Draft_PWS_posting_responses_(14_Aug_14).pdf
PDF 157 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Sheppard Trainer Maintenance Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA300214R0011
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 45
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
SHEPPARD TRAINER MAINTENANCE
Questions and Answers
Draft PWS Posting (16 Jul 14)
Tracking # PWS Reference Question/Comment Answer/Response dPWS-T-01 Pg. 3-1-23
Para. 3.1.12.8
Will the Government provide the current paint scores for each piece of AGE and S.E.? Yes, in the RFP, the Government will provide a copy of the latest paint scores for all AGE, SE and Ground Instructional Training Aircraft and Static Display
Aircraft.
dPWS-T-02 Pg. 3-1-24
3.1.14.6
Will the Government provide an estimated annual cost for all proof load testing or provide a complete list of equipment requiring proof load testing?
A complete listing of equipment requiring proof load testing will be included in the RFP.
dPWS-T-03 Pg. 2-1-31
Para. 2.1.21.5
Is fall protection a new requirement? Can the Government provide information on where fall protection is currently being used, i.e., the Paint Hangar, etc. and what, if any, existing fall protection equipment will be transferred to the contractor?
Fall protection is not a new requirement. Fall protection is required for workers working in elevated locations on open-sided floors and platforms and near floor and wall openings in accordance with AFI 91-203, Chapter 13 and 29 CFRs.
Fall protection equipment is required during GITA painting operations, aircraft maintenance, etc. The Government will furnish 2 ea motorized man-lift devices
(JLG), (Jenie). In addition, to a permanently installed fall arrest system within the paint facility 2 portable restraint systems are available manufactured by DB
Industries (Adjustable free standing Horizontal Rail System and Man Rated Fall
Protection Systems Free Standing Portable Access Ladder Systems) dPWS-T-04 Pg. 2-1-12
Para. 2.1.11.8
Realizing that a draft QASP or PIP have not been provided, what are the specific guidelines and/or formulas used to decrement or reduce the contractor’s price due to non-conformance? FAR 52.246-4(e) states that the Government may reduce price to reflect the reduced value of the services performed “When the defects in services cannot be corrected by reperformance.” In PWS Para. 2.1.11.10, an example of a contract QCS non-conformity is “CORs finding contract problems/defects which the SP has not detected.” A contractor’s QC Plan, for example, that complies with Table
3.1.7.14.1, Service Provider’s Quality Control Baseline Standards, does not inspect everything with 100% frequency. We would ask for more clarity on what we believe should be defined as “systemic” deficiencies (e.g., repeated non-conformities despite previous corrective actions and follow-ups) in the contractor’s QCS that result in persistent degradation of services which can be quantified and that could result in withholding of payment, as well as how reduced value of services is determined and expressed as price.
The Government reserves the right to hold the contractor accountable for any non-conformity of their Quality Control System which could lead to mission degradation or failure. The Government expectations are for the contractor to meet contract requirements through established quality control inspection baselines and performance thresholds. PWS para 2.1.11.10 provides some examples of systemic non-conformities that could potentially degrade services and have a negative impact on the mission. The example provided would align with the ones provided in the PWS, (repeated non-conformities despite previous corrective actions and follow-up). No specific guidelines or formulas have been developed for this requirement as it relates to contractor price reductions for non-conformance.
dPWS-T-05 Pg. 3-1-8
Para. 3.1.5.1
Is TC Max being used now? What is the required timeframe for implementing the TC
Max Tool Asset Management Software? TC Max can be hosted on existing government desktop computers – is that the plan? Are there existing compatible government barcode scanners, barcode label printers and other required ancillary equipment or must the SP provide these?
TC Max is not currently in use. The TC Max Tool Asset Management software should be operational within 90 calendar days from start of the contract. PWS will be revised to reflect 90 calendar day requirement. TC MAX software is authorized to be hosted on Government Computers. Currently no Government compatible barcode, scanners, label printers are available.
Posted to FBO -- 14 Aug 14
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .