Q&A following Draft RFP.pdf

Discussion Question Reference Reponse N/A Can you confirm that PAE Aviation is the incumbent on the current Backshop Contract FA2486-17-C-

0019?

The Government can confirm that PAE is the incumbent.

The Government states there is a Small Business Participation Plan in Table L1 with a 20 page limitation. In Section 1.3.1 Page Limitations, the Government states that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is excluded from Page limitations.

These are two separate documents.

Please confirm that the Government only requires the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be submitted.

Reference: Table L1; 2.5 Subfactor 2 - SB Participation Volume

The Small Business Participation Volume I will not include dollars only percentage and the written narrative/rationale as discussed in Section L para 2.5. The formal plan discussed in Section L para

5.1.4 shall be submitted with Volume IV will include the same, but will also have the dollarized amounts and should be submitted with the model contract to be included as an attachment on the resulting contract award.

The Government states that, "Narrative responses shall be typed with a 1.5 line spacing. Font Type shall be Arial and the type size for the text shall be no smaller than 12 point with proportional spacing permitted." With spacing proportion of this size, offerors are limited to the amount of relevant information that Industry can provide.

Will the Government please allow single line spacing with a font size no smaller than 10 point font with proportional spacing?

Reference 1.3.2 The Government will allow single line spacing with a font size no smaller than 10 point font with proportional spacing. Section L para 1.3.2 has been updated.

Page Count - The use of 11x17 ledger size pages is useful in proposals to provide timelines and other graphics.

Would the Government please consider allowing additional (no more than five) ledger sized pages to increase readability of graphics and allowing these pages to count as one page?

Reference 1.3.2 The Government will allow additional ledger pages. Section L para 1.3 has been updated to allow for additional (no more than five) ledger sized pages.

N/A Please confirm that headers and footers are excluded from 1 inch margin requirements. Reference 1.3.2 The 1 inch margin requirement does not apply to header and footers and Section L para 1.3.2 has been updated to clarify that Header & Footer are not included in the 1 inch margin requirement.

The Government allows a reduced font size for charts, tables, graphs, and figures.

Will the Government consider allowing the same 8-point font size for headers and footers? Reference 1.3.2 Charts, tables, graphs, and figures are the only items that allow the 8 point font size

N/A To protect the integrity of the documents, please confirm that offerors are allowed to submit PDF files for the electronic copies.

Reference 1.3.7 IAW Section L para 1.3.7 - The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 97-2003 or 2010, MS Office Excel 97-2003 or 2010, MS Office Project 97-2003 or 2010, and MS Office Power Point 97-2003 or 2010, as applicable. All proposal information will be handled IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

The Government states, "Data files shall be submitted on a

CD-ROM."

Please confirm that offerors do NOT have to print the excel spreadsheet that contains the cost model and are to only provide it electronically.

Reference11/13/2019 3.6.4 (1) - Submission of Cost Models

The Government confirms that offeror does not have to print cost model in Section L para 3.6.4, but submittal of paper copies of the Cost/Price Volume II of the proposal are required.

The Government states, " ONE (1) COPY OF THE

COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES SHALL BE

SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE GOVERNMENT

NOT LATER THAN THE DATE PROPOSALS ARE

DUE AND ONE (1) COPY WILL BE SUBMITTED

WITH YOUR PROPOSAL."

Traditionally, offerors do not receive a copy of the completed questionnaires back from the Government Clients as it can be considered an ethical violation. Please remove this requirement that offerors are to obtain and submit a copy of the completed Government questionnaire.

Reference: 4.4.1 - Questionnaire Submissions

Having the questionnaires submitted with the proposal gives offerors maximum opportunity to provide said Past Performance information.

N/A Please confirm that electronic signatures are acceptable for the "original" copy by the offeror on the Standard Form 33.

Reference: 6.1.1 Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form

Electronic signatures are acceptable.

The Government states, "The 'original' copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes."

Please clarify that offeror may submit the SF33 "under separate cover" by placing it in the submitted official printed binder, and not a separate binder.

Reference: 6.1.1 Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form

The Government confirms that the SF33 reference in Section L para 5.1.1 does not have to be submitted in a separate binder

The Government states, "Additionally, please provide the name, title, and telephone number of the CEO, Division President, and/or Vice President."

For large businesses, please confirm that offerors may utilize the General Manager/Vice President in place of the company CEO, as they will be directly responsible for the execution of the work.

Reference: 6.2.1 Authorized Personnel

As stated in Section L para 5.2.1 "provide contact information for CEO, Division President, and/or Vice President".

The Government states that offerors shall not alter the format or page size of the Government forms.

1. Please confirm that all Government forms are excluded from the RFP formatting requirements (font, margins, etc.,) 2. Please confirm that offerors are allowed to place the necessary proprietary markings on the Government documents. 3. Will the Government please provide the attachments as separate documents to the Final RFP?

RFP? Reference 1.3.2 Page Size and Format

Government confirms that Government forms are excluded from font, margins, etc. Offer shall not place proprietary markings on Government documents. The Section L attachments will be provided as separate attachments.

The government states at a minimum the offeror will provide Labor Category Skill Mix Attachment L7 (Cost Format D) and Labor Category Skill Mix Attachment L8 (Cost Format D).

Will the government consider excluding Attachment L7 and L8 from the 30 page limitation of Volume I? Reference: 2.4 Subfactor 1:

Management of Personnel

The Government Estimated Historical Hours attachment shall be used for reference only and shall not be submitted as part of Volume I. Section L para 2.4 has been updated to clarify.

The government states that CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003 and 0004 are included in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

Would the government consider not including CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004 in the TEP, due to unfair advantage this provides to Incumbent Offeror? Would the government exclude CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0004 from the TEP and evaluate these CLINs for fair and reasonable price?

Reference: 3.1.1 The transition CLINs will be removed out of TEP and will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance pricing IAW Section L - 3.0 Volume II - Cost/Price Proposal.

N/A Will the government confirm that the staffing matrix required in this section is excluded from the 30 page limitation?

Reference: 2.4 Subfactor 1:

Management of Personnel

A staff matrix is required under Section L Volume I Technical Capability Subfactor 1 and the page limit has been updated to 50 pages for the complete Volume I Technical Capability. The Government Estimated Historical Hours attachment shall be used for reference only and shall not be submitted as part of Volume I. Section L para 2.4 has been updated to clarify.

The data contained in Appendix A appears to be identical to the data that was in the 2014 RFP.

Will the government be providing updated Workload Data prior to the final RFP? Reference Workload Data, Required Meetings, TDYs

The Government will review the workload data prior to release of formal RFP. Unless we find something big in the check the workload data will stand. Please keep in mind, they are merely instances of a maintenance action, not the cumulative time to complete the task.

Table shows 11 F-15 HPO Phases and 2 PE Phases, but in the fix portion/Follow-on Maintenance it only shows 11 tows, jacking, Ops checks, etc.

Will the government clarify the number of F-15 Phases total and how many HPO and how many PE? Reference: Workload Data, Requires Meetings, TDYs

We revalidated the numbers & based them on historical averages.

That data provided in Attachment L7, lists Aircraft Mechanic, but does not breakout labor hours for Fuels, Egress, Armament or Avionics.

Will the government release labor hours by maintenance specialty? Reference CLIN 101 Base Year The Government is unable to release labor hours by maintenance specialty due to the potential of divulging proprietary information for the current contractor. IAW Section L para 2.4 Government Estimated Historical Hours have been provided.

N/A Will the government please define "Other Small Business"? Reference Table 2.5 SB Subcontracting Goals Breakdown

Other Small Business are defined as just small business; no special group.

Documents for this solicitation are available on the FedBizOpps website at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Offerors should subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website related to this solicitation. FBO is moving to beta.SAM.gov starting on November 8, 2019. To ensure vendors have no gaps in functionality or performance, read our Contractor Quick Start Guide. For current Federal users, you can now migrate your FBO.gov roles to beta.SAM.gov. For more information, please read our Federal User Transition Quick Start Guide.

Based on FBO moving to beta.SAM.gov, where will the government post documents for the final solicitation after November 8th.

1.2.5 Electronic Reference

Documents

Current postings from FBO.gov will be migrated to beta.SAM.gov and all new postings will be posted to beta.SAM.gov

These plans will take the place of the placeholders and will be incorporated into the resultant contract at Section J. Note:

The Strike Plan, Contingency Plan, and QCP will be incorporated into the resultant contract at Section J. They will not count against page limits within the proposal.

Do we need to include a draft Strike Plan, Contingency Plan and QCP with our proposal submission or only after the resulting contract is awarded? If included with the proposal submission, please include instructions on page limits for each plan and if they're to be submitted as part of Volume IV Contract Documentation or as stand-alone documents with the submission.

Reference Volume IV; 6.1.4 Section J - List of Attachments

Section L 5.0 Volume IV Contract documentation para 5.1.4. states "If required, Offeror shall include its Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) in the model contract in Section J. Offeror shall provide as part of Volume IV a Strike Plan, Contingency Plan, and Quality Control Plan in accordance with the terms in the model contract under Section J with their proposals. These plans shall be submitted as stand documents and will take the place of the placeholders and will be incorporated into the resultant contract at Section J. They will not count against page limits within the proposal".

N/A Can the Government please confirm Section L, subsection 5.0 does not exist? Also, the sub-numbering in Section 6.0 for Section 7.1.3 should be 6.1.3.

Section 4.0 and 6.0, Missing Section 5.0

Subsection numbering has been corrected.

N/A Can the Government please confirm Section M, subsection 4.0 does not exist? Section M Missing Section 4.0 Subsection numbering has been corrected.

Some of the clauses included in the draft RFP do not reference the most current version.

Will the versions in effect as of the date of the final RFP apply or are the versions referenced in the draft RFP applicable?

Draft RFP FAR Contract Clauses The versions at time of formally release of RFP will apply.

Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment L5) appears to be incorrect.

Will this be corrected to reference Attachment L4? Section L Para. 1.3, page L-5 Corrected.

The language at AFFARS 53.19.704 was deleted in FAC 2019-1001 dated 01 October 2019 because it was "duplicative of higher-level regulations".

Can the Government please provide the applicable AFFARS clause(s)? Section L Para 2.5, page L-8 The reference AFFARS clause is no longer applicable in Section L; para 1.3 has been removed.

Questionnaire Cover Letter and Past Performance Customer Questionnaire (Attachment L4) appears to be incorrect.

Is the correct reference should be L1 and L3; is this correct? Section L Para 4.4.1, page L-16 Attachment References have been corrected.

N/A Please advise if “paragraph d” applies (reps/certs current in SAM) or if offerors are required to complete all of section K?

Section L Para 6.1.5, page L-17 IAW Section L para 5.1.5 "Offeror shall complete the representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements in Section K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety."

Attachments 5, 6, and 7 need to be corrected to Attachments 6, 7, and 8.

Will copies of these attachments be provided prior to final release of the RFP? Section L Attachments, page L-18 Attachments will be released no earlier than with the formal RFP.

CDRL Block 6 (Contract Reference) and CDRL Block 16 (Remarks) both reference PWS 15.

Believe the correct reference should be PWS 13, Service Providers Quality Control. Is this correct? CDRL A007 A007 corrected to reference PWS 13.

N/A Will a CDRL be added or required for reporting of Government-furnished property per Draft RFP applicable FAR and DFAR clauses (incorporated by reference) and Attachment 4, Government Furnished Property?

N/A A CDRL will not be added; the contractor will report GFP IAW the applicable FAR & DFAR clauses.

All CDRLs reference “Distribution Code B”. Are all CDRL submissions considered CUI per draft RFP “FAR 52.204-21 Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems (Jun 2016)”?

Exhibit A The CDRLs are considered CUI.

There appears to be a potential major discrepancy between Section L.3.1.1 CLIN Table and the contents of Attachment 5 Option CLINS 0001 to 0004. Section L states these CLINS are for 1 Month in duration, while the Attachment 5 shows a Start Date of 1 Jul 20 (Col K) and a Completion Date of 30 June 21 (Col L), although Qty and Unit of Measure in Cols C and D show 1 Months.

Can the Government confirm if the CLIN duration is 1 month or 1 year? CLINS Duration Confirm transition period is 1 month.

N/A Will the Government perform a cost realism analysis? Section L.3.6 Section M Factor 2: Cost/Price Factor

Cost Realism is only performed on cost CLINs, therefore since the offerors are not required to bid on any of the cost CLINs cost realism will not be performed. Please refer to 3.1.1 Cost/Price Proposal paragraphs of Attachment 10 Section L.

The Government is requesting cost detail to be submitted in the price volume; However, price will only be evaluated for price reasonableness and balance between CLIN prices.

Will the Government disclose how the cost submission will factor into the overall evaluation? Section L.3.6 Section M Factor 2: Cost/Price Factor

Please refer to Section L 3.0 and Section M para 1.1.

“Cost/Price portion of the proposal will not be rated or scored, it will be evaluated for fair and reasonable price (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), and balanced pricing (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1).”

Will the Government confirm that they will not perform a price realism analysis? Factor 2.1: Cost/Price Factor IAW Attachment 10 Section L para 3.1.2 "Note that unreasonably low or unreasonably high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition."

“Cost/Price portion of the proposal will not be rated or scored, it will be evaluated for fair and reasonable price (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), and balanced pricing (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1).”

Section 2.1 states that price reasonableness will be evaluated but does not state that price realism will be evaluated.

How will the Government determine if the prices are balanced without performing both a price reasonableness and a price realism analysis?

Factor 2.1: Cost/Price Factor The Offeror's Cost/Price Volume of the proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. In addition, the Government will determine if the prices are materially unbalanced IAW Attachment 10 Section L paragraph 3.1.3 and IAW Attachment 10 Section L para 3.1.2 "Note that unreasonably low or unreasonably high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

“Provide ANG Backshop services in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS), F-15 Addendum, all Exhibits, and Attachments in Section J. Overtime shall be billed based on 1 and 1/2 times the normal hourly rate of the employee. Over and above work shall be within the scope of the contract and approved by the Contracting Officer. There is no fee associated with this CLIN.”

Is the Government’s intention for the overtime premium (half time) to be billed under this CLIN? Or, is it the Government’s intention that the full labor cost (straight time (1x) + overtime premium (.5x)) be billed under this CLIN?

All OT CLINs The full overtime rate will be billed on this CLIN.

“Provide ANG Backshop services in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS), F-15 Addendum, all Exhibits, and Attachments in Section J. Overtime shall be billed based on 1 and 1/2 times the normal hourly rate of the employee. Over and above work shall be within the scope of the contract and approved by the Contracting Officer. There is no fee associated with this CLIN.”

If the OT CLIN is cost-reimbursable, will the Government confirm that offerors shall bill for OT costs in accordance with their approved accounting systems (which may or may not result in the OT rate being 1.5x the ST rate)?

All OT CLINs The offeror must follow the T&C of the CBA, see page 36 for OT. The direct labor OT rate will be billed IAW the current approved CBA. Indirect costs will be billed IAW the offeror's current billing rates for the period covered.

The transition CLINs (0001, 0002, 0003, 0004) have a quantity of ‘1’ in column ‘C’ and a period of performance of 12 months (01 Jul-30 Jun) in columns ‘K’ and ‘L’.

Would the Government confirm that the transition completion date is July 31, 2020? Worksheets ‘Base Year’ and ‘Base Year Option F-15EX’

The transition period will be 1 June - 30 Jun 20 with the basic year beginning 1 July 20 for a full 12 month period.

The total period of performance for the base period is 12 months, and the transition CLINs (0001, 0002, 0003, 0004) is one month.

Would the Government confirm that the start date for the remaining base year CLINs is August 01, 2020? Likewise, would the Government confirm that the units for these remaining base year CLINs should be 11 (vs 12 months)?

Worksheets ‘Base Year’ and ‘Base Year Option F-15EX’

The transition period will be 1 June - 30 Jun 20 with the basic year beginning 1 July 20 for a full 12 month period.

The magnitude of the cost-reimbursable CLINs will impact offerors price buildup for the fixed price CLINs. Offerors will perform a profitability analysis of the overall contract to determine their proposed profit percentages on fixed price CLINs. Since the material, travel and ODCs are cost-reimbursable, offerors will not receive fee on these costs.

Understanding the percentage of the total contract value that is cost reimbursable with no fee is a critical input to this analysis.

Will the Government provide offerors with the estimates for the cost-reimbursable CLINs?

Attachment 5 Final RFP will have estimate cost for the cost reimbursable CLINs.

The Total Evaluated Price will be the sum total of all Firm- Fixed Priced CLINs for the base and all option years. For the optional airframe’s – only the Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) will be included in the TEP from the first time its exercised through the remaining options years.

Will the Government provide the BEQs for the optional airframes? Section 3.1.1 The Government has made the decision to remove the pricing of all optional airframes out formal RFP. IAW with the PWS para 1.2.1 future aircraft transition will be considered in-scope and handled as future negotiations. The additional airframe requirements in Section L, Section M, and Attachment 6 has been deleted in its entirety.

“The sequence of calculations presented within Cost Formats A through C will be used by the Offeror to develop the Offeror’s FBLRs, which will subsequently be used within Solicitation Attachment L7 and L8 (Cost Format D).” In accordance with Attachment 5, offerors are only to price the fixed price CLINs. Attachment 5 only includes fixed price and cost reimbursable CLINs.

If offerors are to provide FBLRs, how will these FBLRs be incorporated into the contract as there are no CLIN types (i.e. T&M, FFP-LOE, etc.) that would utilize fixed FBLRs?

L.3.6 The FBLR rates are being evaluated for reasonableness and balance pricing but will not be incorporated into the contract. The total price for each FFP CLIN for the base year and options will be awarded. Rates will be billed IAW the current approved CBA. Indirect costs will be billed IAW the offeror's current billing rates for the period covered

N/A Will the government require the contractor to have any specialized qualifications to be eligible to bid? L.2.3 The contractor shall require to be qualified to perform duties IAW the PWS, attachments, and appendices.

Magnitude: Very Relevant: Annual value of approximately $13M or greater for at least 3 consecutive years. Relevant:

annual value of effort estimate less than $13 M but greater than $10M for at least 2 consecutive years.

Somewhat Relevant: Annual value of effort estimated at less than $10M for at least 2 consecutive years.

Will the Government consider allowing past performance with continuous performance at the same location, with the same / similar scope of work, but different contract numbers as a single contract award. For example, if a Contractor has performance on a contract for a period of 2 years and 2 months with 2 six month bridges with same / similar scope of work at the same location, does that qualify for the three consecutive years?

Section M, 3.5, Table M2 - Relevancy Ratings

The Government did not define consecutive years based on contract numbers, therefore the example given is acceptable.

RFP Section L.2.3 requires offerors to include a short introduction and summary of their general approach to performing the PWS requirements. This requirement appears to be separate from the Subfactor 1 and 2 requirements identified in Section L paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 respectively, however RFP Section L.1.3.1 does not specifically exempt the summary from the volume page count. We are unsure whether the Government intended for the required Introduction and Summary to be exempted from the volume page count or included in the page count for either Subfactor 1 or 2.

A. Was it the Government’s intent that the required “Introduction and Summary” identified in RFP Section L.2.3 be outside of the volume page count?

B. If so, will the Government consider either excluding the “Introduction and Summary” from the volume page count in Section L.1.3.1, or specifying a maximum page count specifically for the “Introduction and Summary” within Section L.2.3 and Table L.1?

C. If not, does the Government intend for offerors to deduct the Introduction and Summary pages from the Subfactor 1 (30 pages) or Subfactor 2 (20 pages) page count limitation?

RFP Section L.2.3, Short Introduction and Summary , states:

“This proposal section shall contain an overview of the Offeror’s general approach to performing the PWS requirements.”

RFP Section L.1.3.1, Page Limitations, States: “… All pages count towards the maximum page limitation except the cover pages, tables of contents, tabs, dividers, blank pages, glossaries, list of table and drawings, acronym list, cross reference matrix, small business subcontracting plan, organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan, resumes and completed Major Subservice provider/Joint Venture Partner Consent Forms. …” RFP Section L, Table L.1, Proposal Organization, allots 30 pages to Technical Capability Subfactor 1, Management of Personnel, and 20 pages to Technical Capability Subfactor 2, Small Business Participation.

The page count for Section L Volume I Technical Capability volume has been clarified.

The only place within RFP Section L that identifies where to submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan within the offeror’s proposal, is within Volume IV, Contract Documentation. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan must include both proposed dollar values and percentages to be compliant with FAR 52.219-9, however RFP Section L.3.1.4 prohibits offerors from including any data relating to the proposed price within any volume with the exception of the Cost/Price volume. In addition, per Section M.1.2.a, the provision of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be a factor in determining the “acceptability” of technical volume, Subfactor 2, Small Business Participation.

A. Does the Government intend for offerors to submit their Small Business Subcontracting Plans within Volume IV, Contract Documentation, even though proposed pricing data is incorporated within the plan?

B. Is Volume IV the only location within the offeror’s proposal that the Government desires the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be submitted?

RFP Section L.2.5, Subfactor 2 – Small Business Participation Volume, paragraph (1), requires offerors to “… submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that complies with FAR 52.219-9, DFARS 252.219-7003 …”

RFP Section L.3.1.4, Cost/Price Information , states: “… All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price volume.

…” RFP

Section L.6.1.4, Section J – List of Attachments , (instructions for Volume IV, Contract Documentation), requires offerors to include their Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) in the model contract in Section J RFP Section M.1.2, Factors and Subfactors , paragraph Subfactor 2

– Small Business Participation , subparagraph a identifies that the offerors Small Business Participation Proposal is acceptable when the id d S ll B i

Yes, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted as part of Volume IV. Section L para

3.1.4 has been updated to "Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal excluding the Small Business Plan, which shall be submitted with Volume

IV."

: In table 2.5, the Government included a row titled “Other Small Business” and assigned a value of 14.5% to this row.

When all the socioeconomic categories in this table are added up, they equal 32.5%. Socioeconomic categories, however, are not additive – One company could meet the criteria for all four socioeconomic categories. We also understand that the Government’s Goals listed in Section L, Table 2.5 are percentages of Total Subcontracted Value, however, the Government desires the offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Participation Commitment to be translated and expressed in terms of Total Contract Value as well.

A. To resolve confusion, will the Government consider amending Section L Table 2.5 to delete the row titled “Other Small Business and it’s related “*” note?

B. Do we understand correctly that the Government Goals identified in Section L Table 2.5 are in relation to Total Planned Subcontracting Dollars per FAR 52.219-9, and offerors are also requested to express the dollar values associated with these percentages in terms of percent of Total Contract Value as well?

RFP Section L.2.5, Subfactor 2 – Small Business Participation Volume , paragraph (1), states:

“Table 2.5 below depicts the breakdown of the contract’s Small Business Subcontracting goals.

Small Business Subcontracting goals shall be expressed in terms of percent of total contract value in addition to percent of subcontracted amount in accordance with AFFARS 5319.704(a)(1).”

RFP Section L, Table 2.5, Small Business Subcontracting Goals Breakdown , identifies the Government’s Small Business and socioeconomic goals as: Total Small Business – 32.5%; SDB – 5%;

WOSB – 5%; SDVOSB – 5%;

HUBZone 3%; in relation to Total Planned Subcontracting Dollars.

This category will remain and is considered just small; no special group. Table 2.5 has been corrected to remove express dollar values.

RFP Section L.4.4.1 instructs offerors to send Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment L3) to the POCs for each cited contract. This paragraph, and Attachment L3 further instruct offerors to include language in the cover letter to request recipients of the questionnaires to return a copy of the completed questionnaire to the offeror for inclusion in their proposal submission, and forward a copy to the Government addressee listed on Attachment L3.

Requiring Government recipients to return completed questionnaires to the offerors for submission within their proposals is out of the ordinary. Normally offerors are only requested to provide a listing of the customer contract POCs for which questionnaires were sent to, within the submitted proposals. In addition, timely submission of completed questionnaires by the contract POCs is not within the control of the offeror.

Since customer response to offeror questionnaires is not within the offeror’s control, will the Government consider revising both RFP Section L.4.4.1 and Attachment L3 to remove the requirement for the contract POCs to return completed copies of the questionnaires to the offeror, and the requirement for offerors to include completed questionnaires within their proposal submittals?

RFP Section L.4.4.1, Questionnaire Submissions , states: “… ONE (1)

COPY OF THE COMPLETED

QUESTIONNAIRES SHALL BE

SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO

THE GOVERNMENT NOT

LATER THAN THE DATE

PROPOSALS ARE DUE AND

ONE (1) COPY WILL BE

SUBMITTED WITH YOUR

PROPOSAL. …” and “… Completed questionnaires that are submitted by the respondents and copies of the respondents provide with the offeror proposal shall not count against any page limitations established for this volume.

RFP Section L, Attachment L3, Past Performance Customer Questionnaire , states: “Please expedite this request provide one (1) copy to the offeror and email or mail your response to: …”

The requirement in Section L to have questionnaires submitted with the proposal will remain having the questionnaires submitted with the proposal gives offerors maximum opportunity to provide said Past Performance information.

The attachments identified in RFP Section L.2.4.2 (Attachments L7 and L8) were apparently not included with the Draft RFP. Section L only includes Attachments L1 through L4. In addition, the designations for these Section L attachments do not match the listing of attachments provided with Section L on page L-18.

A. When does the Government intend to provide offerors with the Government Estimated Staffing Matrices identified as Attachments L7 and L8 within RFP Section L.2.4.2?

B. Will the Government consider revising RFP Section L so that the References to the Section L Attachments within RFP Section L.2.4.2 coincide with the Attachment listing on page L-18?

RFP Section L.2.4, Subfactor 1:

Management of Personnel , Paragraph 2, states: “Labor Category Skill Mix Attachment L7 (Cost Format D) includes a “Government Estimated Staffing Matrix” that includes labor categories and number of hours historically needed in performance of the PWS. Labor Category Skill Mix Attachment L8 (Cost Format D) includes a “Government Estimated Staffing Matrix” that includes labor categories needed in performance of the PWS for the optional airframe.

RFP Section L, Section L Attachments , page L-18, lists the following Section L Attachments:

1. Subservice provider/Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture Partner Consent Letter for the Release of Past Performance Information to the Prime Service Provider

2. Past Performance Information

3. Past Performance Customer Questionnaire

4. Cross Reference Matrix

5. Cost Formats A through C 6 C t F t D B d O ti

Provided on 7 Nov 19. Section L has been updated to correct attachment references.

PWS 1.2.1.3 only identifies only minimal additional backshop support in the areas of sheet metal and fuels shop for adding C-130 aircraft. PWS Appendix A, only shows historical backshop usage for C-130 aircraft in the Battery shop, NDI, and Corrosion shops.

A. Do we understand correctly, based on PWS 1.2.1.3 and Appendix A Workload data, that backshop support on this contract for the C-130 aircraft is limited to Battery shop, NDI, Corrosion shop, fuels shop, and Wash Rack?

B. If not, will the Government please identify the expected level of backshop support for C-130 aircraft?

C. Do we assume correctly that the workload required to support C-130 Washes is not included within PWS Appendix A?

PWS 1.2.1.3, C-130, states : “There is a possibility of a single C-130 which would require minimal support.

-- Much like the current support provided now via our in place support agreements the following shops would have minimal workload increase requirement; sheet metal and possibly fuels shop.”

PWS Appendix A, Workload Data , provides historical workload data based on the average annual workload experienced during 2017- 2019.

PWS C-130 Washrack Addendum, and LOA between the 96 OG and the 96 MXG, identifies the requirement for the contract provider to accomplish 10 C-130 washes and 10 fresh water rinses per month.

Discussion: PWS 1.2.1.3 only identifies only minimal additional backshop support in the areas of sheet metal and fuels shop for adding C-130 aircraft. PWS Appendix A, only shows historical backshop usage for C-130 aircraft in the B tt h NDI d C i

Answer to A - The items in Appendix A are NOT related in any way to the C-130 washes. C-130 wash action data will be included in Appendix F of the large aircraft wash addendum.

Answer to B. The Government does not have any additional information to provide beyond the historical information provided under Attachment L6.

Answer to C. Your assumption is correct.

Our review of PWS Appendix A, revealed that the provided workload data only specifically identifies AATC F-15 aircraft workload pertaining to Temporary Duty (TDY) locations on page A-63. The F-15 Addendum identifies the tasks that are “in addition” to the basic PWS requirements.

Do we assume correctly that the estimated workload in support of the four (4) AATC F-15 aircraft is not included within the Appendix A workload data provided?

PWS Appendix A, Workload Data , provides historical workload data based on the average annual workload experienced during 2017- 2019.

PWS F-15 Aircraft Maintenance Addendum, identifies the requirement for the services provider to perform both flight line and backshop support for 4 Air National Guard Air Force Reserve Command Test Center (AATC) F-15 aircraft.

The estimated workload in support of the four (4) AATC F-15 aircraft is not included within the Appendix A workload.

PWS Paragraph 1.1 identifies the scope of this contract effort is to provide backshop maintenance in support of the 96th Test Wing, however Appendix A, paragraph 1.1 identifies the numbers of aircraft (F-15, F-16, and UH-1N) aircraft assigned to both the 96th Test Wing and 53rd Wing.

A. Does the scope of work for this contract effort include performing Backshop maintenance for aircraft assigned to both the 96th Test Wing and 53rd Wing, as identified in Appendix A, paragraph 1.1, Aircraft Data 2019?

B. Does Appendix A, Workload Data, include the average annual backshop workload for the combined fleets of 96th Test Wing and 53rd Wing aircraft?

PWS Paragraph 1.1, Required Services , states: “…The service provider shall provide backshop maintenance, assist with Temporary 2 (T-2) Modifications, and support tasks and functions specified within this Performance Work Statement (PWS) for the 96th Test Wing (96

TW).”

PWS Appendix A, Workload data , paragraph 1.1, Aircraft Data 2019 , identifies aircraft assigned to both the 96th Test Wing and 53rd Wing.

Answer to A - Yes, effort includes aircraft assigned to both the 96th Test Wing and 53rd Wing Answer to B - Yes, Appendix A includes the average annual backshop workload for the combined fleets of 96th Test Wing and 53rd Wing aircraft

A timeframe for receipt and set-up of JEIM equipment currently on order to enable the contract provider begin accomplishing full JEIM capability of F100-PW-229 engines is not provided within the solicitation documents.

Since the timeframe for the receipt and set-up of JEIM equipment required for the contractor to assume full JEIM capability on F100-PW-229 engines is not currently available, do we rightly assume that this additional work will be negotiated post-award, as the equipment is made available and operational?

PWS Paragraph 5.12, F11-PW-229 Maintenance , states: “ The service provider shall perform limited JEIM on F100- PW-229 engines, to include -6 requirements, borescope inspections, repair, prescribed modification, LRUs repair/replacement, TCTO, work folders, and TCI requirements.

PWS Paragraph 5.12, F11-PW-229 Maintenance . The note immediately following this paragraph states: “ NOTE: A complete set of JEIM equipment is on order to facilitate full JEIM capability for F100-PW- 229 engines; once all tools have arrived and validate by CMO, service provider shall accomplish full JEIM operations.

Additional work that is determined to be in-scope will be negotiated post-award.

The C-130 Washrack Addendum, paragraphs 5.50.1 through

5.51.1 do not coincide with the associated paragraph numbers of the Basic PWS (5.46 and 5.47).

C-130 Washrack Addendum, paragraphs 5.50.1, Aircraft Wash , through 5.51.1, Aircraft Wash Schedule PWS 5.46, Aircraft Wash , and 5.47, Aircraft Wash Schedule .

C-130 Washrack Addendum updated

The Government established the production standard of greater or equal to 12 hours to accomplish a C-130 wash, to include post-wash inspection and required lubrication. The normal hours of operation established under this Addendum is an 8-hour shift (0700 – 1600), and will not accommodate completion of the C-130 wash within a single shift. Either normal duty hours would need to be extended to a second shift, or accomplishment of a C-130 wash. In addition, in order to accommodate the required number of monthly washes (10) and fresh water rinses (10), an average of 2.5 washes and 2.5 rinses must be accomplished each week. If washes/ rinses are limited to not exceeding one aircraft per day, there is not enough time in a week, with an 8-hour normal duty day to accomplish the required number of weekly washes on a single washrack.

A. Based on the length of time allotted to accomplish a C-130 Wash 12 hours) and the specified 8-hour normal duty day, is it the Government’s intention that C-130 washes will be scheduled for 1.5 days on the washrack to accomplish required wash, inspection, and lube?

B. If C-130 washes must be completed within a single day, does the Government intend offerors to expand the normal duty day of 8-hours to accommodate the stated length of the wash process?

C. Based on the required C-130 washrack throughput, and the projected F-15/F-16/F-35/UN-1 washrack throughput, are there sufficient washrack facilities to accommodate both the C-130 and Fighter/Helo scheduled washes simultaneously (e.g., multiple washracks)?

C-130 Washrack Addendum, paragraph 5.50.1.1 identifies C-130 wash times as 12 hours and C-130 fresh water rinses as 4 hours.

C-130 Washrack Addendum, paragraph 4.2, Normal Hours of Operatio n, establishes the normal duty hours under this Addendum as 0700 to 1600 (an 8-hour shift) C-130 Washrack Addendum, paragraph 5.51.1, Aircraft Wash Schedule , states: “All C-130 wash/rinses will not exceed one aircraft per day.

C-130 Washrack Addendum, paragraph 1.1.1, Required Services , states: “The service provider shall provide 10 (ten) C-130 washes and 10 (ten) fresh water rinse services per month as required by aircraft technical order (TO). …”

The fighter aircraft and large aircraft have separate wash pads (Large aircraft wash pad facility designation is #67001, measures 168.65’ x 144.64’, totaling 24,394 sq. ft. The fighter wash pad facility designation is Bldg. #87, measures 91.35’ x 90’, totaling 8,222 sq. ft.) which will be added to the Large Aircraft Addendum appendix B and we'll identify on a clearer version of the base map (Main Backshop Appendix B) Please see attached graphic for less than or equal to symbology contained in PWS. Legal Response: "Questions A&B (labor Hours) are not answered ?"

The C-130 Washrack Addendum adds two paragraphs to address Daily FOD Walks (19.7) and Monthly Aircraft Washes Report (19.8). The basic PWS paragraph this addendum is supplementing, however, already has a paragraph 19.7, which is totally unrelated to the added guidance.

Will the Government consider revising the C-130 Washrack Addendum to change the paragraph numbers of current paragraphs 19.7 and 19.8 to paragraphs 19.8 and 19.9, to de-conflict the paragraph numbers with the basic PWS?

C-130 Washrack Addendum, added paragraphs 19.7 (Daily FOD Walks ) and 19.8 (Monthly aircraft washes report ), PWS Paragraph 19.7, Small Business Subcontracting Program

C-130 Washrack Addendum updated

Although a C-130 Washrack Office is identified, this reference does not identify either an indoor washrack or approved outside wash pad facility for use by the Contractor to accomplish the required C-130 wash load.

Will the Government consider amending the C-130 Washrack Addendum, Appendix B, Government Provided Facilities, to include the washrack/wash pad area provided to accomplish C-130 washes?

C-130 Washrack Addendum, Appendix B: Government Provided Facilities , identifies a 600 square foot C- 130 Wash Rack Office (bldg.

88)

Large aircraft are washed on an approved outdoor pad facility designation is #67001, measures 168.65’ x 144.64’, totaling 24,394 sq. ft. which we'll identify on a clearer version of the base map (Appendix B)

The hours allocated to Aircraft Quality Control Inspector are disproportionate to the hours allocated to aircraft maintenance labor categories. For example, the Aircraft Quality Control Inspector hours are 45,233 which is 28% of total hours in CLIN 0101. Similarly, the Aircraft Quality Control Inspector hours are 37,403 which is 44% of total hours in CLIN 0209. Finally, the Aircraft Quality Control Inspector hours are 3,797 which is 33% of total hours in CLIN 0317. The Performance Work Statement does not include language that supports such a robust Aircraft Quality Control Inspector complement. Legal Response:

Hours differ but all named the same. Which is true?

Will the government please provide a basis of estimate for the labor hours provided in attachment L7 to give offerors better insight into the requirements of this opportunity (in particular the government’s intended use of Aircraft Quality Control Inspectors), or will the government confirm the hours estimated in attachment L7 are correct and representative of current or expected operations?

• RFP Section L.2.4, Subfactor 1:

Management of Personnel, Paragraph 2, states: “Labor Category Skill Mix Attachment L7 (Cost Format D) includes a “Government Estimated Staffing Matrix” that includes labor categories and number of hours historically needed in performance of the PWS.

• RFP Section L, Attachment L7 Cost Format D (All Tabs)

• Performance Work Statement

Government confirm the hours estimated in Attachment L6 are correct and representative of current operations. Legal Response see column A

Section L.2.5, Subfactor 2 – Small Business Participation Volume, paragraph (2)c requires dollar value information while Section L.3.1.4, Cost/Price Information, prevents dollar value/price information from being submitted in any volume but the Cost/Price volume.

A. Does the Government intend for offerors to submit percentage and dollar value of the total contract in Volume I, Technical Capability, Subfactor 2, Small Business Participation .

RFP Section L.2.5, Subfactor 2 – Small Business Participation Volume , paragraph (2)c., states “c.

The extent of participation of small businesses in terms of percentage and dollar value of the total contract.”

RFP Section L.3.1.4, Cost/Price Information , states: “… All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price volume.

The Section L Small Business Participation submitted in Volume I will not include dollars, only percentage and the written narrative/rationale as discussed in Section L para 2.5. The formal plan should be submitted with the model contract. Section L has been updated to clarify.

The Government established the production standard of greater or equal to 12 hours to accomplish a C-130 wash which extends past an 8-hour shift.

Are the hours provided (≤ 12 hours and ≤ 4 hours) man hours? C-130 Washrack Addendum, paragraph 5.50.1.1 identifies C-130 wash times as greater or equal to12 hours and C-130 fresh water rinses as greater or equal to 4 hours.

N/A Please clarify, does the Government intend Table L2 to read “Table 2.5”. RFP Section L.2.5, Table 2.5 Small Business Subcontracting Goals Breakdown RFP Page M-3, Section M.1.2, Subfactor 2 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION , subparagraph b: “… Proposes percentages in Small Business Subcontracting Plan to meet or exceed goals listed in Table L2. …”

Table reference clarified.

In table 2.5, the Government included a row titled “Other Small Business” and assigned a value of 14.5%.

A. Can clarification be provided if the “Other Small Business” category is for veteran owned small business (VOSB)?

RFP Section L, Table 2.5, Small Business Subcontracting Goals Breakdown , identifies the Government’s Small Business and socioeconomic goals as Total Small Business – 32.5%; SDB – 5%;

WOSB – 5%; SDVOSB – 5%;

HUBZone 3%; and Other Small Business – 14.5% in relation to Total Planned Subcontracting Dollars.

Other Small Business are defined as just small business; no special group.

Legal Response: Question not answered

Several Appendix A performance work statement references (PWS REF) do not correlate to the provided PWS paragraph. For example, Appendix A PWS REF 5.35 is used for multiple tasks related to external fuel tanks, however, PWS 5.35 refers to Pneudraulic Shop. Similarly, Appendix A PWS REF 5.33 is used for tasks related to Hydrazine Servicing, but PWS 5.33 refers to Confined Space Training. In another case, Appendix A PWS REF

5.46 is used for tasks related to non-destructive inspection (NDI), but PWS 5.46 refers to Aircraft Wash. Many similar discrepancies exist between the provided workload data and the PWS.

Will the government please correct Appendix A to correct the PWS REF column? • PWS Appendix A, Workload Data, Paragraph 1.2 Workload Estimates

• Performance Work Statement (Multiple Paragraphs)

Appendix A data has been adjusted to show only historical averages.

It is unclear how the hours provided in Attachment L7 relate to the tasks listed in Appendix A, paragraph

1.2. Only the incumbent knows whether or not the provided

workload data and labor hours are accurate. Given offerors will be evaluated based first on price, then on technical acceptability, the incumbent is in a strong position to underrun the government labor estimates. If the government were to provide task labor hours to Appendix A, offerors would be better positioned to propose the optimal number of personnel needed to accomplish the provided workload.

Do the hours provided in RFP Attachment L7 (Cost Format D) relate to tasks listed in PWS Appendix A? If not, what is the source of those labor hours? If so, will the government add a column to the imbedded workload table to add the historical or government-estimated labor hours for each task?

• PWS Appendix A, Workload Data, Paragraph 1.2 Workload Estimates (imbedded table)

• RFP Attachment L7 (Cost Format D) (all tabs)

• Performance Work Statement

We have provided the level of detail for historic hours and task workload data with as much detail as we can provide without supplying proprietary staffing information. This is same level of detail provided during all of our (96 MXG) services based contracts.

We don’t have enough information to be able to assess the mobile fall protection risks vs common overhead fall protection for outdoor wash operations. Mobile Fall Protection for a large aircraft wash environment provides flexibility to where a wash could occur based on the local environmental requirements/regulations. These types of stands or mobile overhead units are costly on initial purchase but can be easily maintained and serviced for long periods of time. A lot of times manufacturers of these types of equipment provide a warranty and initial service agreements that can take care of the first required inspections. Vertex Aerospace has used this type of equipment at Luke AFB AZ in the past and had good success with it. The only drawback is the local environmental requirements in how the wash water is to be treated.

Common Overhead Fall Protection is the overall best choice when local environmental regulations are specific as to where this task needs to be accomplished. The engineering cost to find the anchor points is generally cheaper than mobile equipment and provides a longer term solution that is viable for multiple aircraft platforms. The cost of the lanyards and SRL’s are the same as the mobile unit choice.

If…