Question and Answer-29 OCT 2021.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

No. Doc Ref/Para Question / Comment Answer

FA2860-21-R-0013

Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 Instructions to

Offerors—Commercial Items

(Proposal Requirements)

Section II, A, page 1 and

Section II, A, 3.

II.A General: Proposals shall be submitted to the government in 3 separate volumes as set forth below:

Vol I No page limit Completed RFP Vol II 30 page limit Written Technical Proposal Vol III No page limit Past Performance Vol IV No page limit Price Proposal Section II, A, 3 states: The page limitation for Volume I, Written Technical Proposal is 30 pages (Page limitation does not apply to Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan under Subfactor Three). The page limitation for Volume II, Past Performance, is 30 pages.

Will the customer please clarify the specific number of volumes, titles and page count limitations?

Section II.A: Page limits for Volume III Past Performance changed from "N/A" to "30".

Section II.A.3: Added page limitation does not apply to "the Small Business Subcontracting Plan under Subfactor Four".

FA2860-21-R-0013

Attachment _1_-_PWS 1.5.1

The last paragraph of PWS Section 1.5.1 describes a mobile device application. Given that this will require constant connection to our servers to provide relevant data, does an iOS Home Screen Web App meet this requirement? If not, to adequately price a mobile application will require more detailed requirements and details on what is required of contractors in gaining AMC approval. Yes, an iOS Web App would meet this requirement.

FA2860-21-R-0013

Attachment _1_-_PWS 1.5.1.3

The eighth bullet under PWS section 1.5.1.3 describes requirements for analysis of performance capability to be completed during the planning phase of a mission. In a typical Part 121 environment, this type of information would be provided during the execution phase of a flight. Additionally, the current verbiage will drive dramatically increased labor cost as analyzing All Engine Operating data for all runways and departures and can be very burdensome. For example, KDEN has no less than 10 runways and 20 departure procedures with multiple transitions all of which would have to be analyzed in the planning phase individually. This is greater than 200 individual scenarios just for one airport. Depending on the mission this could result in thousands of scenarios requiring individual analysis in a normal mission. Request the government reconsider this requirement in the planning phase as the current data that is provided allows for an understanding of aircraft capability for planning purposes without driving cost that may not yield more useful understanding. See updated verbiage in attached PWS (highlighted in yellow). Removed "for each RWY".

FA2860-21-R-0013

Attachment _1_-_PWS 1.5.1.3

The last three bullets of PWS section 1.5.1.3 are not able to be included in a Mission Planning Package. If the requirement is misunderstood, please provide clarification. Deleted. See PWS Update

FA2860-21-R-0013

Attachment _1_-_PWS 1.5.1.6

The sub-bullet under the fourth bullet of PWS section 1.5.1.6 describes ensuring performance compliance. The current verbiage will drive increased labor and costs. If in the TLR, the contractor ensures compliance with the AEO climb gradient for the planned runway and departure procedure, will this meet the requirement? The ACARS based takeoff data will allow aircrew to gain real time data for the runway and procedures they will actually fly. Changed PWS to reflect "the planned and actual runway", rather than "for each runway".

FA2860-21-R-0013

Attachment _1_-_PWS 1.5.1.6

The second to last paragraph of 1.5.1.6 describes the ACARS based performance and weight/balance requirements. We recommend removing the references to “TLR” in this paragraph as ACARS based data is either takeoff or landing data and not both as in a TLR. TLR reference has been removed, FA2860-21-R-0013

Attachment _1_-_PWS 1.5.1.6

The last paragraph of PWS section 1.5.1.6 describes a requirement where the contractor or user may override the AEO/OEI climb gradients. Removal of this paragraph is required as it is not in accordance with Part 121 standards due to the safety issues associated with this capability. Removed. See PWS Update

FA2860-21-R-0013

Attachment _1_-_PWS 1.5.3.3

The fourth bullet under PWS section 1.5.3.3 describes OPT AEO Climb Gradient data being including in the “Takeoff-Dispatch Tab”. This data is available in the “TKO All Engine” tab of OPT on iPad. Is this acceptable? If not, this will require a rewrite of OPT and will drive significant cost and time to incorporate. Deleted. See PWS Update

FA2860-21-R-0013

Attachment _1_-_PWS 1.5.3.3

Bullets six and seven of PWS section 1.5.3.3 are able to be accomplished by manual adjustment by the aircrew in OPT. Currently, OPT does not automatically optimize for the configuration and vertical profile hierarchy or thrust rating as listed. Given that OPT is a backup for the primary means of gaining performance data, does the government require pricing to modify OPT or is it acceptable in its current form? Pricing can be provided but the timeline for implementation is not currently known. Deleted. See PWS Update

FA2860-21-R-0013

Attachment _1_-_PWS 1.5.4.3

The PWS section 1.5.4.3 requires validation of all RNP AR procedures in all three platforms’ navigation databases. The current solution for RNP AR NDB validation provided was developed in close collaboration with the USAF and pushes the FMC/NDB Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) to their respective maximum rates. We have pressed the OEMs diligently to complete as described in the PWS but are currently providing at the max supplier rate and they are unable to increase at this time. We will continue efforts to urge suppliers to increase rates throughout the contract. Understood, no issues here.

FA2860-21-R-0013

Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 Instructions to

Offerors—Commercial Items

(Proposal Requirements)

Subfactor Four of Secton II.C.2

The Instructions state that the Small Business Subconracting Plan will be included as a part of the Technical Volume proposal submittal. In order to appropriately address the PWS and provide a comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan, we recommend excluding the Small Business Subcontracting Plan from the 30-page count Technical Volume limit and either move it to the Price Proposal or include as an addendum. Will the customer please provide guidance?

Section II.A.3: Added page limitation does not apply to "the Small Business Subcontracting Plan under Subfactor Four".

Executive Airlift Flight Dispatch Solicitation FA286021R0013 Question and Answer

EAFD Question and Answer