Response_3_to_Questions_received_24 Aug 11.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- International F-16 Training Program Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA3002-11-R-0014
About this file
Responses to Industry questions received 8/22 - 8/26
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 |
| 34 | General | According to recent answers received from the Government, an amendment to the original RFP should be expected. When do you anticipate that amendment being made available? Based on the extent of revisions and additions expected to be included on the forthcoming amendment, does the Government intend to extend the proposal due date in order to allow for completion of a compliant proposal? | An amendment will be issued that addresses answers to questions received from industry. The RFP due date will be extended in this amendment to permit industry sufficient review and response time. |
| 35 | Section C and Section L | The answer to Question #27 appears to be a cut-and-paste from the response to Question #26. Can the Government please confirm the answer to Question 27? The question is as follows: 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 Government position has changed. Section L.1.2.A.2.b. will be amended to reflect the requirements of the Performance Work Statement. |
| 36 | Section C | Q&A #15 and C.3.5. The Government’s answer to Question #15 indicates the upcoming amendment will include a CLIN for CONUS in-flight training. PWS paragraph C.3.5 states that “individuals task orders requiring actual flight training, the individual task orders and the case letter of acceptance will document the availability of country provided aircraft and all required support to conduct flight training.” This statement in the PWS describes the variable nature of the CONUS in-flight training, which, similar to the refurbishment requirement, is not conducive to a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) cost arrangement. For example, requirements for specific location and facilities to support this training are unknown and will vary by individual task order, it is difficult for offerors to establish an FFP unit price. Accordingly, will the Government consider making this CLIN cost reimbursable and providing a not to exceed value for evaluation purposes, similar to how it has designed the Refurbishment CLINs? | Pricing of the In-Flight Instruction unit price will reflect an hourly Flight Instructor Rate. Compensation of travel associated with this requirement will be in the travel CLINS. |
| 37 | Q&A #8. The response to Question #8 stated that “F-16 Unit Level Training Device is the minimum standard” for conducting simulator training under this contract. It is our understanding that there is no standard Cockpit Procedure Trainer. Can the Government please provide clarification as to what it means by “F-16 Unit Level Training Device”? | Unit Training Device (UTD): A medium fidelity, squadron level flight trainer designed for basic and advanced mission training. It incorporates normal flight procedures, emergency procedures, air-to-air and air-to ground tactics and weapons (conventional/smart) employment, Litening/LANTIRN pods, NVG, interactive threat network, and local networking capabilities for two/four-ship training. It consists of a fully populated cockpit, instructor operators' station, and a 60X78 degree field of-view visual display. The UTD is capable of simulating all conventional weapons associated with the F-16. | |
| 38 | Q&A #8. Given the uncertain flow and frequency of use of the training device, this could potentially be an expensive line item. We recommend the Government either consider including a cost reimbursable CLIN with a not to exceed plug number for use of this device, or provide a Government-owned device as Government-furnished equipment as required for simulation training. | The acquisition planning included a Request for Information that was posted on 18 Apr 11. Based on comments returned from industry the Government found there were no issues concerning access to this device, therefore remains unchanged. | |
| 39 | Section C and Section L | 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.” When exchange of such information is required between Contractors, normally an agreement is in place between the Government and the OEM that mandates that the information be provided when requested. Is there such an agreement in place between the Government and Lockheed? Can you provide the point of contact at Lockheed we should communicate with in order to establish an agreement? | Section L.1.2.A.2.b. will be amended to reflect the requirements of the Performance Work Statement. |
| 40 | Section C | Section C.3.1.3 (p. 474). The PWS states, “After use by the Contractor to support training, OJT aircraft will be returned to the production or aircraft modification cycle. The Contractor shall restore the OJT aircraft to flight status, perform an inspection comparable to the production CEII, then turn the aircraft over to DCMA/QA for mandatory government inspection, CEII and confidence check flight. Reference PWS, Appendix A, paragraph 15. Reference AFI 21-101.” a. What is CEII, and can the Government provide guidelines or reference any policies regarding production CEII? b. Paragraph C.3.1.3 references Appendix A, paragraph 15 for additional guidance on refurbishment of customer-country aircraft. Appendix A does not contain a paragraph 15. Can the Government amend Appendix A to provide that paragraph? c. It may not always be possible to return an OJT aircraft to flight status. It is common practice to use aircraft that are Awaiting Parts (AWP) or Awaiting Maintenance (AWM) to conduct OJT as it minimizes the impact to the production or flying schedule. In cases where preexisting conditions (i.e. open write-ups in the forms) impact the contractor’s ability to return the aircraft to flight status, will Government accept the aircraft in the same condition as it was delivered to the contractor? d. The context of this paragraph suggests the Government will make customer-country aircraft available from the OEM's production facility for CONUS SOJT. Does the Government anticipate customer-country aircraft will be provided at the OEM's production facility for CONUS SOJT? If so, will the contractor be granted access to the OEM's facilities and/or flight line to conduct SOJT? | a. CEII is the Completed End Item Inspection. This is to be accomplished to the work schedule breakdown point the aircraft was received at or to the configuration of the DD250. b. Reference to Appendix A will be deleted. c. Returning the aircraft to the documented condition it was received in will be sufficient. d. The USG expects that the customer-country aircraft to be available for pick up after DD250 or pre-arranged stoppage at specific work schedule breakdown. The availability of use of OEM production facilities for SOJT would require agreement between the OEM and the offeror. The USG will not direct any such agreement. |
| 41 | Section C | Section C.1.3.5 (p. 468). Paragraph C.1.3.5 references an Appendix D that does not exist in the current RFP for instructions regarding OCONUS work. Will the Government provide Appendix D to ensure compliance with OCONUS instructions? | Appendix D was provided at page 496. Amendment 0001 will incorporate a clearly marked page as Appendix C. Paragraph 1.3.5 of the Performance Work Statement will also reflect the change in the Amendment. |
| 42 | Section C | Section C.3.4.1 (p. 474). The PWS states, “Contractor’s attention is directed to Exhibit A, entitled ‘Aircraft Maintenance Exhibit’ for further direction pertaining to maintenance and safety procedures.” According to this statement, Exhibit A is needed for to comply with these determined maintenance and safety procedures. Will the government be providing Exhibit A for review? | Paragraph 3.4.1. will be amended to delete the reference to " Contractor’s attention is directed to Exhibit A, entitled “Aircraft Maintenance Exhibit” for further direction pertaining to maintenance and safety procedures." |
| 43 | Section L | Section C.1.1.D.1 (p. 597). Section L states, “Pages shall be typed, with at least 1.5-line spacing. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the font size shall be no less than 10 point.” The “Section L, Attachment 1, Past Performance Information” form that is to be completed as part of Volume IV of the proposal is single spaced. Does the required minimum 1.5-line spacing apply to the content contained within the “Section L, Attachment 1, Past Performance Information” form, or since the form itself is single spaced, can single spacing be used within the past performance form? | The single spacing on Attachment 1 of Section L Past Performance Information form will be accepted. |
| 44 | Section C | Section C.1.4.6.2.4 (p. 469). This paragraph states that “If air transportation is needed for movement of students between contractor training locations the contractor shall arrange and provide commercial air transportation.” Since CLINs X085 are for Student Local Transportation, where should the offeror include potential commercial air transportation costs in its bid price? It is currently unknown whether there will be a requirement for such transportation as individual task order requirements, and therefore training locations based upon location of available aircraft, are unknown. Would the Government consider including a cost reimbursable CLIN with a not to exceed value for this cost line item? | The Student Local Transportation will remain as local travel. If commercial air transportation is needed to move students from one training location to another the cost will be charged to the Domestic Travel line item. |
| 45 | Section B and Section C | Section C.1.2 and CLIN X016. Emergency Response may include a wide variety of specialties responding to emergencies on the flight line, including firefighter, medical, security, etc., however, these do not appear to be part of the RFP. Can the Government please provide clarification as to how it defines Emergency Response training? | "Emergency Response is the operation, planning and scheduling functions, training requirements, implementation, and technical participation in the aircraft emergency response program to include various mission design series (MDS) specific aircraft with emphasis on F-16 aircraft maintenance recovery. Focus is on the processes using of technical information, safety procedures, hazardous material handling, mishap site handling, quality assurance, and special equipment to safely recover disabled aircraft. Special focus on aircraft maintenance crash and recovery and hydrazine response." This will added to the definitions. |
| 46 | Section L | Section L.1.2.D. The RFP states, “If a teaming agreement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with the same partner. If this is a first time joint teaming effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts.” Paragraph L.1.2.D.1 requires past performance information to be provided for the “offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 20 percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price.” Can the Government please confirm that the term “teaming arrangements” from the first statement above refers to teaming partners and/or joint venture partners and does NOT refer to subcontractor arrangements? | “Teaming arrangements” refers to teaming partners and/or joint venture partners and does NOT refer to subcontractor arrangements? |
| 47 | Section L | Section L, Para 1.2.D, Volume IV – Past Performance Item #5 requires the offeror to send the PPQ “to no less than three and no more than five government agencies or private companies as identified by the offeror”. Could you please clarify the definition of “government agencies”? Specifically, can Past Performance references be submitted for more than three different contracts from the same contracting command? | Government Agency is defined as any United States Government establishment to include Federal, State, and local, or Foreign Government establishment. Past performance references can be submitted for more than three different contracts from the same contracting command. |
| 48 | Section L Paragraph 1.2.D. Volume IV Past Performance | Can individual Deliver Orders issued on the same contract be used to meet the requirement of three to five past performance citations? | Yes. |
| 49 | Section L | Section L, Paragraph 1.2.D, Past Performance Past Performance references using Attachment 1 of this provision . . . “are limited to no more than 8 pages per contract listed”. Are other narrative responses to Paragraph 1.2.D requirements restricted by page limitations (e.g. Introduction/Summary of contract references and paragraph 1.2.D.2. Organizational structure change history)? RFP Q&A item #28 states that Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed are included in the 8 page per citation page limitation. Will Section L Attachment 1 – Past Performance Information be amended to reflect the addition of Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed? | Other narrative responses (e.g. Introduction/Summary of contract references and Organizational structure change history) are restricted by the 8 pages limitation. Any performance documentation received from references will not count against the 8 page limitation. Section L, Attachment 1 will be amended to reflect the Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed. If any past performance information has been sent out, new attachments will need to be sent to recipients. |
| 50 | Section B | Reference CLIN 0086 Mobilization. The CLIN description states that this is for information purposes only. Will this be for contract start-up? The time and cost required for mobilization could vary greatly by contractor. How much time will contractors be given for start-up/mobilization after the contract is awarded? Are contractors required to estimate these costs in the Mobilization CLIN? | CLIN 0086 is an informational CLIN to provide a three month start up. Costs will not be included in this CLIN. |
| 51 | Section C | Section C, PWS paragraph 1.3.1 The PWS section 1.3.1 states that students should be able to perform in a way generally applied to “levels of maintenance when describing USAF 5 or 7 skill levels. USAF 5 and 7 skills levels require significant hands-on application and OJT training. Some elements of training could be destructive to the aircraft and/or are not feasible during OJT training. Example maintenance training topics include: fuel bladder, ejection seat, gun system, etc. Are there any additional academic and/or laboratory requirements for hands-on training for any of these types of elements? If so, what are the equipment or training device requirements (e.g. lab equipment such as gun system trainers, ejection seats, fuel trainers, composite material parts and pieces for structure repair, NDI testers, X-ray machine, canopy, life support equipment, armament suspension equipment (TERs/MERs), fuel tanks, hydraulic parts for I level testing, etc.)? | Offerors should review subfactor 1 and PWS paragraphs 1.4.4 and 1.4.5. |
| 52 | General | How should contractors account for the cost of relocating customer specific aircraft to a new location if the chosen SOJT/refurbishment facility is not located at or near the OEM factory? | The Government will be responsible for relocating customer specific aircraft to a new location if the chosen SOJT/refurbishment facility is not located at or near the OEM factory. The PWS has been amended to add paragraph 3.1.2.1 to reflect this change. |
| 53 | Schedule B, Section I | Schedule B, CLIN 0077 and Section I Reference Section I WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE (DEFENSE BASE ACT) (e) “Premiums will be reimbursed only if coverage is purchased through the US AF mandatory requirements DBA contract administered by CAN Insurance and their managing broker, Rutherford International.” Can a contractor utilize an existing policy for DBA insurance that meets the Government’s requirements but is through a provider other than Rutherford International? | The clause has been removed on Amendment. |
| 54 | Paragraph 3.1. states that “The Government will furnish Government property/equipment as specified below:” However the RFP does not contain FAR 52.245-1, Government Property. Does the Government intend to include this clause in a future amendment? | Amendment will add FAR Clause 52.245-1 to Section I. | |
| 55 | Section J Attachment 3 | Attachment 3 - Price Model appears to have a calculation error within the “Base Period Sch B” worksheet. Starting with CLIN 0071(row 424) thru CLIN 0078 the Max Amount (col F) multiplies the Max Quantity of the higher CLIN. For example, the Max Amount for CLIN 0071 is multiplying the unit price of CLIN 0071 by the Max quantity from CLIN 0072. The same error applies through CLIN 0078. Does the Government intend to issue a corrected model in an upcoming amendment? | Price Model has been amended and a revised version will be incorporated by Amendment 0001. |
| 56 | Section J Attachment 3 | Attachment 3- Price Model, Summary Tab The TEP Summary tab in Attachment 3 is calculating the total incorrectly. Since the worksheet is protected we cannot determine the error or correct it. Can the Government please correct the Attachment 3 formulas with the release of Amendment I? | Price Model has been amended and a revised version will be incorporated by Amendment 0001. |
FA3002-11-R-0014
International F-16 Training Program Questions received 22-26 Aug 2011
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .