Round 1 - Q A.pdf

ROUND 1: QUESTIONS AND

ANSWERS

QUESTION 1:

The RFP cites a very prescriptive example of past performance relevancy ("…training 100 foreign military students in fixed wing aircraft maintenance functions in an OCONUS environment"), Table 2 on Page 83 of the RFP. Was this level of prescription intended to be applied literally (i.e., must every single element of the relevancy example [100 students, fixed wing aircraft, OCONUS] be met precisely as written)? Or, for example, if training conducted for less than 100 foreign students on fixed wing aircraft in a CONUS environment, would this still be considered relevant?

ANSWER 1:

The relevancy as defined will be applied literally to each proposal received. This definition encompasses a similar scope and magnitude of the effort and complexity this solicitation will require. Please note that in accordance with Section M, "In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, 'unknown' shall be considered 'acceptable'."

QUESTION 2:

Will there be a CLIN added for contract program manager?

ANSWER 2:

A separate Contract Line Item (CLIN) for Program Manager will not be added. Any costs associated with overarching Program Management should be incorporated in each fully-burdened instructor man-month.

QUESTION 3:

There are a number of associated tasks with scheduling and reporting that are best accomplished by the contractor being physically present at the training location.

Will the RFP be modified to include FTE(s) to provide scheduling and reporting? If not, which CLIN is expected to account for this tasking?

ANSWER 3:

The matter of costing for scheduling and reporting will not be handled by the inclusion of any additional CLIN(s). As with the question regarding an additional Program Manager CLIN, any costs associated with scheduling and reporting could be incorporated in each fully-burdened instructor man-month.

QUESTION 4:

Please provide clarification of the anticipated duration, as well as options (Noticed range from 60-720 months).

ANSWER 4:

See Section F of the solicitation (page 52) for period of performance (POP) and PWS paragraph 1.3. for anticipated student duration in UGT. This will be a 2-year base ordering period with no options. Please note, this is the smaller of two procurement efforts requiring F-15 Maintenance Upgrade Training (UGT) for the Royal Saudi Air Force. This smaller effort does not include training on the F-15SA while the larger follow-on will. The larger follow-on will require several years of UGT.

Also, the range of 60-720 is based on required instructor numbers and the duration of training required for each student in the unit of months. The max quantities for instructor CLINs (0010 through 0027) were derived using the estimated maximum required instructor numbers found in Exhibit A of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The estimated maximum instructor numbers for each specialty were multiplied by this requirements full period of performance (two years, or 24 months). For example, CLIN 0010’s Max Quantity is 216. This was derived by multiplying 24 months by the nine (9) estimated maximum instructors for that specialty. Because the PWS estimates students requiring upgrade training for 12 to 18 months, an example was given in each of the CLINs to demonstrate the meaning of a man-month if two instructors are required under one task order.