Draft RFP Questions and Answers.pdf

Mission and Installation Contracting Command – Fort Eustis Industry Day Questions

Advanced Helicopter Flight Training Services at Fort Novosel, Alabama

1. Question: Is the minimum actual aircraft flight experience requirement of 1,000 pilot-in-command (PIC) hours and 250 Instructor Pilot (IP) hours based on total time or is it MDS time (Reference PWS 1.5.10.1.2, Instructor Pilot (IP) Experience Identifiers)?

Answer: For clarification PWS Section 1.5.10.1.2 has been edited to: “Minimum actual aircraft flight experience for the applicable aircraft: 1,000 pilot-in-command hours (Mission/Design) and 250 IP hours (Mission/Design/Series).”

2. Question: Is the minimum actual aircraft flight experience requirement for applicable aircraft 2,000 total hours for a ME based on total time or is it MDS time (Reference PWS 1.5.10.2.2, Maintenance Examiner (ME) Experience Identifiers)?

Answer: For clarification PWS Section 1.5.10.2.2 has been edited to: “Minimum actual aircraft flight experience for the applicable aircraft: 1,000 total hours (Mission/Design), 250 MTP hours and either 50 ME hours or two years of experience performing operational duties as an ME (Mission/Design/Series).”

3. Question: Notes 1) and 2) refer to SLIN 000101 and 000102, respectively. Items 0001AA and 0001AB are then included in Section B for the 1-month Phase-In and 11-months Services.

What will contractors be inserting into SLINs 000101 and 000102 (RFP page 3 of 79 CLIN 0001)?

Answer: This was a clerical error and has been changed from SLIN 000101 and SLIN 0000102 to 0001AA and 0001AB.

4. Question: A CLIN corresponding to the PWS 1.5.21 Phase-Out effort has not been included in Section B. Will Contractors provide pricing for the Phase-Out period at the end of the contract (Reference PWS 1.5.21 Phase-Out)?

Answer: There are no separate costs for phase out. The contractor will be paid the contracted FFP amount for the last month of performance.

5. Question: PWS 5.4.6 refers to “appropriate notice” to be provided to the Contractor before a Surge option is exercised. Where is the notice period described (Reference PWS 5.4.6 Surge)?

Answer: “Appropriate Notice” will have to be negotiated between the government and the contractor. Since the “option for this additional capacity may be some or all of the aircraft platforms and some or all of the additional flight students or aircraft”, it is not feasible to provide a timeline for each possible scenario. A surge of two UH-60M students for one month could possibly be accomplished with on-hand staff. A surge of 16 UH-60M students would require the hiring of additional personnel as well as an implementation timeline.

History has also shown the hiring of a single CH-47F FE is easier than hiring a single AH-

64E IP.

6. Question: The Government has checked FAR 52.219-14 Dev 2021-O0008 which is applicable, at least in part, to set-aside contracts. Is there are portion of the program set-aside for small business (Reference RFP Section I page 47 of 79)?

Answer: No. There is a small business participation evaluation factor with a Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) for Small Business Participation of 15%.

7. Question: DFI001, RFP section 1.3.2, Page 64, Table 1.1, in RFP section 1.3.2 indicates a Volume VI, Solicitation Compliance Documents required for submission. However, the Section L does not provide a description of requirements for Volume VI. Will the Government provide the requirements for Volume VI?

Answer: Volume VI has been deleted.

8. Question: DFI002, RFP section 1.4.3.5.3.1/1.4.3.5.3.2, Page 69, For Volume III, Past Performance, paragraph 1.4.3.5.3.1 requires the offeror to provide Past Performance Questionnaire(PPQ) and paragraph 1.4.3.5.3.2 requires the offeror to provide CPARS. Is it the intent to have the offeror to provide a PPQ and CPARS? Or, if the offeror has CPARS, the offeror will not be required to provide a PPQ?

Answer: Both a CPARS and PPQ are required for each reference.

9. Question: DFI003, SOW, 1.5.16.2, 1.5.16.5, 1.5.17, Page 7, 8, PWS Paragraph 1.5.16.2 states "All contract personnel are required to complete Government provided Resident Instructor Training (RIT)" which includes an "in-air orientation". Paragraph 1.5.16.5 indicates it is possible to have an AH-64E transition provided to an AH-64D qualified pilot and the flight and simulator hours are provided for that course. Paragraph 1.5.17 indicates that an Employee Training Agreement Program (ETAP) will be established for all contractors who receive Government provided training on an aircraft or simulator and references paragraphs

1.5.16.2 and 1.5.16.5. This ETA requires a two year contract to perform by the employee. Is it the Government's intent that all contract employees have an ETAP and if so, how many in-air hours are the orientations flights by airframe?

Answer: An ETAP is not required if an employee requires no government training. We have had military and DAC personnel instructing at Fort Novosel transition to the contractor and required no training. The hours vary for those personnel requiring training based on their proficiency. Some people learn the flight corridors, stage fields, etc. after seeing them one time while others require multiple iterations.

10. Question: Draft RFP, 1.4.3.5.1, Page 68, Based on the following: "dollar value of work actually performed during the three (3) years prior to the date of issuance of the solicitation", does the government want full contract value, or value of work performed over the last three years, or both?

Answer: Only the dollar value of work actually performed during the three (3) years prior to the date of issuance of the solicitation.

11. Question: PWS_Advanced_Helicopter_240124, Attachment 1: Performance Requirements Summary, Page 18, Discrepancy in Item 1: Conduct UH-60M Flight Training (PWs Para 5.4.2), Column (3) Performance Standard states "Daily training capability for 22 flight students." Should this state "44 flight students" as listed in paragraph 5.4.2?

Answer: The PRS has been updated to reflect 44 Flight Students.

12. Question: Attachment_1_-_PWS_Advanced_Helicopter_240124, Paragraph 1.5.1, Page 1, PWS states: "The offerors shall provide a QCP to the Contracting Officer with their proposals." QCP is not listed in Instructions to Offerors. Please confirm QCP is required to be submitted with the proposal and how that will affect page count as a result.

Answer: Tabb G has been added to Volume I – General for the submission of the QCP.

13. Question: Attachment_1_-_PWS_Advanced_Helicopter_240124, Paragraph 1.3, Page 1, The third bullet states "Support of EURO-NATO and Foreign Military Training". Can you elaborate on this requirement?

Answer: This statement refers to the fact that the student requirements may contain some EURO-NATO and foreign military students imbedded within the classes. There is not a separate requirement beyond the daily training capability in each aircraft.

14. Question: Draft RFP, Paragraph 1.4.3.5.3.2, Page 69, The Past Performance Volume instructions uses the term CPARS but does not also use the term Subcontractor Performance Assessment Report (SPAR). Please confirm whether or not an SPAR received on a recent and relevant contract serving in the role of subcontractor meets the requirements outlined in the solicitation for CPARS as it relates to contract citations submitted as part of the Past Performance Volume/evaluator assessment.

Answer: No. Past performance references require a CPARS and PPQ.

15. Question: Draft RFP, Paragraph 1.4.3.5.3.2, Page 69, The last sentence of the referenced paragraph of the Solicitation states "failure to submit these requirements may render a reference unusable". Is a PPQ alone sufficient to meet the requirements of the solicitation to ensure useability for recent and relevant Past Performance contract references in instances where no CPAR or SPAR was received? Or, is the language of the solicitation stating that both a PPQ and CPAR/SPAR are required on each referenced contract to ensure useable of a Past Performance reference?

Answer: See answer to question #14.

16. Question: RFP Page 68, Para 1.4.3.5.2.1 Given the rigorous government selection processes and the absence of comparable contracts of similar scope and magnitude, the 6-month limitation imposed in this paragraph provides enormous advantage to the incumbent. Will the government consider changing the recency requirement to three (3) months in order to introduce additional competition?

Answer: No. Work performed less than 6 months has not been preformed long enough to determine quality.

17. Question: RFP Page 15 Para 5.4.4, The Covid 19 pandemic affected student training across DoD. Other pandemic occurrences may affect the health of the IP staff and limit the available work force. What is the government’s plan for contract modification in the event of natural disaster(s) or pandemics?

Answer: This is considered an Act of God, which is typically an excusable delay for contractors.

18. Question: RFP page 67 Para 1.4.2.5 and 1.4.2.5.1 PWS para 1.5.1, The draft RFQ requires inclusion of Tab F (Quality Control (QC)) in Volume II (Technical). The PWS requires offerors to provide their Quality Control Plan (QCP) to the COR with their proposal. Is the requirement for QC to be included in Volume II (Technical) expected to be the same as the QCP that is to be submitted to the COR? If so the page limitation for Volume II is not sufficient to cover all the requirements necessary for a detailed QCP.

Answer: No. Tabb G has been added to Volume I – General for the submission of the QCP which has no page limit.

19. Question: PWS para 1.5.3 Historically, all organizations at Ft Novosel participate in a reduced work schedule over the holiday period around Christmas and New Year’s Day.

Normal support of flight training operations are reduced during that timeframe. Would the government consider suspending TSCV and penalty calculations during the TRADOC holiday exodus period?

Answer: The TSCV will continue but all Qualified Work Force and those under government approved waiver are considered available.

20. Question: PWS para 1.5.9.1, The ability of the Contract Management team (PM or APM) to participate in flight operations in support of the contract facilitates QC at the point of service.

It enables the management team to observe contract employees and determine how standards are being maintained. Will the government change the limitation in par 1.5.9.1 and allow the APM to participate in contract flight instruction operations.

Answer: No.

21. Question: PWS 1.5.10.2.2, There are scenarios where ME’s may have 250 MTP hours and 50 ME hours but not have over 2000 hours of total flight time. Given the key metric for MEs are

MTP and ME hours, would the government consider setting the total flight time requirement to the same as Instructor Pilots (1000 hours)? Answer: Yes. See answer to Question 2 above.

22. Question: PWS 1.5.15.2, USAACE Regulation 600-1, Prohibited and Regulated Conduct has been modified over time. Would the government provide the most recent copy of USAACE 600-1?

Answer: See attached USAACE Regulation 600-1, Prohibited and Regulated Conduct.

23. Question: PWS 1.5.16.2, New Hire Training Resident Instructor Training (RIT) is required for contractor personnel prior to conducting training under the contract. There are potential contract employees who have extensive experience flying at Ft Novosel. This includes SPs supporting the current NETT team, Military IP/ME’s who have recently left the service after assignment at Ft Novosel, DACs who have left government service after extensive time supporting the USAACE mission and incumbent employees who may support the new contract under a new employer. Will the government consider constructive credit or establish a recency window that allows the offeror to waive this requirement on a case by case basis?

Answer: See answer to question 9 above. Qualified Workforce Employees of the incumbent Contractor, hired into the same job by the new Contractor, are considered by the Government to have met the qualification and certification requirements for hire into the same job.

24. Question: New Hire Training Resident Instructor Training (RIT) is required for contractor personnel prior to conducting training under the contract. There is a potential for a large number of employees requiring RIT simultaneously before entering the Qualified Workforce.

It is understood there are limited resources available to support RIT for new employees (instructor availability, aircraft availability, weather, etc). Will the government adjust Temporary Student Capacity Variations (TSCVs) outlined in PWS 5.4.4 and 5.4.5 if the government is unable to support sufficient RIT throughput? Answer: Yes, if all other employee Qualified Workforce requirements are met.

25. Question: PWS 1.5.17, The Employee Training Agreement Program outlines requirements for the offeror to payback the cost of training if an employee leaves within 24 months following the completion of training. There may be extenuating circumstances including death, serious illness, or government reduction in contract requirements over the term of the contract that could potentially cause an employ to not be able to meet the 24-month requirement. Will the government consider compassionate waivers to this requirement? Will the government waive this requirement in the event contract requirements are reduced requiring the involuntary termination of personnel? What are the current rates for flight hours in the designated platforms?

Answer: The contractor will not hold the contractor to the ETAP due to “acts of God” or government caused reductions in personnel.

26. Question: PWS 5.4.3, 5.4.4 and 5.4.5, Temporary Student Capacity Variations (TSCVs) provide the constraints for IP requirement to meet mission without incurring penalty. The scale of the AH-64 IP requirement is almost 7 times greater compared to the CH-47 and 2.5 times greater than the UH-60 IP requirement but the TSCV is still the same. Will the government consider more balanced scaling of TSCV across the requirements?

Answer: No. The required student training is the goal. It is the contractor’s responsibility to recruit and hire the necessary personnel to fulfill the requirements. The contractor shall always maintain an adequate workforce for the uninterrupted performance of all tasks defined within the PWS.

27. Question: PWS 5.4.6, The surge requirement is identified but there is not a period defined for how soon after notification the offeror will be required to provide the additional capacity.

There is significant effort in finding IPs qualified to conduct the USAACE mission.

Additionally, surge IPs must meet the same RIT, potential aircraft series updates etc. as regular OPTEMPO employees. Will the government define the period from notification to having surge IPs in the qualified workforce? We recommend a 3 month period after notification in order to provide time for recruitment and any required training.

Answer: See answer to question 5 above.

28. Question: RFP Clauses, A review of the solicitation finds that DFARS 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk clause is not included in the terms and conditions. This clause is intended to apply to all solicitation and awarded contracts for the acquisition, development, production, modification, maintenance, repair, flight, or overhaul of aircraft. Flight is a primary requirement of the AHFTS PWS. Will the government add DFARS 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk clause to the solicitation and subsequently awarded contract?

Answer: Added.

29. Question: Section 1.1.2 of the RFP instructions to offerors states that electronic submission via email is the only acceptable submission method. Due to the large number of files and the need to submit via secure, encrypted email, will the Government consider using PIEE or an alternate secure delivery source?

Answer: No, please follow RFP instructions for proposal submission.

30. Question: The DRFP indicates a training capability requirement of 44 flight students, as shown in DRFP Table 1.2 (Pg 73). This does not align with PWS 5.4.2, which states a UH- 60M IP training capability requirement of 22 flight students. Will the Government please confirm that it will update the PWS: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY Table to match the quantity of 44 flight students indicated in the RFP?

Answer: See answer to question #11.

31. Question: DRFP 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021) states: (b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Are these "options" in relation to Surge options? Can the Government clarify exactly which options are being referenced here?

Answer: This section refers to balanced pricing of options years. However, because the Surge Option pricing is part of the overall option year pricing it extends to Surge Options as well.

32. Question: Vol II. 1.4.2.4.4 states that offerors are to provide the names of the Key Personnel who will perform under this contract, their resumes, and letters of commitment. Tab E includes Resumes and Consent Letters. The instructions on Page 64 of the RFP indicate that the Consent Letters are not included in the Volume's 35 page count limit, but the Key Personnel Resumes are not similarly addressed. Will the total 35-page count for Volume II include Tabs D through F (i.e., including Tab E), or do Tabs D and F (excluding Tab E) need to total 35 pages or less (which would mean that all of Tab E's contents will not be counted against the 35-page volume limit)? Will the Government please clarify whether key personnel names and key details should be provided in the volume, while the resumes and consent letters should be provided as attachments to the volume with no page-count limitations?

Answer: The RFP has been updated to reflect the exclusion of resumes under 1.3.9.2. Other information required under Vol II Tab E is still required.