Questions from Interested Parties 1 31 Jul 2009.docx
DOCX document 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Helicopter Maintenance and Support Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2517-08-R-8001
About this file
Questions from Industry 1
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Helicopter Maintenance and Support Services has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Helicopter Maintenance Questions from Interested Parties #1
Questions from Interested Parties #1 (Cont’d)
| No. |
| Question (Q) /Answer (A) |
| 1 |
| Q: Will the Government be responsible for any ITAR issues, or export license requirements relating to the Helicopter Maintenance for AFSC in Japan? |
A: If there is an ITAR issue or export license requirement, the Government will be responsible for it. However, we do not believe that these issues are applicable to the proposed contract.
| 2 |
| Q: Will all of the aircraft jacket files (or copies from Minot, Malmstrom and Yokota) for all four operating locations be available for review at the F.E. Warren AFB library? |
A: No, aircraft jacket files will not be available for viewing at FE Warren AFB library.
| 3 |
| Q: Does the USAF supply system plan on continuing support for the UH-1N helicopters through the conversion to the new CVLSP or other replacement platform? |
A: The Government intends on continuing support through the USAF supply system for the UH-1N helicopters throughout the duration of the proposed contract.
| 4 |
| Q: Has the Government established a supply agreement with commercial suppliers to continue providing UH-1N unique parts for the projected extended operational life of the platform? |
A: The Government intends on continuing to provide UH-1N unique parts for the duration of this contract. Parts issues will be handled through the SPO at Warner Robins AFB on a case by case basis.
| 5 |
| Q: Considering the number of internal reviews and approval processes required to issue an RFP, is it likely that the final solicitation will be delayed an additional month or more? |
A: The RFP was posted 28 Jul 09.
| 6 |
| Q: Has the Government imitated an extension of the incumbent's contract to cover the anticipated delay in awarding a new contract? |
A: The Government has extended the current contract.
| 7 |
| Q: Does the Air Force supply system have sufficient parts for the UH-1N on hand or available through viable suppliers to support the projected flying activity at F.E. Warren, Minot, Malmstrom and Yokota? |
A: Yes, all parts that cannot be procured through the supply system will be obtained through the SPO at Warner Robins AFB.
| 8 |
| Q: What is the nominal lead time through Air Force supply to receive parts and repair items after requisitions are placed? |
A: Varies depending on the part.
| 9 |
| Q: There is a discrepancy between L-5, A.2.a. and b. and the Pre-Proposal Conference Letter (both issued on 14July09 through FBO) regarding the information required for each person to request attendance at the Site Visit on 28 July 09; L-5 requires Secret Clearance and validation of that information while the Letter does not. Would you please clarify? |
A: A secret clearance is not required for the site visit. The RFP has been corrected.
| 10 |
| Q: What does the AF consider reasonable project duration to give full credit or a substantial confidence rating to a past performance citation? |
A: Relevancy of work in terms of the effort, or work performed is evaluated, not the duration of effort. Relevancy contemplates present or past performance of a similar magnitude of effort and complexity of effort.
| 11 |
| Q: Would short project duration (contracts awarded in 2009) negatively affect an overall confidence assessment rating for past performance? |
A: A short project duration would not necessarily negatively affect an overall confidence assessment. As stated in the answer above, relevancy of work in terms of the effort, or work performed is evaluated, not the duration of effort. Relevancy contemplates past or present performance of a similar magnitude of effort and complexity of effort. The PCAG will access the Past Performance Confidence Rating based upon the past and present performance information submitted by the Offeror and any additional information obtained by the Government. The overall confidence assessment is based upon the recency, relevancy and quality evaluation of all information reviewed.
| 12 |
| Q: Neither Section L nor M provides clear guidance as to how the government will assess past performance to determine an overall substantial confidence assessment. We are directed to provide up to 10 citations that meet the recency and relevancy criteria as stated; however, if one firm provides only 1 citation, another provides 5, and another provides 10 - how will this variability of total collected data be leveled to determine an equitable overall confidence assessment rating?? |
A: The PCAG will assess the Past Performance Confidence Rating based upon the past and present performance information submitted by the Offeror, and any additional information obtained by the Government. The overall confidence assessment is based upon the recency, relevancy and quality evaluation of all information reviewed. The number of citations is not important, it’s the integrated assessment of all your past performance.
| 13 |
| Q: We have reviewed the reference material provided in Appendix 6 of the Draft Helo Mx PWS and note that documents are not available in an electronic format available for download. While a small number of these technical orders are available through the Air Force e-publishing website, approximately 6 pages of TOs are not. Will the Appendix 6 - Technical Orders (7 pages worth) held in the Technical Library be made available electronically for copying to a CD or series of CDs? Will we be required to make paper copies during the Site Visit? Or will the government provide these TOs to attendees at the Site Visit on 28July09? |
A: No, technical orders are available for viewing only through the technical library at F.E. Warren AFB. The Government will not provide copies during the Site Visit. All appointments to view the technical library will be held after the Site Visit. Only attendees that have completed the procedures in the letter entitled “Access to Technical Library” posted to FBO on 06 Jul 2009 will be permitted access.
| 14 |
| Q: Will the following Appendix 7 documents be made available electronically in the Technical Library during the Site Visit on 28July09? AFCSM System 21-500 Core Automated Maintenance Series (secure site requires PIN) 374 SFS Plans 31-101 Yokota Air Base Physical Security Program (restricted AFI)) USFJI 10-200 Off-Base US Military Aircraft Accidents in Japan (https://www.usfj.mil/mil requires certificate for access) USFJI 64-102 US Official Contractors and their Employees (https://www.usfj.mil/mil requires certificate for access) USFJI 36-2611 Changes of Status by Person in Japan to One of the Categories Authorized by the SOFA |
(https://www.usfj.mil/mil requires certificate for access) A: No documents will be available during the Site Visit. As stated above, all appointments to view the technical library will be held after the Site Visit. Only attendees that have completed the procedures in the letter entitled “Access to Technical Library” posted to FBO on 06 Jul 2009 will be permitted access. The documents referenced in the question will be available for viewing at the technical library.
Note: The information shown above is based on the latest information available as of 30 Jul 2009 and is subject to change. If a change is made to the RFP, an amendment will be issued.
FA2517-08-R-8001
31 Jul 2009 1
FA2517-08-R-8001
31 Jul 2009 2
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .