc.)

For all other services, Bridge Training will be required based upon the individual program participant’s training and experience of record. For example, a military AMT who has attended the Lockheed C-130 Crew Chief level training program may not be required to take the “bridge” propeller course. On the other hand, many of the “bridge” courses are mandatory for all participants, regardless of military training and experience.

7. QUESTION: We recognize the importance of requiring C-130 experience personnel and are working to accommodate the requirement. Many of our employees considered for this activity, possess ten plus years C-130 experience not specifically coast guard i.e. USAF commercial. Additionally our employee resume database contains highly experienced C-130 technicians available to fill required positions. Would the government consider using the standard Department of Labor WD skill classification, with the C-130 experience requirement? For example: Aircraft Mechanic I, II, III, helper, servicer or worker and Electronics Technician I, II, III.

As an example:

Two Aircraft Mech III’s with 10 years C-130 experience Four Aircraft Mech II’s with five years C-130 experience Three Aircraft Mech I’s with three years aircraft experience Two Aircraft Mech Worker’s

Three Aircraft Servicer/Helper’s One Avionics Tech III with ten years heavy aircraft and two years C-130 experience One Avionics Tech II with five years C-130 experience One Avionics Tech I with two years’ experience

This is much more in line with the actual requirement, will greatly reduce cost to the Government and will get the proper skill level for the work required.

RESPONSE: Wage Determination 2005-2056 (REV 18) dated 12/24/2014 will be incorporated into the solicitation via amendment.

8. QUESTION: Since no CBA is currently in place we assume that the DOL wage determination does apply. Please clarify?

RESPONSE: See response to Question 7 above.

9. QUESTION: : CLINS 1.AB, 1.BB, 1.BC, and 1.DB reference a Period of Performance of June 1, 2015 –June 30, 2015 and September 1, 2015 – January 31, 2016, as the non-fire season LAM; however, the CLIN CLINS 1.AA, 1.BA, 1.BA, and 1.DA reference the fire season as July 1, 2015 – October 30, 2015. Is it the Government’s intent to have the non-fire season to have a period of performance beginning in November 1, 2015 after the fire season ends on 30 October?

RESPONSE: Yes, the IOC Non Fire Season will resume on November 1, 2015 not October 1, 2015.

10. QUESTION: Will the Government provide clarification if training related to contract requirements, i.e.

HAZMAT/OSHA, GFE equipment operation, or maintenance training is considered training that is at the contractor’s expense?

RESPONSE: The Government will provide training to contractors for GFE on site as OJT.

HAZMAT/OSHA training for the contractor programs required by the solicitation will be at the Contractors expense. The Government will provide training for local, site specific, procedures regarding HAZMAT/OSHA as OJT.

11. QUESTION: background: Under the above referenced Section, the Government selected FAR Clause 52.222-51, entitled “Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain Equipment— Requirements (MAY 2014) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67.)” As part of this clause there are specific requirements for which exemptions could apply including the following under Paragraph (a) of FAR Clause 52.222-51:

“(a) The items of equipment to be serviced under this contract are used regularly for other than Government purposes, and are sold or traded by the Contractor in substantial quantities to the general public in the course of normal business operations.”

Since the C-130H is not a Type Certificated variant, and only a few Type Certificated Variants exists (L- 100,and L-382) the C-130H is not used regularly for other than Government Purposes, and is not sold or traded in substantial quantities to the General Public. In addition the C-130H model aircraft were formerly under a USCG contact covered by the Service Contract Act, it would be difficult for the USFS to defend the statement that the equipment being supported is in compliance with FAR Clause 52.222-51 paragraph (a).

In addition Paragraph (b) of the same clauses states:

“(b) The services shall be furnished at prices which are, or are based on, established catalog or market prices for the maintenance, calibration, or repair of equipment. (1) An “established catalog price” is a price included in a catalog, price list, schedule, or other form that is regularly maintained by the manufacturer or the Contractor, is either published or otherwise available for inspection by customers, and states prices at which sales currently, or were last, made to a significant number of buyers constituting the general public.

(2) An “established market price” is a current price, established in the usual course of trade between buyers and sellers free to bargain, which can be substantiated from sources independent of the manufacturer or Contractor.” Again, it would difficult for the USFS to defend that the services provides specific to the C-130H Aircraft at McClelland Airfield are based on a established commercial prices since the PWS is specific to Government regulations, programs, and policies, with the predominance of the labor positions is ties specific to qualifications that are specific to the C-130H Aircraft and government instructions.

Lastly, as stated in Section (e) of FAR Clause 52.222-51; “(e) If the Department of Labor determines that any conditions for exemption in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this clause have not been met, the exemption shall be deemed inapplicable, and the contract shall become subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards statute. In such case, the procedures at 29 CFR 4.123(e)(1)(iv) and 29 CFR 4.5(c) will be followed.”

Question: Based on this statement, would the government consider modifying the solicitation to incorporate the Service Contract Act, including, as a minimum, FAR Clauses 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards (MAY 2014)(41 U.S.C. chapter 67), and FAR Clause 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires (MAY 2014) (29U.S.C. 206 and 41 U.S.C. chapter 67)? In addition, would the Government also incorporated the appropriate wage determination applicable to McClelland Air Field?

RESPONSE: We have reviewed the requirements of FAR and WD 2005-2055 (REV 17) dated 12/24/2014 will be incorporated into the solicitation. Upon review of the exemption at FAR 22.1003-4(d) the Wage Determination will be added because the Forest Service does not believe that our requirement meets the requirements of paragraph 22.1003-4(d)(2)(iv).

12. QUESTION: “(a) The Contractor shall be liable for all Government incurred rework costs from negligence. Rework expenses may be deducted from payments due the Contractor. Examples of those costs are as follows: (1) Flight time required for additional maintenance flights will be charged to the Contractor at the rate of $15,000 per hour. (2) Costs may include, but are not limited to, government’s inspector(s) travel and subsistence in accordance with FTR.”

Question: Will the Government please clarify what is considered negligence? A penalty of $15,000 per hour for flight seems excessive, is this rate consistent with the cost of operation, or does it include punitive damages?

RESPONSE: Negligence will be determined by an investigation based on any specific event. Negligence would be: A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act. The flight rate of $15,000 per hour represents the US Forest Services cost. These costs would only be charged in the event that a functional flight check were deemed necessary by the Government.

13. QUESTION: Is it the Government’s intent for the offeror under Clause E.3 to provide resumes, training certificates for all 13 personnel identified in Clause B.32 and Clause C.26 as a part of our proposal submission? Also, is it the intent of the government to not allow the contractor to substitute any of these 13 personnel during the evaluation phase or during the first ninety days of performance unless the substitution is necessitated by illness, death, or termination of employment?

RESPONSE: Yes, we are evaluating all personnel under the solicitation. Yes. Due to training, background investigations, CAC card issuance, consistence in maintenance, etc. we do not want these individuals being swapped out.

14. QUESTION: Section C, Clause C.28, Paragraph (b)(3) on Page 52 of the Solicitation: Under the above referenced section the Government states “The Contractor shall comply with the written or oral direction of the CO or authorized representative(s) acting within the scope and authority of the appointment memorandum.

Question: Would the government consider adding a verbiage that any oral direction should be followed up in writing within a timely manner?

RESPONSE: No. The Government will not change the terms of the contract with oral statements unless followed up in writing. However, day-to-day direction by authorized personnel acting within the scope of their authority will not be directed to follow everything up in writing. If the successful Contractor feels that they have been asked to perform a duty outside of the scope of the contract or outside of what is included in contract line items of the contract, if in scope, they shall notify the Contracting Officer per the clause.

15. QUESTION: Section E, Clause E.3, Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) the Contractor is to provide “A list of tools, GSE, and test equipment the contractor will provide to support the contract. This list should identify all equipment in Exhibit 1 that the Contractor owns in an auditable list. Status of tool calibration and equipment maintenance tracking shall be provided.”

Questions: Does the Government intend to purchase from the Contractor / reimburse and take title to the equipment identified in Exhibit 1? If the equipment is not currently located at McClelland Air Field, will the government provide reimbursement for the cost to ship the equipment to McClelland Air Field? How long of a phase-in period will be provided for the Contractor to obtain and position the equipment at McClelland Air Field?

RESPONSE: No, the Government will not take title to, or purchase from the Contractor, the equipment identified in Exhibit 1. The Contractor may transport the equipment identified in Exhibit 1 to McClellan at their expense at the start of the contract. It is not required that the contractor transport this equipment to McClellan unless it is needed by the USFS to support maintenance on the aircraft. If it is identified as needed, the Government will direct the Contractor to ship the equipment to McClellan at the Government’s expense per the solicitation and resulting contract. It is anticipated that the US Coast Guard will be able to provide the equipment listed in Exhibit 1 in most instances, however, should the US Coast Guard not have the equipment available for use, the Government will have the option of ordering the use of the Contractor’s equipment at no cost to the Government (other than shipping).