RFI_Questions_GovResponses_June2026.pdf

Count Questions Government Responses

Does DHS anticipate greater value in proposals that demonstrate broad capabilities across all aircraft types and locations, or is the multi award strategy designed to enable more specialized Centers of Excellence, allowing DHS to select the best fit contractor at the task order level?

Note: Understanding DHS’s intent will help prospective bidders determine whether to propose multi company teams and what teaming structure would best align with the Government’s preferences.

The government is open to alternative ideas to accomplish the maintenance and logistics support requirements to meet operational commitments.

Can the Government clarify whether each of the three tracks—Modifications (Major and Minor), Intermediate MRO, and Depot MRO—will operate as separate MAIDIQ vehicles with independent award pools of up to three contractors each? Additionally, are offerors permitted to compete for one, two, or all three tracks, and will the Government evaluate and award them independently?

Based on feedback, the government is re-evaluating its initial approach and will consider the option of having multiple vendors under each track.

In the anticipated MAIDIQ structure, does DHS intend to award the overarching vehicle without assigning specific work at the time of award, with separate RFPs for individual task orders to be issued at later dates?

Yes, the IDIQ task orders will be issued at a later date based on the government's requirements at that time.

Does DHS intend for future task order RFPs to be competed among awardees within the applicable track, or does the agency anticipate assigning task orders directly to the contractor deemed the best fit for each requirement?

Task orders will be competed.

RFP #2: For Tracks 1 - 3, please clarify whether the Government requires the Prime Offeror to hold a Part 145 certificate as a condition of IDIQ award, or whether the requirement may be met through a subcontractor or teaming partner that holds the applicable certification for the scope of work performed under individual task orders?

The requirement may be met through a subcontractor that holds the applicable certification for the scope of work performed under individual task orders. The government would prefer OEM authorized service centers that are 145 certified. The final solicitation will indicate whether certifications are required.

RFP #2: For Tracks 1- 3, would the Government utilize sole-source 8(a) direct award to an existing Track awardee in lieu of a competitive task order in order to streamline procurement timelines?

The government does not intend to issue a directed 8(a) award.

RFP 1 and 2: Under Contract Capabilities it states: The government is considering issuing two Requests for Proposals (RFP). Question - For Tracks 1 through 3, please clarify how the Government intends to distinguish between Offerors with strong qualifications and relevant past performance in Tracks 1 and 2 but limited or no demonstrated experience in Track 3, and whether such differences will be evaluated as a weakness or result in a lower overall past performance or technical score?

This level of information will be provided during the solicitation phase.

RFP #2 distinguishes between “Minor Modifications” and “Major Modifications,” however the definitions provided do not establish measurable thresholds (e.g., cost, engineering hours, aircraft downtime, certification level, or system integration complexity). Question - Please clarify the objective criteria the Government will use to differentiate between a Minor Modification and a Major Modification for evaluation and task order assignment purposes?

This level of information will be provided during the solicitation phase.

RFP #2: Given the wide variation in complexity between modification work (Track 1), intermediate repairs (Track 2), and depot-level repair (Track 3), please clarify how task orders will be structured with pricing?

For instance, each track fundamentally requires different labor, tooling, and certification environments.

The orders will be individually competed and pricing structure would be determined at time of issuance. However, the final solicitation will confirm the various contract types allowable for the IDIQ.

RFP #2: Is it the Government's intent to provide incentives for beating scheduled timelines? Will the government implement negative invoice adjustments for nonconforming/late deliveries of modified aircraft?

This information will be provided during the solicitation phase. The government also requests industry to provide suggestions on possible incentive metrics for this type of environment.

RFP #2: The RFI indicates that performance may be conducted at either Contractor-owned or Government-owned facilities based on task order requirements. For Tracks 1 through 3, please clarify whether possession or control of secured hangar facilities is a requirement for IDIQ-level award eligibility, or whether such facility requirements will be established and applied at the individual task order level?

Due to the nature of our operations, a secure hangar/facility is a requirement at the IDIQ award.

RFP 1 and 2: The Government indicates interest in improving contractor accountability and performance incentives. Question - What specific performance metrics will be used across each track? What incentives will be tied to aircraft availability, turnaround time, cost performance, or mission readiness?

This information will be provided during the solicitation phase. The government also requests industry to provide suggestions on possible incentive metrics for this type of environment.

RFP #1: What is the projected start date and period of performance for the contract effort?

At this time, the government has not determined an estimated release of an

RFP.

RFP #1: How many P3 depot events remain in the projected lifetime on the P3 fleet including allowing for any P3 drawdown?

The P-3 aircraft will not be included in this effort. The table in the RFI was amended to remove the reference.

RFP #1: Could you provide further details on how CBP plans to assess "efficiency, cost predictability, and budget discipline" under the proposed contracting approach?

This information will be provided during the solicitation phase.

RFP #1: Are there specific performance incentives planned, and if so, what potential metrics or benchmarks will determine these incentives?

This information will be provided during the solicitation phase. This information will be provided during the solicitation phase. The government also requests industry to provide suggestions on possible incentive metrics for this type of environment.

RFP #1: Does the Government intend for the contractor to maintain and operate a Part 145 Repair Station, which would be required for the contractor to perform I-level and D-level repairs for certificated aircraft, and if so, what capabilities would the Government require for Part 145 certification?

The requirement may be met through a subcontractor that holds the applicable certification for the scope of work performed under individual task orders. The government would prefer OEM authorized service centers that are 145 certified. The final solicitation will indicate whether certifications are required.

RFP #1: Does the Government have a location for the UH60 PMI and P3/C130 Depot repairs?

Regarding the C130, the government has not determined the government owned facility for the aircraft. It is anticipated that the UH60 PMI will fall under the IDIQ effort; therefore, the government is willing to consider a contractor owned facility for performance.

RFP #1: When does the Government anticipate the C-130J aircraft will be introduced into the fleet.

The government anticipates Fiscal Year 2028.

RFP #1: Are there specific delivery timelines or lead time requirements for materials and supplies?

Yes, dependent on the item.

RFP #1: How many P3/C130 aircraft/flight hours will be included in the requirements?

The hours have not been determined.

RFP #1: Has the Government determined which site/location the C-130J’s are planned to be added?

No.

RFP #1: Will the government include the C-130J aircraft as part of the requirement in the RFP or introduce these aircraft during performance as a contract change?

The C-130 will be included in the overall scope of work; however, maintenance will not occur until a later option year. The government anticipates Fiscal Year 2028.

RFP #1: Will C-130J’s require modification prior to being introduced into the fleet?

No, the government anticipates the aircraft will be fully operational upon delivery.

RFP #1: The RFI Identifies “AMO aviation assets, consisting of 200 aircraft”. Is there a limitation on the size of the fleet or does the government anticipate future growth.

Unknown at this time.

RFP #1: Travel – what is the basis of the Not to exceed? The government anticipates travel to be a Time and Material contract type as the requirement is commercial services. The government will provide a NTE amount to establish a ceiling.

RFP #1: How will the unknown quantity of surge-related events be funded?

Historically, it has been at the discretion of the government to address the funding ceiling for surge events throughout a given timeframe based on anticipated planned events. The government is aware of unforeseen events, i.e., hurricanes; however, funding for such event would be provided in the event of an occurrence. The contract type structure for the surge is still being determined.

RFP #1: How will the contract be funded? Intermittent incremental funding limits the contractor from executing scheduled/planned maintenance.

Funding is dependent on the overall fiscal budget which is approved and appropriated by Congress. If the government is under a continuing resolution or funding hiatus then funds may be provided on an incremental funding basis.

RFP #1: What type(s) of contract does the government intend to utilize for these requirements (i.e. FFP, CPIF, CPAF, T&M, Hybrid, Etc.).

Per the RFI, the government is seeking industry feedback regarding this two-contract approach along with recommendations regarding the contract type(s).

The government is seeking to minimize the usage of cost type contracts.

RFP #1: Will the government provide the hours of operation for the 36 Locations in the RFP?

Please refer to the RFI table which illustrates the site locations and hours.

RFP #2: What is the projected start date and period of performance for the contract effort?

At this time, the government has not determined an estimated release of an

RFP.

RFP #2: Is the intent for a Prime contractor to manage up to 3 vendors per track?

No. The IDIQ will be a separate contract with each respective vendor under each track.

RFP #2: Will Track 1 vendor selections be based on platform to be modded or by level of modification?

This information will be provided during the solicitation phase.

RFP #2: Is the intent of Tracks 2 and 3 to focus on High Value Asset (HVA) repair/overhaul (dynamic components)?

Aircraft and sub-system repairs will be required.

RFP #2: Will Task Orders under the IDIQ be fully or incrementally funded?

Depending if the government is operating under a continuing resolution or funding hiatus will determine if funds are available for required activities.

RFP #2: What type(s) of contract does the government intend to utilize for these requirements (i.e. FFP, CPIF, CPAF, T&M, Hybrid, Etc.).

Per the RFI, the government is seeking industry feedback regarding this two-contract approach along with recommendations regarding the contract type(s).

The government is looking to reduce cost type contracts.

RFP 1 and 2: Could you elaborate on the potential structure and duration of the standalone contract compared to the multiple-award IDIQ?

The government is considering a 5-year duration for both the standalone and IDIQ. However, there may be consideration for an additional years, not yet determined.

RFP 1 and 2: What specific metrics will CBP use to assess contractor performance in both RFP tracks?

This information will be provided during the solicitation phase. This information will be provided during the solicitation phase. The government also requests industry to provide suggestions on possible incentive metrics for this type of environment.

RFP 1 and 2: Does the Government require the contractor to perform DER services?

Not required; however, it would be beneficial. The solicitation phase will provide final guidance.

RFP 1 and 2: Does the CBP have an estimated month/year they intend to publish the RFP for this requirement?

At this time, the government has not determined an estimated release of an

RFP.

RFP 1 and 2: Does the CBP intend to issue RFP #1 and RFP #2 concurrently, partially overlapping, or consecutively?

The solicitations will be released concurrently.

RFP 1 and 2: Will CBP provide a list of preferred or mandatory suppliers?

No; the original equipment manufacture will be relied upon for many of the purchases.

How many locations currently have a Union workforce already in place?

The current contract has a mix workforce of employees that fall under either the Service Contract Act or collective bargaining agreements. The government will provide the final totals and locations at the solicitation phase.

Please clarify how "Integrated Sustainment" is defined within the context of this opportunity.

Ability to perform maintenance and repair on multiple platforms.

Is it possible to breakup RFP #1 into sub-sets, and if so, what would the process look like?

The government is open to alternative contract setups. Please provide feedback in the RFI response.

Can you please share when the RFPs are expected to be released?

At this time, the government has not determined an estimated release of an

RFP.

47 Will both RFPs be issued simultaneously or separately? The solicitations will be released concurrently.

In RFP #2 the government states, "Each track will have no more than three (3) vendors." Does the government mean no more than one (1) vendor for each track for a total of 3 vendors, or, three (3) vendors per track for a total of not more than nine (9) vendors for the RFP?

Based on feedback, the government is re-evaluating its initial approach and will consider the option of having multiple vendors under each track.

In RFP #2 the government states, "Performance will take place at either the contractor or government owned facilities, depending on the task order." Can the government clarify which TOs at a government facility vice at the contractor facility?

It is anticipated the majority of the work will occur at the contractor facilities;

however, it is dependent on each task order.

The RFI mentions a potential two-contract approach. Does the Government intend to issue these as concurrent solicitations, or will one contract type be awarded before the second is released? a potential two-contract approach.

The solicitations will be released concurrently.

The RFI lists NAICS codes 488190 and 336411 for consideration. Has the Government determined if a single code will apply to the entire effort, or will solicitations be segmented by distinct codes for maintenance and modification services?

Each solicitation will have a single NAICS code that encompasses the entire effort.

Surge Efforts are required for CONUS and OCONUS. Since these are mission-dependent, will the Government provide estimated historical surge data (man-hours or aircraft counts) to assist in scoping these risks?

The government will consider providing historical information during the solicitation phase.

The RFI identifies the anticipated addition of the C-130J platform. Can the Government provide an estimated timeline for C-130J integration and clarify whether associated maintenance requirements will be included within the initial contract scope or added through future modifications/task orders?

The C-130 will be included in the overall scope of work; however, maintenance will not occur until a later option year. The government anticipates Fiscal Year 2028.

The RFI asks if our airfield can support the C-130J. Are there specific runway length, weight-bearing capacity, or hangar height requirements for the C-130J that the Government can share?

This information will be provided during the solicitation phase.

Track 3 mentions D-Level repair as a fallback. Does the Government have a list of components pre-determined as "D-Level," or will this determination be made on a case-by-case basis via Task Order?

It will be dependent on each task order.

CBP operates as Public Use Aircraft. Can the Government clarify whether existing aircraft maintenance programs and technical data packages will be made available to the awardee to support transition and contract performance?

The government uses the OEM recommended maintenance schedules and technical data.

The RFI mentions a Not-To-Exceed (NTE) amount for materials. Will the Government provide a historical annual spend breakdown for parts by aircraft platform to help vendors estimate the adequacy of the proposed NTE limits?

The government will consider providing historical information during the solicitation phase.

Travel is anticipated as a line item. Can the Government provide historical travel volume or estimated annual travel requirements to assist vendors in evaluating the anticipated travel Not-To-Exceed amount?

The government will consider providing historical information during the solicitation phase.

The RFI implies personnel will fly on government aircraft. Is a specific level of facility or personnel security clearance required for access to Aviation Operational Sites (AOS), and if so, at what stage of the acquisition process would such clearances be required?

Background checks will be required. A Tier 4 Public Trust clearance is required.

Performance can occur at Government or Contractor facilities. For the contemplated IDIQ approach, can the Government clarify the anticipated balance between Government-owned facilities and Contractor-owned facilities for performance of modification, intermediate-level, and depot-level maintenance activities?

It is anticipated the majority of the work will occur at the contractor facilities;

however, it is dependent on each task order.

The RFI requires compliance with OEM procedures. Are there specific legacy digital maintenance information systems (MIS) currently in use by CBP that the contractor will be required to interface with or adopt for record-keeping?

Yes, the government will provide access to the system of record.

Can the Government identify the incumbent contractor(s) currently supporting these requirements?

Amentum Services Inc. is the current contractor under contract 70B02C21C00000005.

Can the Government provide historical staffing levels or Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) counts supporting the current organizational-level maintenance contract?

There are currently 613 FTEs allocated for the incumbent contract.

Can the Government identify which tools, support equipment, calibration equipment, test equipment, and special tooling will be Government-furnished versus contractor-furnished?

The government will consider providing tooling information during the solicitation phase.

For the anticipated standalone maintenance contract, is the Government considering a total small business set-aside, unrestricted competition, or another acquisition strategy?

It is anticipated to be an unrestricted effort.

The RFI defines Logistics and Supply Chain Support as “strategies for managing parts availability, supply chain risk, and inventory control across platforms.” For RFP #1, does the Government envision this scope including software-enabled capabilities – such as demand and consumption forecasting, inventory optimization, and supply-chain risk analytics - in addition to physical material management?

Yes.

Within RFP #1, will Logistics and Supply Chain Support be evaluated as a defined sub-area with its own requirements and metrics, or solely as one element of an integrated maintenance response?

Supply and Logistics will be measured separately with its own metrics

Would the Government consider commercially available software that improves parts visibility, leadtime awareness, and cross-platform inventory control to be responsive to the logistics element of RFP #1, including where that capability is delivered in support of, or teamed with, the maintenance provider rather than by a firm performing all aircraft maintenance directly?

Yes.

What systems currently serve as the authoritative sources for parts, inventory, supplier, procurement, maintenance, and aircraft-readiness data, and does the Government expect those systems to remain the systems of record under the contemplated contract(s)?

It is a government owned system.

Does AMO anticipate a need to unify data across these existing systems to enable enterprise-wide parts availability, inventory control, and supply-chain risk management across the fleet and the 36 Aviation Operational Sites?

The government would consider various options.

Would the Government prefer a solution that operates as an analytics and decision-support layer over the existing systems of record, or is consolidation or replacement of underlying logistics systems in scope?

No, the expectation of the government is to utilize the current system of record to provide analytics and trending reports.

Is the Government interested in solutions that generate dynamic inventory-positioning and replenishment recommendations across sites, as opposed to relying primarily on static stocking levels?

No, the expectation of the government is to utilize the current system of record to provide analytics and trending reports.

To what extent should offerors address cross-platform parts commonality, substitution, and redistribution across the mixed fleet (for example, common components across the AS350/H125 and UH-60/HH-60, and the planned introduction of the C-130J)?

The governments system of record addresses this concern.

Does “supply chain risk” in the RFI include supplier delay risk, transportation disruption, and material availability risk, and are there specific risk categories the Government most wants visibility into?

Yes, those examples are included. No, there are no specific categories the government wants visibility into.

Is the Government seeking visibility upstream of on-hand inventory, into supplier performance, leadtime variability, and disruption indicators that may affect aircraft availability?

Yes.

How would the Government like offerors to address surge logistics planning for the named surge events (such as hurricane recovery, the Super Bowl, and the UN General Assembly) across CONUS and OCONUS locations?

Surge operations should not impact the normal logistics execution.

For the two-contract approach, would the Government consider structuring Logistics and Supply Chain Support so that commercial software and analytics can be delivered alongside maintenance — for example, through teaming arrangements or as a defined contract line item or sub-area?

No.

Would the Government consider a modular or phased adoption of the logistics/supply-chain capability, beginning with a bounded set of platforms or sites and scaling across the fleet over the life of the contract?

No.

As the Government considers contract type and performance incentives, does it envision measurable logistics outcomes (such as parts availability, stockout reduction, lead-time predictability, or readiness impact) as evaluation or incentive dimensions, consistent with the stated goals of cost predictability, budget discipline, and contractor accountability?

No.

Is the Government seeking primarily improved reporting and visibility, or also decision-support that produces prioritized recommendations and actions for users?

Yes, both scenarios are applicable.