Response_8_to_Questions_received_22 Sep 11.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Attached to
- International F-16 Training Program Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA3002-11-R-0014
About this file
Response 8 to Industry Questions received 22 Sep 11
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 | Questions | Response |
| 82 | Section B | Could the government include the Mobilization CLIN pricing in the TEP and be limited to a labor only CLIN? Otherwise, an offeror could assume any non-recurring (NRE) costs for equipment and/or materials could be included in the Mobilization CLIN after contract award, which would be a hidden cost to the government and provide and unfair advantage to offerors that make this assumption. | The mobilization CLIN has been established as an INFORMATIONAL CLIN ONLY. Funds will NOT be placed on this CLIN for mobilization. All cost associated with mobilization should be amortized over the applicable CLIN or CLINS that pertain to these cost. |
| 83 | Section B | Assuming that all academic courses are multiple day courses, the change from a “per course” to a “per day” unit pricing methodology in Amendment 1 eliminates the government’s ability to fully evaluate each offeror’s relative, most likely cost over the life of the contract. Since there are no mechanisms in the section M or the CLIN pricing structure for the government to determine each offeror’s intended course duration (i.e. 15 days, 10 days, etc), there is no way to evaluate the relative cost between two offeror’s. Could the government reconsider this change or include a sample task for TEP evaluation? | This contract type will be an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity. The Government cannot predetermine the number of days that may be required for any training until after the training assessment. Each task order will be negotiated to determine a reasonable training schedule to meet the needs of the individual country customer. |
| 84 | PWS, Section L, Section B | Assuming that all academic courses are multiple day courses, the government’s answer to question # 69 does not fully address the concerns of the question. All course CLINs are priced on a daily basis. Since there are no mechanisms in section M or the CLIN pricing structure for the government to determine each offeror’s intended course duration (i.e. 15 days, 10 days, etc), how can the government prevent an offeror from bidding a short duration instruction day (4 hours rather than 8 hours) and doubling the length of their course? Assuming all other costs are equal, this would reduce an offeror’s TEP by half, but ultimately cost the government the same amount. Could the government provide additional direction/specification on what constitutes a course day to eliminate any manipulation of the TEP? | There is no standard training day indentified in the specifications because international customers may request non-standard training days resulting in higher or lower number of training days. The Government will negotiate the correct number of training days on each task order based on the actual training requirements for a particular country. |
| 85 | PWS, Section L, Section B | Since the government has not provided requirements for course ware standards and no technical evaluation is being performed per section L or M to evaluate each offeror’s courseware approach, how can the government maintain that the TEP is an effective tool for evaluating the “lowest price” bidder? Labor rates are not a valid indicator of what it may cost for an offeror to develop or modify courseware. Under this RFP, an offer could bid lower labor rates to get a lower TEP, but in the end take double the time to complete the work as another offeror. Could the government consider including a sample task for TEP evaluation? | The government cannot predetermine the courseware standards that may be required for any training until after the training assessment. The government has incorporated a ceiling for each courseware rewrite. Each task order will be negotiated to determine courseware standards are acceptable and meet the needs of the individual country customer. |
| 86 | Section B | Since the courseware CLINs are priced by the hour, can the government confirm that no existing courseware will be used on this contract and that the government expects new courseware to be developed for initial courses? | Correct. The intent of the Government is to consider each block as new courseware. The government also considers that F-16 blocks previously taught that have courseware will be considered a moderate, minor or minimal change depending on the training needs. Each task order will be negotiated. |
| 87 | Section B, Section L | The government has removed the requirement for an agreement to be in place for advance access to country specific data and support at the time of proposal submissions. Can the government clarify how offerors should estimate and account for these costs in their CLIN pricing? | All cost associated with agreements should be amortized over applicable CLIN or CLINS that pertain to these cost. |
| 88 | The government has made facilities and equipment a subfactor for the evaluation of technical acceptability, but has provided limited guidance to offerors in the PWS as to what is considered acceptable. For instance, the only requirements for facilities per the PWS section 1.4.4 is that it be “properly lighted and ventilated facilities free of outside noise” and “secured to control access to student records.” Could the government please clarify what the requirements are for minimal technical acceptability under this subfactor? | An amendment will be issued to clarify this in the PWS. | |
| 89 | Section C | The government has made facilities and equipment a subfactor for the evaluation of technical acceptability and has requested a list of the offeror’s equipment, but the government has provided neither a requirement for equipment or course syllabuses for offerors to use to derive equipment needs. For instance, the only requirement for equipment per the PWS section 1.4.5 is that “the contractor shall furnish all materials, equipment, and technical data…” Since the government has not provided equipment requirements and no information concerning course content for classroom instruction, could the government clarify what equipment, if any, will be considered technically acceptable under this subfactor? | The PWS and resulting contract are considered to be a performance-based. The Government's expectations is for the offeror to provide a detailed list of all equipment that would be needed to meet the needs to this requirement. The subfactor ensures that an offeror understands the requirement and knows what equipment is needed to fullfil the requirements of the PWS. |
| 90 | Section C | Would the government consider creating a specific “Non-local Student Travel CLIN” to account for student travel between contractor training locations? By placing these costs under an unevaluated cost Travel CLIN, the government is not evaluating what could be a significant direct cost to the contract. As an example: Offeror “A” could propose their entire training located in one single facility, while Offeror “B” could propose their academic facility in Maine, their simulation classroom in Georgia, and their SOJT facility in California. In this scenario, the government will pay significantly more in student travel costs for Offeror “B” than Offeror “A”, but this would not be evaluated in the TEP. | The Government's decision to make student travel part of the Cost Reimbursement Domestic Travel CLIN is because it would be virtually impossible for a contractor to provide an estimated cost for this effort. In order to provide an estimated cost the offeror would need to know the number of students that will be traveling which is unknown. In addition, the contractor would need to estimate the cost of airfare which is a very volatile market. Based on these facts the Government does not feel that a separate CLIN for these costs is appropriate and that the current approach is fair for all prospective offerors. |
| 91 | Section B | PWS section 3.3 which states that “other property required in support of training, and unavailable from the contractor, may be provided as Government Furnished Property upon written request…” This appears to allow offeror’s an unlimited and unbounded availability of GFE. Would the government consider revising this requirement with boundaries/limits or removing it from the PWS? | An amendment will be issued delete Performance Work Statement paragraph 3.3. |
| 92 | Section C | Can the government please clarify why the IDIQ ceiling is at $250M? Can the government identify any FMS customers that are currently slated for this contract starting 01 Jan 2012? | No, the government cannot provide the FMS customers at this time. The $250M ceiling is the maximum amount that the Government anticipates ordering during the10 year period if all options are exercised. Under an IDIQ type contract the Government cannot predetermine, above a specified minimum, the precise quantities of supplies or services that the Government will require during the contract period. Therefore, the only obligation the Government will have under this type of contract is to meet the guaranteed minimum as set forth in the soliciation. |
93 Section B Reference CLINs 0057, 0062, 0063, 0065, 0069, 0070, 0079, 0084, 0085, 0087, 0091, 0092. These types of courses are traditionally performed in a classroom or laboratory setting and not performed on the actual aircraft. Could the government confirm that there is an SOJT requirement for these courses? If confirmed, can the government clarify what training will be performed on the country specific aircraft? CLINS X057, X062, X063, X065 AND X070 will be contractor laboratory and will be contractor provided equipment. CLINS X079, X084, X085, X087, X091 and X092 these CLINS will have country provided aircraft as required in accordance with PWS paragraph 3.4.1.
FA3002-11-R-0014
International F-16 Training Program Questions received 22 Sep 11
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .