Response_7_to_Questions_received_12 Sep 11 - 20 Sep 11.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 13 KB Posted
- Attached to
- International F-16 Training Program
- Solicitation number
- FA3002-11-R-0014
About this file
Government response 7 to Industry questions received 12-20 Sep 11
View the file
Other files
Show all 34
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- 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 |
| 75 | Section B, CLINs X093 and X094 – Flight Instruction; PWS para 1.1.4.2, 1.1.4.3, 3.5 | What level of support is the Government providing to offerors (per DFARS 252.228-7001 - Ground and Flight Risk), and please provide guidance to offerors for the CLIN pricing elements that are required to perform actual flight training (CLINs X093 and X094). Specific areas requiring clarification include: a) Contractor Indemnification Parameters b) Insurance Liability Requirements for CONUS & OCONUS | The Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk (JUN 2010) sets forth circumstances under which the Government assumes the risk of loss (liability) for 'aircraft' as that term is defined in the clause. In all other circumstances, the contractor is responsible for damage or destruction of aircraft unless relieved of liability under another contractual provision. |
| 76 | Section B | RFP Section B CLINs X066 (SOJT Crew Chief Ktr Site) and X088 (SOJT Crew Chief Intl Site) both reflect 2,400 days as maximum quantity. Based on the maximum quantity of the other Maintenance Training CLINs, can the Government confirm that the 2,400 days for these CLINs are correct? | The total maximum quantity of the CLINS was calculated in error. Overall the maximum quantities were calculated incorrectly. An amendment will be issued to correct the maximum quantity of the CLINs. |
| 77 | Section B | RFP Amendment 0001 added significant CLINs for SOJT Ktr Site, as well as revised Unit of Issue across most CLINs. The Government’s response to Question #3 indicated that the maximum quantities were estimated amounts used to determine the TEP. Given the addition of 24 CLINs to the TEP model and the change from unit prices per course to unit prices per day, will the Government consider increasing the $250M ceiling or revising the maximum quantities? | No. The Government made a calculation error on the maximum quantities and will be corrected by an amendment. |
| 78 | General | Based on the complexity of the changes issued on RFP Amendment 0001, will the Government consider extending the proposal due date beyond the current due date of 23 September? | An amendment has been issued to extend the proposal due date. |
| 79 | The current Government TEP model includes a maximum total quantity of 26,940 training days per year for CLINs X001 through X0092. Per the Government’s response to Question #3, we understand the maximum quantities were based upon the $250M contract ceiling. However, it appears there is a defect in the RFP in that there are substantially more training days included in the TEP than will allow offerors to support a total evaluation price within the contract ceiling. Accordingly, the current volume of maximum quantities in the TEP is unrealistic and the model prohibits contractors from recouping other direct costs in a reasonable timeframe. This effectively restricts the field of potential offerors and requires significant fee to cover costs. We believe the Government will receive unnecessarily higher daily rates than they would with a TEP based more closely on actual anticipated volume of training. Will the Government consider reducing the maximum quantities for each course CLIN to reflect actual anticipated volume? | The total maximum quantity of the CLINS was calculated in error. Overall the maximum quantities were calculated incorrectly. An amendment will be issued to correct the maximum quantity of the CLINs. | |
| 80 | In order to reduce incumbent advantages and expand competition, will the Government consider changing the contract type to CPFF? | In considering the contract type the Government did not find the Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type suitable for use in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 16.306(b) and found the contract type Firm Fixed Fee suitable for use in accordance with FAR part 16.202-2 | |
| 81 | General | Do we need to include the explanation of the changes made on a Form 30\Amendment in the Proposal. On some Amendments there are several pages that give the details of the changes. If the answer is "yes", will the page count will be affected? | The offeror is responsible for acknowledging the amendments by signature of the first page only of each amendment or identifying each amendment and date of issuance on the SF33 (Solicitation form). There is no page count on the price volume, just limited to two 5 inch binders. |
FA3002-11-R-0014
International F-16 Training Program Questions received 12-20 Sep 11
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .