Response_1_to_Questions_received_8-12_Aug_11a.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- International F-16 Training Program Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA3002-11-R-0014
About this file
Responses to questions received 8-12 Aug 11. The amendment will be posted as soon as possible.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 34
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
Sheet1
| Question # | Section Reference | Question | Response |
| 1 | Section B CLIN 0078; PWS 1.2.10. | Is it the Government’s intent to limit Program Management and supporting functions to 1,248 hours per year? Does that also include the long lead program support, Security, and other PMO support? | AFSAT is looking for Program Management Support which has been known in the past as "long lead program support" under the Basic Ordering Agreement between the USG and another contractor. The Management Support hours will be revised with an amendment. |
| 2 | Section B CLIN 0085, PWS 1.4.6.2; PWS 4.3 | The PWS 1.4.6.2 does not require transportation for student medical needs. However PWS 4.3 requires the contractor to provide student medical services including taking the student to the nearest medical facility. Is it the Government’s intent to modify PWS 1.4.6.2 to cover transportation to/from medical facilities? | The medical transportation requirements are addressed in paragraph 4.3 of the Performance Work Statement. The contractor shall be responsible for ensuring the student is transported for medical services as required. If 911 services are required, then the billing should be processed in accordance of Section 4 General Information. PWS paragraph 4.3 was changed and CLIN Structure was updated to include medical transportation. These changes will be reflected in an Amendment. |
| 3 | Section B | Are CLIN Maximum Quantities (hours, students, etc) listed in Section B for the Government’s TEP evaluation purposes only or are they considered the maximum allowable for execution during the specified Period of Performance? | These maximum quantities are estimated amounts and will be used to determine the TEP. The maximum allowable is based on the $250M ceiling for the life of the contract. The quantities may increase or decrease based on actual requirements. However, the Government shall not exceed the $250M ceiling. |
| 4 | Section B CLINs 0049 - 0070 | All SOJT CLINs reference international sites. Does the Government intend to have CLINs for SOJT at contractor site (CONUS)? | CLIN Structure to be amended to add SOJT CONUS. |
| 5 | Section B CLIN 0015 | What is the definition of Avionics Backshop? Is this training implied to manual testing of LRUs not applicable to the family of automatic test stations, i.e., RIAIS? The LRUs are not clearly defined in the PWS Appendix A – Definitions Section 10.0. | The Avionics Backshop is the base level for repair authorized for avionics line replaceable units (LRUs). Typical repairs/actions that avionics backshops conduct are: 1. Cannot duplicate (CND) or bench check serviceable (BCS) screening. 2. TCTOs performed at wing level. 3. LRU operational flight program (OFP) loads. 4. Shop-replaceable units (SRU) cross-cannibalizations. 5. Replacement of minor bits and pieces. In addition, international customer Avionics Backshops may conduct repair and return non-depot level designated LRUs dependant on disclosure and anti-tampering requirements. The Performance Work Statement Appendix A will be amended to reflect this definition. |
| 6 | Section B CLIN 0014, PWS 10.1. | There is a difference between the class size limits delineated in the RIAIS CLIN 0014 and PWS Appendix A – Definitions section 10.1. The CLIN establishes class size as a range from 1-10 students. The PWS limits class size to 4 (RIAIS). Could the Government confirm which class size limit is correct? | The correct number is 4 students CLIN Structure for CONUS (0014) and OCONUS (0038) and all option periods to be amended. |
| 7 | Section B CLIN 0064AA | There is a difference between the class size limits delineated in Emergency Response CLIN 0064 (5 students) and 0064AA (1-10 students). Could the Government clarify which is correct? | The correct number is being revised to 6 students. Description of CLIN Structure (0064AA has been renumbered) to be amended. |
| 8 | Section B CLIN 0019, CLIN 0043 | Could the Government clarify what type of simulator/device is considered acceptable and what are the Government’s requirements for conducting Simulator Training in CLINs 0019 and 0043? | F-16 Unit Level Training Device is the minimum standard. |
| 9 | Section B CLIN 0083; PWS 3.4.1. | The Aircraft Refurbishment CLIN 0083 refers to PWS 3.1.3 and refurbishment of SOJT aircraft. What CLIN covers refurbishment of other GFE as stated in PWS 3.4.1? | The Contractor shall be responsible for the support, maintenance, and refurbishment of country specific GFE referenced in section 3 paragraph 3.4.1. |
| 10 | Section B CLIN 0083 | Refurbishment activities are typically labor intensive tasks. Is it the Government’s intent to exclude fee on refurbishment efforts? | Refurbishment CLIN has been revised on Amendment 0001 to clarify how the fee will be handled. |
| 11 | Section B | Some CLINs state MAX QUANITIY and MAX AMOUNT, while others state QUANTITY and AMOUNT. Could the Government clarify if this was intentional or a typographical error? For example: CLIN 0074AC and CLIN 0074AD. | All quantities on an IDIQ type contract are estimated Max Quantities. The fact that some of the CLINS do not state MAX is due to an uncorrectable error in the contract writing system. |
| 12 | Section B CLIN 0079, CLIN 0080 | Could the Government clarify the purpose the Additional Student CLINs 0079 and 0080? Could the Government clarify which specific course or SOJT CLIN(s) this is referring to? Since courses vary in duration and in the amount of materials provided to students, the actual cost per additional student would be heavily dependent on the actual course chosen. The additional student cost would also depend on course location (e.g. contractor facility or international site). | The Additional Student CLINs have been renumbered and will be deleted on amendment 0001. |
| 13 | Section B CLIN 0014AB thru AE | The MAX QUANITITY in CLIN 0014AA is listed as 4 but it is listed as UNDEFINED in CLINs 0014AB through 0014AE. Could the Government specify the MAX QUANTITY for these CLINs? | CLIN 0014 AA and CLIN 0014AB unit price will be changed to reflect a price per day. This change will be incorporated on Amendment 0001. |
| 14 | Section L | Is the required Staffing Matrix – Attachment 4 referenced in Section L, Volume I Technical Proposal, Subfactor 2(d) included in the Technical Volume page count? | Staffing Matrix does not count against the Technical Volume Page count. Section L has been amended to reflect that the staffing matrix will not count against the Technical Volume page count. |
| 15 | Section B CLIN 0071, PWS 1.1.4.3. | The Pilot Training CLIN 0071 refers to training at Int’l Sites (OCONUS), but PWS section 1.1.4.3 references pilot training both CONUS and OCONUS. Could the Government clarify if and where CONUS Pilot Training should be priced? | CLIN Structure to be amended for pilot training CONUS 1.1.4.3. |
| 16 | PWS 1.5.1. | PWS Section 1.5.1 requires that contractors submit their Quality Control Plan (QCP) in their technical proposal, but this is not referred to in Section L. Does the Government intend contractors to submit their QCP? If so, will it be included in the technical volume page count or should this be an attachment? | The Government intends contractors to submit their Quality Control Plan (QPC). The QCP does not count against the Technical Volume Page Count. Section L has been amended to reflect that the quality control plan will not count against the Technical Volume page count. |
| 17 | Section L | Section L, Technical Volume I states “a complete Quality Control Methodology shall be included in Volume I to assist the Government in evaluating the offeror’s overall management approach.” Could the Government identify the subfactor where this should be addressed? | Subfactor 2 – Long Lead Program Management Support |
| 18 | DD Form 254 | Did the Government intend to check “YES” in block 11(i) for “Have Tempest Requirements”? | The change to block 11(i) will be reflected in an amendment. |
| 19 | DD Form 254 | Did the Government intend to check “NO” in block 11(j) for “Have operations security (OPSEC) requirements”? | The change to block 11(j) will be reflected in an amendment. |
| 20 | Section C PWS | As referenced in PWS paragraph 1.1.3, there is the potential for significant Courseware Development (CWD) effort on this program. This is also confirmed by numerous Base Period and Option CLINS for New and Changed CW. However, there is minimal reference to CWD activities in the Services Summary of the PWS, nor is Courseware Development to be addressed in the Technical Proposal or Evaluation Subfactors. For contracts involving CWD, we normally see some requirement for submittal of a Courseware Development Approach and Instructional Systems Development (ISD) Management Plan as part of the proposal. This plan would normally detail labor categories and labor hours per instructional hour or item for New, Revision and Review courseware, along with the standards used by the contractor to ensure quality in each type of courseware delivered. Our question is, how does the government intend to evaluate the CWD capability of bidders in the proposals received, and ensure the quality of CWD during the life of this contract? | Courseware development definitions are listed in PWS Appendix A paragraph 13. The courseware must reflect country specific technical data with training issues raised in the training needs assessments and should be addressed in this process. See Section L Subfactor 2c. Section M Subfactor (b) 3. Although courseware development is not in the service summary, the Inspection of Services clause allows the government to inspect all requirements of the Performance Work Statement and resulting contract. |
| 21 | Section L | Subfactor 6- Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The table listing the current government goals is confusing. Shouldn’t the first line listing the overall Small Business Target actually say, “23% of all contracted dollars?” If that is not the case, a large business could be compliant with the goals by subcontracting a very small portion of the contract, and then setting their SB subcontracting targets at just 23% of that small figure. This does not seem like it matches the government’s intent. | Section L Subfactor 6 has been changed to reflect 23% of all awarded or obligated CONUS dollars. |
| 22 | Section B | Section B indicates the maximum amount for the contract is $250M. Does this amount refer to the 5-year base period or does this amount include the 5 one-year option periods? | The $250M refers to overall maximum ceiling to include the 5-year base period and the 5 one-year option periods. |
| 23 | Section B | The CLINs designated for courses (unit price is per class) indicate the number of students, but not the estimated course duration. Since the duration of each course is variable and cannot be accurately estimated at this time, will the Government consider providing a standard course duration for the purposes of consistent unit pricing by contractors for CLINs X001 through X071? | The academic and SOJT unit price will be changed to reflect a price per day. This change will be incorporated on Amendment 0001. |
| 24 | Section B | The Government did not specify the basis for the unit price for the Management Support CLINs. Should the contractor assume the unit price is per hour for these CLINs? | Management Support Unit of Issue is each and will be revised on Amendment 0001 to reflect unit of issue of hours. |
| 25 | Section C | Section C.1.2.10.3 through 1.2.10.7 (p. 466-467). In Section C1.2, the RFP indicates that the contractor shall provide Program Management Support that includes: participating in and documenting the results of a Training Needs Assessment; compiling training recommendations; providing draft training syllabus/outline; delivering a Training Plan, etc. Will the Government please clarify that current USAF F-16 AFSC-specific courseware would be made available to the contractor in order to establish a baseline of training objectives? | The contractor will be required to develop the syllabus based on the individual county's training requirements based the needs assessment. No government syllabus will be provided. |
| 26 | Section C | Section C.1.4.5 (p. 469) and C.1.6 (p. 472); Section L.1.2.A.2.b (p. 598). In Section C.1.6, the RFP indicates that the contractor may establish a Technical Order Distribution Office to request copies of required manuals via an AFTO Form 187.” In Section C.1.4.5, the RFP states that the “contractor shall furnish all materials, equipment, and technical data required to perform this contract except that which is identified as government (country) furnished equipment/material/data.” In Section L.1.2.A.2.b, the RFP requires the contractor to provide “documentation of agreement with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to identify, locate, and gain access to country specific technical data.” Will the Government please clarify what technical data is required from the OEM that is not available either through TODO requests submitted to the Government or provided as government (country) furnished equipment/material/data? | The nature of Security Assistance Training requires multiple training events to be completed prior to first aircraft delivery. Each country specific technical data (CSTO) is written as the aircraft and associated equipment are configured and manufactured. The required training timeline and the CSTO development timeline are in conflict. The CSTOs may not be completed before training events are thus the Contractor conducting the training must gain access to country specific technical data to meet training timelines. |
| 27 | Section C | Section C.1.4.5 (p. 469) and C.1.6 (p. 472); Section L.1.2.A.2.b (p. 598). The RFP requires the offeror to “provide documentation of agreement with the OEM to identify, locate, and gain access to country specific technical data.” This statement appears to provide the OEM with an unfair competitive advantage in that, they, as a bidder responding to this RFP, are being asked to provide their competitors with agreement documentation. This uniquely supplies the OEM with knowledge of who their competitors on this bid will be. Will the Government consider elimination of this requirement, and provide assurance that the OEM will provide contractor-requested data and materials to the USAF, when required? | The nature of Security Assistance Training requires multiple training events to be completed prior to first aircraft delivery. Each country specific technical data (CSTO) is written as the aircraft and associated equipment are configured and manufactured. The required training timeline and the CSTO development timeline are in conflict. The CSTOs may not be completed before training events are thus the Contractor conducting the training must gain access to country specific technical data to meet training timelines. |
| 28 | Section L | Section L.1.2.D.3. The RFP requires the offeror to “provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance…” If available, will the Government consider these documents as part of the 8 page limit assigned to each past performance reference? | Yes, these documents will be considered part of the 8 page limit, however, please note that the 8 page limit is per contract listed. |
| 29 | Section L | Attachment I. Paragraph F of the references a Mission Capabilities factor and paragraph 2.1. We were unable to locate these items within the RFP. Was it the Government’s intent to reference the sub-factors under the Technical Approach in paragraph L.1.2.A? | Yes. Attachment 1, Paragraph F will be corrected in an Amendment to reference L.1.2.A. |
| 30 | Section H | There does not appear to be a Section H to the RFP. Is this intentional? | There is not a Section H. |
FA3002-11-R-0014
International F-16 Training Program Questions received 8-12 Aug 11
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .