Copy_of_RFP_Q_and_A.xls
XLS spreadsheet 42 KB Posted
- Attached to
- King 350 Aircraft
- Solicitation number
- DJM-16-A41-R-0085
About this file
USMS response to the Questions. Please note - TAB 1 is the technical question and answers and TAB 2 is the contracting question and answers.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| amdend_1.pdf | ||
| DJM-16-A41-R-0085.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Technical
| TECHNICAL | & ANSWERS | ||
| DJM-16-A41-R-0085 Questions | |||
| Question Number | Government Reference Paragraph | Question / Comments | Answers |
| 1 | 1 | The USMS is seeking an aircraft very similar to a 2009 or newer Hawker Beechcraft 350ER. Can the USMS clarify if there is a preference for a King Air 350ER or will a King Air 350 with FAA approved wing locked extended fuel tans and cargo door meet the requirement, assuming all other prerequisites are met? | A 350ER is preferred |
| 2 | 1 | The USMS requirement for a 2009 or newer King Air 350 with 800 or 600 hours and less than 400 cycles may be impossible to meet. Will the USMS consider other delivery options for an airframe such as zero time engines; overhauled landing gear with Phase 1-4 inspections completed at the outset or an older aircraft? | Yes |
| 3 | 1 | The USMS indicates the requirement for a cargo door. Can the USMS confirm the cargo door is an inflexible requirement? If so, will an aftermarket FAA approved cargo door modification meet USMS requirements? | A factory cargo door is preferred |
| 4 | 1 | Utilization estimates of 500 hours annually and 25 cycles per month result in an average 1.5 hour mission profile, which seems very low for a high altitude, extended range aircraft specifically designed to loiter for very long periods. Please confirm that the numbers provided are accurate. | A 5.5 hour mission profile is a more realistic estimate |
| 5 | 1 | It is unclear if the aircraft is being configured to accommodate Government Furnished Equipment or if the Equipment is to be provided by the Vendors. Will a complete list of Government Furnished Equipment be published making it clear what is GFE and what is the Contractor's responsibility? | Yes, a list of GFE will be provided and will we outline the contractor's responsibility for installation. |
| 6 | 1 | It is unclear if the aircraft is being configured to accommodate Government Furnished Equipment or if the Equipment is to be provided by the Vendors. If a Government Furnished list is not being provided, can the USMS specifically indicate whether the ISR, SIGINT, FMV, TDFM 9000 and Microwave Downlink will be provided by the USMS or Contractor furnished? | SIGINT equipment will be GFE, all other equipment should be assumed to be contractor provided |
| 7 | 1.2/1.3 | Can it be assumed that Phases I, II, and III area ll contained within the Base Year for completion? | Base year will start upon completion of Phase III |
| 8 | 1.2/1.3 | Can it be assumed that any time after integration and acceptance by the USMS within the Base Year will be operational flying time? | Yes |
| 9 | 1.2/3.3 | Parage 1.2 states "The aircraft will be configured to accommodate additional Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) such as air-to-ground communications and cockpit-to-cabin interphone capability" Can the USMS clarify in more detail to include Space/Weight & Power (SWAP) requirements for GFE? | Size and weight are a constant variable. Minimum mission equipment power requirements are as follows- one (1) 115 VAC 17.4 Amps RMS circuit & two (2) 12 VDC 40 Amp circuits |
| 10 | 1.2/3.3 | Paragraph 1.2 states that the government will maintain the aircraft in accordance with FAA 14 CFR parts 43 and 91, other places in the solicitation states that the Contractor will maintain the aircraft. Paragraph 3.3 states that the contractor shall provide all requisite maintenance and logistics of the aircraft to include all scheduled and unscheduled maintenance necessary for the aircraft to remain in a ready and airworthy state. Please clarify. | The contractor will be responsible for all maintenance, this statement partially indicates the standards to which the maintenance will be held |
| 6 | |||
| 7 | |||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | |||
| 10 | |||
| 11 | |||
| 11 | 1.2/3.3 | Paragraph 1.2 states that the government will maintain the aircraft in accordance with FAA 14 CFR parts 43 and 91. Is there a specific level of security clearance required? | A minimum of Secret |
| 12 | 1.2 | Phase II of the timeline shown on page 3 is overly optimistic by significant margins. Typical integration schedule is a minimum of 120 days assuming all of the components are on hand or readily available. (For example the minimum lead time associated with an MX-20HDi EO/IR camera and associated retraction mechanism is about 180/160 days respectively. Will the USMS consider new Not To Exceed timelines and provide for each phase to either lengthen the integration (outfitting) phase or consider a phased integration where by a lesser capability camera (MX-15HDi- available) be used initially an MX-20HDI can be procured? | Yes |
| 13 | 1.2 | All Phases: Operation of the King Air 350 Contractor Proposed Timeline, Not to Exceed. Please confirm that the phases will be done logically, meaning Phase II cannot begin until Phase I is completed and Phase III cannot begin until Phase II is completed. | Yes |
| 14 | 1.2 | If the place of performance for Phase III is identified as USMS Facility located at Houston, TX, but supports the 8 RTOC and 21 Field Offices throughout the US and Mexico Operations and the contractor is responsible for all unscheduled maintenance, will the contractor be expected to provide maintenance teams at forward operation locations other than Houston, TX? | Local maintenance subcontractors may be utilized, provided all personnel can be verified to meet USMS quality standards, and security requirements for the venue where maintenance is performed. |
| 15 | 1.2 | It is understood that the aircraft will be delivered to a facility in Houston ready for operation. Is this the permanent hangar location? | Yes |
| 16 | 1.2 | It is understood that the aircraft will be delivered to a facility in Houston ready for operation. If Houston is the permanent hangar location, will the government pay for the hangar or is the hangar cost the responsibility of the Contractor? | The aircraft will be stored in a government provided facility |
| 17 | 3.1.2 | In section 3.1.2, it states that the aircraft must have less than 600 hours total time. Would the USMS consider a 2009 or new aircraft, with more than 600 hours total time? If so, please provide the hours of total time. | Under 600 is preferred |
| 18 | 3.1.2 | Page 10 of the PWS indicates the engine hours will be less than 600. Please clarify if this is irrespective of the airframe hours, i.e. a standalone requirement. What is the maximum number of engine hours permitted? | Under 600 is preferred |
| 19 | 3.1.3 | In section 3.1.3, it states that the aircraft must have less than 400 cycles. Would the USMS consider a 2009 or newer aircraft, with more than 400 cycles? If so, please provide the cycles. | Under 400 is preferred |
| 20 | 3.1.4 | Page 10 of the PWS indicates the aircraft must have a Fresh Manufacturer's Phase Inspection and a Fresh Annual Aircraft Inspections. Can it be assumed that completion of the Manufacturer's Phase 1 - 4 will meet this requirement? | Yes |
| 21 | 3.1.9a | Is Colling a misprint as the manufacturer of the eDME and FMS? | Yes - it is Collins |
| 22 | 3.2.1 | Section 3.2.1 states, Two (2) Ground based battery powered receivers must be provided to view the Downlink Video Feed. Must both ground based battery powered receivers be in operation at the same time? | Yes |
| 23 | 3.2.1 | The USMS request an MX 20HDi or FLIR with an elevator. Is the USMS providing the EO/IR equipment or the Vendor? | Vendor must provide the EO/IR equipment |
| 24 | 3.2.1 | Would the USMS consider this EO/IR capability a "preferred" component with the possibility to add this capability to the aircraft later? | No |
| 25 | 3.2.1 | If the USMS requires the EO/IR system, would it accept a hard mount on the belly of the aircraft with a smaller camera such as an MX-15HDi or FLIR instead of a retractable mount as means to save money and time? | No |
| 26 | 3.2.1 | Under Tactical Communication Equipment the RFP states that "…and RF transparent pod or other verifiable means for the reliable reception and transmission" is acceptable. Will the SIGNIT payload be provided including SWaP specifications? | Yes |
| 27 | 3.2.1 | Under Tactical Communication Equipment the RFP states that "…and RF transparent pod or other verifiable means for the reliable reception and transmission" is acceptable. Is there an antennae configuration that the Government is aware of that can provide "reliable transmission" without the RF pod on the exterior? | No |
| 28 | 3.2.1 | Under Tactical Communication Equipment the RFP states that "…and RF transparent pod or other verifiable means for the reliable reception and transmission" is acceptable. If an external pod is necessary, are environmental controls such as heating and air required? | No |
| 29 | 3.2.1 | Page 12 indicates a requirement for …"a comfortable, law enforcement observer style chair, fully articulating for height, angle etc." Assuming this chair is in addition to the seats for the RFO Workstation and the Commander's Observation Station, can the USMS describe where this chair is to be located? | This chair is for the TFO/camera operator station, and is NOT in addition to that seat |
| 30 | 3.2.1 | Page 13 indicates a requirement for a WESCAM MX-20HDi or FLIR equivalent Thermal Imager Camera System. Given the long lead times associated wit these two EO/IR cameras would the USMS consider a WESCAM MX-15HDi who's availability is more favorable? | A temporary loaner may be considered, if an unacceptable lead time is verified, for the specified camera system |
| 31 | 4.3.1 | Page 15 indicates the Government will provide ElSure Equipment. Can it be assumed this refers to the same electronic equipment (ElSur) mentioned in the Vision Statement at the beginning of the PWS? | Yes |
| 8 | SF 1449, Section 2 | The RFP advises to leave the Unanticipated Technology Outfitting CLIN Blank due to inability to forecast pricing. Could more clarity be given to the types of "Unanticipated Technology Outfitting" that would be funded on as needed basis? What sort of modification might be anticipated that could affect the proposed aircraft's residual value | External aerodynamic pods, additional external antennas, additional communications equipment, and additional electrical power system modifications |
Contracting
| CONTRACT | & ANSWERS | ||
| DJM-16-A41-R-0085 Questions | |||
| Question Number | Government Reference Paragraph | Question / Comments | Answers |
| 1 | A.1 ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.214-4, Contract Terms and Conditions--Commercial Items (May 2015) | Clauses Incorporated by Reference include FAR 52.216-25, Contract Definitization (Oct 2010), which is only relevant in the circumstance that the government intends to issue a Letter Contract and definitive the contract at a later date. The government appears to be following a normal (non-letter contract) procurement cycle. Please confirm whether the government intends to issue a letter contract for this work and if so, how that award fits into the procurement timeline and when a contract will be definitive. | This is not a requirements contract. Clause shall be deleted. |
| 6 | |||
| 7 | |||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | |||
| 10 | |||
| 11 | |||
| 3 | Brand Name Justification | Was the estimated value of the acquisition calculated from the one base year or the base year plus option years? | Base plus 4 Option Years |
| 4 | 1.2 Scope | The table which describes the execution Phases suggests that the government will not accept the aircraft, and therefore is not liable for any payments for performance, until after the aircraft has been delivered, sensors acquired, and the aircraft modified. Is the government suggesting that the Contractor must absorb the risk of the full market values of the aircraft, the sensors, the aircraft modification, the depreciation in airframe value (due to the modifications), and up 120 days of aircraft idle time, an amount which could easily total in excess of $7 million, before the government will even accept the aircraft and during which time the government can cancel the award with no liability? | The Government is simply making clear that the lease period for the aircraft does not contractually begin until the aircraft has been formally accepted |
| 5 | 1.2 | The RFP states that there is a 30 days lag time in phases between time the USMS inspects modification and final expense. Is the USMS be willing to pay a portion at the end of each phase? | Payments will be made after inspection and acceptance of each phase. |
| 6 | 1.2 | The RFP states that there is a 30 days lag time in phases between time the USMS inspects modification and final expense. Will payment for Phase I begin upon award or upon Phase I receipt? | This is a firm-fixed price commercial item contract. As advance payment for a commercial item are rare, payment will be made after inspection and acceptance by the USMS for each phase |
| 7 | 1.2 | The schedule in paragraph 1.2 outlines a schedule with Phases (I, II,III). To confirm, is it the intent of the USMS to award a contact solely based on their evaluation of the proposal's Volume, 1, 2 and 3? | Please see Instruction to Offerors (Section L) for the Volume Criteria for Technical Capabilities (as contractors must demonstrate how they would accomplish the mission and their approach to fulfilling the requirements in accordance with the PWS - which includes the Phases), Past Performance, and Volume 3. The Basis for evaluation explains the best-value trade off). |
| 8 | Instruction to Offerors | Will the Government consider an extension to the proposal deadline to 10AM, Monday, 12.5.2016 | No - no extension will be granted. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .