Q A

Questions & Answers Columbus Aircraft Maintenance

FA3002-11-R-0007

Reference

PWS

Reference Additional/ Cross Reference

Cost/Price Model states, "Additionally, the Offeror shall complete the worksheet included in the Cost/Price Model to provide information on labor hours, labor dollars (burdened and unburdened), vehicles, and other direct costs for each FFP CLIN for each performance period."

Does the Government expect burdened labor to include indirects (Overhead, Profit, etc)?

Burdened labor dollars should include expenses directly related to employee compensation (e.g., payroll taxes, worker's compensation, health and welfare); it should not include ODCs, overhead, G&A, profit, etc.

Proposal Preparation Instructions

Is the entire past performance volume due on the due date, 18 Jan 2012?

Yes. The Government will send Past Performance Questionnaires (Atch 11) to the POCs you identify on the Information Sheets (Atch 12). It is imperative you ensure the POC’s are accurate and are still available to receive and answer the questionnaires. Please avoid identifying POCs that are no longer available.

Draft PWS 2.1.29.19

CLINs X002 through X006 have "stepladder pricing" for fluctuations in the FHP; however, CLIN 8 (Propulsion Shop including Test Cell) does not. We believe that the workload for Propulsion also varies with the FHP.

Will "stepladder pricing" also be applied to Propulsion Shop and Test Cell workload and pricing?

CLIN X008 is marked “Reserved” and Propulsion Shop & Test Cell will be incorporated into T-38 Aircraft workload CLINs X004 and X005. The need for a separate Propulsion Shop & Test Cell workload no longer exists. The updated Schedule B and Cost/Price Model with the RFP Amendment 003.

The RFP indicates that typing shall be single spaced, 12 pitch, Times New Roman font. Smaller font size may be used in tables, drawings, charts, graphs, and diagrams, but shall not be less than 8 pitch, Times New Roman.

Does the Government intend for the font size to be 12 point, Times New Roman and not less than 8 point, Times New Roman for tables, drawings, charts, graphs, and diagrams?

According to the definitions, the font size denotes the width and height of the font which is expressed in “points” and pitch refers to the number of characters printed per inch which defines the amount of space between each character. In the RFP, the “font size” and “pitch” were used interchangeably. Yes, the Government intended for the font size to be 12 point and not less than 8 point for tables, drawings, charts, graphs and diagrams.

Draft RFP requires the offeror to: effectively address risk considered to have an adverse impact to schedule and performance relating to each sub-factor. The proposal shall effectively identify risks mitigating strategies in a detailed plan to eliminate or reduce the risk.

Our detailed corporate risk program and corresponding detailed risk plan is comprehensive in nature and precludes incorporation as a result of the page limitations in the proposal. Will the Government consider allowing offeror's to incorporate their risk plans as an attachment to the proposal and exclude it from the page count? Or provide further clarification on the definition of a detailed plan?

Risk mitigation sub-element for each technical sub-factor should be tailored to addressing how the offeror plans to reduce the risk in terms of cost, schedule and performance for that particular sub-factor under this specific contract.

Submitting a corporate level risk plan is neither necessary nor desired and if submitted, it will be included in the total page count.

The base period of the contract is 11 months in duration, however, the associated CLINs do not represent 11/12ths of the flying hour program provided for the option year CLINs. Particularly, the T-38C IFF flying hour program remains consistent across all periods. This could skew the manpower requirements for the base period as the operational tempo will be much higher than the average for the remaining years.

Is it the Government’s intent to fly the additional sorties required to complete those hours during the base period?

The Government revised PWS to reflect FY13 actual flying hours for 11 month period.

The draft RFP indicates that work directed to be performed on the weekend will be cost reimbursable only "No overhead, G&A or profit will be paid"

Request the Government provide additional clarification, and basis for non entitlement for overhead, G&A or profit under the proposed fixed price contract?

The final RFP B-4.a.2 states, “Cost reimbursable basis only – reimbursement will be for actual costs incurred including those specific elements of burden incurred by hours worked specifically related to this CLIN. The Government will not pay elements of burden that were not realized as a result of work specifically required by this CLIN, i.e. vacation, holiday, sick/personal leave, etc. No profit will be paid”.

Format for Past Performance Volume lists Section 1.2 twice: 1.2 Summary Page and 1.2 Past Performance Information Sheets.

Suggest the Government re-format the Past Performance Volume section numbering to avoid confusion between sections as follows: 1 Table of Contents, 1.1 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms, 1.2 Summary Page, 1.3 Past Performance Information Sheets, 1.4 Subcontractor Letters of Consent & Client Authorization Letters, 1.5 Organization Change Structure History, 1.6 Past and Present Performance Questionnaire

The duplicated numbers are corrected and Volume 3 portion of the Proposal Organization Chart is re-numbered as suggested.

Draft RFP does not include FAR clause 52.249-14 Excusable delays.

Given the performance requirements associated with this Firm Fixed Price contract, will the Government consider adding FAR clause 52.249-14 - Excusable Delays to the contract?

FAR Clause 52.249-14, Excusable Delay s will not be included. It is not normally used in Firm-Fixed-Price contracts. It is commonly used in solicitations/contracts for supplies, services, construction and R&D on a fee basis whenever a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated. Also it is a required clause in Time-and-Material and Labor-hour contracts. FAR Clause 52.249-14 will not be added to this RFP.

Attachment 4 did not contain a list of job descriptions for each of the CBA positions. To properly staff the workforce with the proper classification, we must first review the job description to ensure the CBA is not violated. For example; we may bid aircraft worker positions for second shift on the flight line and task them to perform BPO inspections that they are trained and qualified to perform, if the task isn't included in the job description we would be in conflict with the CBA.

Will the Government provide a copy of job descriptions for each of the CBA job classifications at Columbus, including aircraft maintenance, transient alert, and aerospace ground equipment maintenance?

Yes, the Government will provide a copy of all job descriptions and will be included with the CBA in Attachment 4 & 5.

Attachment 6

CLINs in Attachment 6 have not been updated in the final RFP (e.g., Mobilization is listed as CLIN 12).

Will this attachment be updated to match the Section B in the final RFP?

Attachment 6, Cost/Price Model has been corrected and updated. The new Attachment 6 will be posted on FBO with the RFP Amendment 003.

DRFP states: Offeror shall provide a narrative describing how your organization has historically (last 3 years) promoted the usage of small business concerns as subcontractors and if proposed goals were met (see table 3) as referenced in DFARS 215.304.

Since the Past Performance Volume requires five years of performance information, does the Government require five vs. three years of historically promoting Small Business Concerns? If so, Table 3 needs to be changed to reflect the addition of years 2007 and 2006.

This question is no longer applicable since the SB Participation portion of the Volume IV was deleted in its entirety and re-structured before the final RFP was released.

Every P.o.P. in Attachment 6 is listed as "1 Nov 12 - 30 Sep 13"

Will the period of performance in each tab be corrected?

Attachment 6, Cost/Price Model has been corrected and updated. The new Attachment 6 will be posted on FBO with the RFP Amendment 003.

The Government has changed the definition of "recency" for past performance exhibits from 3 years in the DRFP to 5 years in the RFP. We reviewed every AETC CONS Aircraft Maintenance RFP, starting with Columbus Aircraft Maintenance in 2004, and we noted that all these solicitations defined "recency" as having been performed within 3 years of the date of the solicitation. Specifically: (1) Columbus AFB FA3002-04-R-0044 Section L: "The Government defines recency as any contract having been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation;" (2) Vance AFB FA3002-06-R-0003-0002 Section L: "Each relevant contract shall meet the Government's definition of recency. The Government defines recency as any contract having been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation;" (3) Sheppard AFB FA3002-08-R-0020-0002 Section L: "Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation;" (4) NAS Pensacola FA3002-09-R-0044 Section L: "Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation;" (5)Sheppard AFB Trainer Maintenance FA3002-09-R-0040 Section L: "Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation and have a minimum of 3 months' performance as the RFP issue date." This means that for at least the past 7 years, all offerors competing for AETC aircraft or trainer maintenance contracts have been required to submit past performance exhibits within this restriction, which makes perfect sense to us given the changes in a company's management and operational capabilities that routinely occur when more than 3 years have elapsed since a relevant contract was performed. When the initial DRFP for solicitation FA3002-11-R-0007 was posted, it had the three-year recency requirement. We do not understand the rationale for changing it to five years.

1. Will the Government please provide the rationale for increasing the past performance recency window for this solicitation to five years after at least a seven-year precedent for three years defining recency?

2. Does the Government intend to consider and evaluate all past performance falling within the five-year past performance recency window as being equally current, regardless of when the past performance actually occurred?

3. Was this change to the solicitation requirements made in response to a request or formal question from one of the potential offerors after release of the Draft RFP?

1. The Government determined that expanding the recency window would likely result in increased competition.

2. Yes, the Government will consider and equally evaluate all past performances that fall within the recency window defined in the RFP.

3. The change in recency was a unilateral decision of the Government based on the magnitude and duration of aircraft maintenance contracts awarded within AETC.

Appendix 3BB.7

Items 22., 23., and 24 relate to workload associated with accomplishment of the ESUP Modification (Martin-Baker egress system) beginning in FY15.

In order to address this requirement in our staffing approach, will the Government provide further detail relating to the schedule of when this modification (number of aircraft in work, time required to complete each aircraft) will be accomplished on the fleet of 78 aircraft?

Appendix 3BB, Table 3BB.7., Item 22, shows current Munitions workload prior to ESUP Modification. Item 23 shows additional Munitions workload data after ESUP Modification. Please reference Appendix 3BB, Table 3BB.15 for increase munitions workload after ESUP modification. The ESUP modification will be accomplish by Martin-Baker (OEM), not the winning offeror for this new contract. Item 24 shows the added man-hours that Egress personnel will have to perform after the ESUP Mod. These man-hours are in addition to present Egress man-hours listed in Table 3BB.3. Additionally, T-38C fleet size has been adjusted to 77 aircraft. See Attachment 3BA Table 3BA.4. Amendment 002.

PWS

Appendix 3BB.7

Item 26 relates to workload associated with the accomplishment of an ACI in conjunction with phase-inspection.

Will the Government provide further clarification relating to the applicable MDS?

Analytical Condition Inspections is applicable to all MDS.

2.1.8.17.1

2.1.8.18.

An answer to a previous solicitation question stated that management personnel would not be required to meet the 7-level qualification to sign off Red X discrepancies; however, the PWS still states that any individual who signs off a Red X symbol shall have as a minimum 4 (four) years aircraft maintenance experience and minimum 1 (one) year maintenance experience on the specific weapons system (MDS) on which the maintenance task was performed. Furthermore, any individual who signs off a Red X symbol shall be trained to perform aircraft mechanic duties at the 7-level equivalency.

Will the Government change the PWS to include the requirements for management personnel to be able to sign off a Red X IAW AFI 21-101?

No, In Accordance with AFI 21-101, AETC Sup 1, the MXG/CC equivalent is the Director of Maintenance (DOM). Therefore, as the DOM, by virtue of his/or her position is able to sign off Red X since he/she is the Maintenance Authority. Additionally, the DOM can authorize any other management personnel to clear Red X conditions. Reference Table 14.1.

The Government has not provided workload data for OCFs (Operational Check Flights). The CAFB Supp to AFI 21-101 lists various requirements for OCFs which do not appear to be included in the work load data.

Will the Government provide historical workload data for the 14FTW OCF program?

Appendix 3BC, Aircraft Maintenance Workload already provides the number of OCF and FCF for each MDS.

PWS Appendix 3BA, Paragraph 3BA.2

Paragraph states "T-38C IFF Example Schedule Note: During required surge the schedule will be extended to 3 goes 12X10X10 with a maximum of 2 hours and 45 minutes between goes for no more than 25% of total annual operations." This appears to conflict with AETCI 21-104, paragraph 15.6, which states that there will be no more than two days' surge in a monthly flying period. Paragraph 3BA.2 appears to limit the CAP + spares to no more than 12 aircraft, also in conflict with this note.

Do surge rules in AETCI 21-104, Paragraph 15.6 apply? Will the Government provide additional clarification on CAP and spares for IFF?

The Government will remove the “Note” from Table 3BA.3.3., T-38C IFF Example Schedule. Service Provider shall follow Planned Surge in AETCI 21-104 Paragraph 15.

3.1.3.4.5.

Paragraph states "The SP shall provide aircraft for ferrying pilots to recover disabled aircraft as needed."

Is this over and above daily CAP aircraft or within CAP?

Ferrying pilots to recover disabled aircraft is not normally a part of CAP unless that sortie is also scheduled to accomplish required pilot training. Additionally, the Annual Flying Hour Program already accounts for FCF, OCF and Ferry Sorties under maintenance support.

3.1.1.6.6.

The PWS states the SP will support any assessment, inspection (AFI 90-201, Chap 2), exercise, deployment, static display, flyover (IAW AFI 11-209), incentive flight, open house (air show), Medical Air Evacuation, ROTC orientation flight, Civilian Fly-in, Change of Command Ceremony, administrative flights, Pilot for the day/Make a Wish foundation that involves aircraft and/or maintenance resources. These events may occur on weekends or holidays. Normal notification will be provided to the SP at the weekly flying scheduling meeting. (Note: Circumstances may dictate that less than one week’s notice is given due to changing mission requirements and home station sortie requirements will not be reduced during this support).Cost will be included in the contract.

Will the Government provide historical workload data for the deployments? How many additional aircraft will be required to support deployments above normal CAP requirements?

Yes, the Government will add Deployment Historical Data to Appendix 3BB, Table 3BB.12.2.4 for information only. Additionally, we revised the PWS Section 3-1, para 3.1.1.6.6. to remove, "Deployments" from the paragraph and added a new paragraph 3.1.6.6.5 that reads, as follows, The SP shall support deployments as authorized by the CO to perform aircraft recovery, servicing, inspections, maintenance and launch of dispersed aircraft in accordance with Clause B-4. (See Appendix 3BB, Table 3BB.12.2.4. for Deployment Historical Data).

CLIN X008 is entitled "Propulsion Shop Including Test Cell." We are assuming that this CLIN is intended to cover work in support of CAFB engines, and that all work in support of NAS Pax River, including test cell runs, is to be priced in CLIN X007: however, this is not clear to us from the words describing the CLINs

Will the Government clarify the distinction between what is to be priced in CLIN X007 and CLIN X008?

The intent of CLIN X008 was for Columbus AFB engines; however, this CLIN has been reserved and Propulsion Shop/Test Cell workload has been incorporated into T-38 Aircraft CLINs X004 and X005.

CLIN X007 is for NAS Pax River engines maintenance to include test cell engine run.

Table 3BB.5.

TABLE 3BB.4.1

Work load data for Engine Maintenance includes specific data on man hour requirements for each inspection. In contrast, work load data for Corrosion Control does not provide corresponding detail for full paints, full strips, scuff/sand/topcoat only, major paint jobs, minor paint jobs, and media blast (starch) clean-up.

Will the Government provide detailed workload data for Corrosion Control as you did for Engine Maintenance?

Yes, the Government will update Appendix 3BB Workload Estimates Maintenance Program, Table 3BB.7 to reflect Vance and NAS PAX River Corrosion Control Workload. The Corrosion workload data is captured in 3BB.5. for Columbus assigned aircraft.

Factor 4 – SB Management

For further questions, please contact your local SBA office. Additionally, the U.S. Census Bureau website is a good source of information on 2002 NAICS Definitions and the SBA website also provides answers to this question.