Vance_FOS_Draft_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_(8_Oct_13).pdf

Vance FOS Draft RFP Questions and Responses

FA3002-13-R-0008

Contracting1 Page 11

Section B, CLIN 0019

Draft PWS Q&A ID 4 and ID 15

CLIN 0019 shows 1 month mobilization; response to questions #4 and 15 stated 60-day mobilization period.

Please clarify which is correct

Section B CLIN 0019 mobilization corrected to 2 months.

Deleted CLINs X016 (Local

Purchases) and X017 (PMEL) as they are not part of the requirements.

Renumbered CLINs

X018 to X016 (PerformanCompensation) and CLIN 0019 to 0017 (Mobilization).

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Price

Evaluation

Contracting2 Page 67

Para. B-3

Section B, Item No. 0008

CLIN structure shows Weekend Flying as CLIN X008, but Para. B-3 indicates CLIN X010.

Should Weekend Flying CLIN referenced in B-3 be X008?

Paragraph B-3 CLIN reference corrected to CLIN X008.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Price

Evaluation

Contracting3 Page 10

CLINs X015, X016, X017

CLINs X015 (Wing Funded), X016 (Local Purchase), X017 (PMEL) show FFP.

Should these CLINs be COST?

CLIN X015 changed from Wing Funded to (Non-Recurring Task). CLIN Type changed to Cost

Reimbursable. See response to ID number 1.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Price

Evaluation

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 1 of 26

Contracting4 Page 68

Para. B-4

Cost Reimbursable CLINs are identified as X011 and X012.

Should cost reimbursable CLINs include X009, X010, X011 (for travel) and X015 (Wing Funded), X016 (Local Purchase), X017 (PMEL)?

Cost reimbursable CLINs are X008 through X011 and X015. Paragraphs B-3 and B-4 edited to reflect cost reimbursable CLINs. See response to ID number 1 and 3.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Price

Evaluation

Contracting5 Page 68

Para. B-5

Mobilization is identified with CLIN 0013.

Should this be CLIN 0019?

Paragraph B-5 corrected to reflect renumbered CLIN 0017 Mobilization.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Price

Evaluation

Contracting6 Page 96

Para. H-18

Paragraph describes issuance of two separate contracts pursuant to this requirement, a "C" type and a "D" type contract. This paragraph appears to be a carry over from the current combined maintenance and BOS contract (i.e.. CLINs X044, X045, X046 do not exist).

Will there be two separate contracts issued for this requirement - a type "C" and a type "D" contract?

No there will not be two separate contracts. Special Clause H-18 has been deleted and H-19 has been renumbered to H-18. Please note a new Special Clause B-9 has been added for Non-Recurring

Tasks.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Price

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 2 of 26

Contracting7 Page 148

Section I, Clause 252.237-7024 NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF ESSENTIAL

CONTRACTOR SERVICES

Clause requires bidders to provide a written plan with the proposal that addresses the solicitation attachment, "Mission Essential Contractor Services" which we could not find.

Is such a written plan required with proposals?

See Attachment 1. Vance FOS PWS, Section 21-1, Airfield Manager (AFM). The written plan shall be provided with the offer.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

General

Contracting

Contracting8 Page 10

Section B, CLIN X015

What is the purpose of CLIN X015, Wing Funded?

See ID 3 response and new Section B special clause B-9 Non-Recurring Tasks.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Price

Evaluation

Contracting9 Pages 201, 203, 207, 209

Section L, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4

Should Parts I - IV be labeled Volumes I - IV?

References to Proposal Parts changed to Proposal Volumes.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

General

Contracting

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 3 of 26

Contracting10 73

Performance Incentive Plan

Sample Calculation

In the referenced sample calculation, the contractor has 4% of the $100M TV-FFP at risk. In this scenario, the contractor obtains $47,250 out of the possible $150,000 for the quarter. Is this incentive then added to the example $100M TV-FFP resulting in payment for services of

$100,042,500? Or is the 4% truly at risk, meaning the contractor will receive less than the awarded

$100 TV-FFP?

In the referenced sample calculation, the contractor has 4% of the $100M TV-FFP at risk. In this scenario, the contractor obtains $47,250 out of the possible $150,000 for the quarter. Is this incentive then added to the example $100M TV-FFP resulting in payment for services of

$100,042,500? Or is the 4% truly at risk, meaning the contractor will receive less than the awarded

$100 TV-FFP?

The entire performance pool is at risk. The contractor will receive less than the awarded amount if warranted by poor performance. The Government understands the impact associated with performance risk and pricing strategy. The Government is taking into account industries feedback for consideration in formulating an approach to meet the Government's expectation for performance and quality.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

If this incentive is truly at risk, the Government will end up paying more for the required services as contractors will incorporate the performance risk into their overall price strategy.

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Performance

Incentive Plan

Contracting11 93

Section H-2(a)

The DRFP and DPWs contain numerous references to Columbus AFB.

"…requiring authority to work on Columbus AFB...commencing work on Columbus AFB…"

Request that every reference to Columbus is verified to ensure the appropriate clause, requirement, scope of work is relevant and intended to be performed under this solicitation for Vance.

All references to Columbus have been changed to Vance.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

General

Contracting

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 4 of 26

Contracting12

16._Draft_Vance_FOS_Performance_Incentive_Plan_(19_June_13)

Is the Performance Incentive Plan, as written, unique to this solicitation? What was in place the previous Vance AFB FOS - BOS contract?

The Performance Incentive Plan has been converted to the Performance Compensation Plan and is unique to the requirement. Current contract at Vance is a Fixed Price Incentive Fee with an award fee feature.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Performance

Incentive Plan

Contracting13 213

M.1.1.

Basis for Contract Award. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

(LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) 15…

Industry is confused by the difference in Basis of Award between the Vance FOS solicitation and the recent Columbus Aircraft Maintenance Services (AMS) solicitation. They are essentially the same operations within AETC.

What rationale led AETC to determine that LPTA is the Basis of Award for Vance FOS when the recent Columbus award was based on PPT? Why not be consistent for the same type of operation?

Each requirement is unique. Several factors influence the decision on an acquisition approach to include but not limited to policies, regulations, market conditions, requirement history, responses from industry, budget constraints, etc. This Government action promotes competition to the maximum extent practicable.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

The lack of consistency in the basis of award between the two referenced solicitations is a red flag to

Industry. It appears each type solicitation favors a specific Industry bidder.

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Other

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 5 of 26

Contracting14 207

L.2.3.1.1.1.

Recent contracts include efforts performed within the last three (3) years preceding the date of this solicitation providing that any ongoing effort must have commenced at least six (6) months prior to the solicitation date.

M.2.3.2.1.

Recency Assessmet An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. Sec M, Table 2 - Past Performance Evaluation

Ratings, Note: (last line) In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered "acceptable.”

Industry is confused with the past performance regency criteria for Vance FOS which is the same as the recent Columbus AMS solicitation, even though there is a vast difference between LPTA and

PPT evaluations. Recency of contracts include efforts performed within the last three (3) years . . .

commenced at least six (6) months prior to the solicitation date. In this context the Note in Table 2 regarding "unknown" performance makes absolutely no sense.

"What rationale led AETC to determine that the minimum past performance ""recency"" critieria for Vance FOS, commenced at least six (6) months prior to the solicitation date [which means no

CPARS evaluation], is a valid indicator of ""acceptable"" performance?

What rationale led

AETC to determine that ""unknown"" performance is acceptable?"

The "3 year preceding" and "6 month prior" recency criteria has worked well in several similar acquisitions. CPARS is not the only source used for obtaining past performance information. Past performance information is obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee

Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System

(eSRS), and other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee

Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

Regarding past performance evaluations under LPTA, DoD Source Selection Procedures stipulate ...In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”…

Comment:

Question:

Response:

The PPT evaluation has five grade levels for past performance. The LPTA has only two levels --acceptable and unacceptable. LPTA also deems unknown past performance as acceptable. Which means contracts without any CPARS rating are given a pass. This raises a red flag within Industry in regards to fair competition. It appears this solicitation favors a specific Industry bidder.

As an incumbent on several AETC programs, we have reservations in bidding this opportunity unless the recency criteria is changed to a minimum of twelve (12) months prior to the solicitation date, and the

""unknown"" category is changed to equate to ""unacceptable".

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Past

Performance

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 6 of 26

Contracting 8._DRAFT_Van ce_FOS_Manpo wer_matrix_(27

_Mar_13).xlsx

15 204/215

L.2.2.1.2. Subfactor 2 - Staffing and Workforce Plan: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s proposed aircraft maintenance, aircrew flight equipment, and airfield management organization staffing plan . . . The offeror shall use the manpower matrix provided as an attachment to this solicitation.

"M.1.1.

Basis for Contract Award. This is a Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15 . . .

M.2.1.1.2.1.2. Utilizes Schedule B

(provided as an attachment to this solicitation) as part of the proposal which provides unit prices in the Schedule B for each Contract Line Item Number

(CLIN), including Step Ladder Pricing as applicable, for the base year and all option periods."

AETC requires each bidder to price a staffing plan with the proposed number of FT/PT man years.

However, the DRFP contains enough information (manpower matrix, Step Ladder flying-hour ranges, and the current CBA) for AETC to define exactly the staffing/manpower numbers that are required for a successful flight operations support program.

Since this is an LPTA award, with a Performance Incentive Plan and associated Total Value FFP

CLINs, why did AETC leave the FT/PT Man Year cells blank? Why not define the exact required head count in the RFP and use the incentive plan to optimize the successful Support Contractor's performance?

This is a competitive performance based service acquisition whereby competing service providers' proposed technical approaches are evaluated to determine whether they clearly meet the solicitation minimum requirements by addressing how the service provider will achieve the end results.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

To best evaluate LPTA pricing, we recommend AETC have each bidder price the identical staffing

FTE numbers.

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Price

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 7 of 26

Contracting B.000X, STEPLADDER

PRICING

16 201/215

2.1.1.2. Subfactor 2 - SF33 Section B: This subfactor evaluates the offerors prices. . .

The offeror shall use the Schedule B provided as an attachment to this solicitation.

Insert proposed unit prices in Schedule B for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), including Step Ladder Pricing as applicable, for the base year and all option periods.

M.1.1.

Basis for Contract Award. This is a Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15 . . .

M.2.1.1.2.1.2. Utilizes Schedule B

(provided as an attachment to this solicitation) as part of the proposal which provides unit prices in the Schedule B for each Contract Line Item Number

(CLIN), including Step Ladder Pricing as applicable, for the base year and all option periods.

To best evaluate LPTA pricing, we recommend AETC have each bidder price the identical Step

Ladder mid-range numbers for each aircraft using dentical staffing FTE numbers which are the

AETC-defined total head count staffing numbers.

Since this is an LPTA award, why not define the exact required staffing head count in the RFP and use the FT/PT Man Year figures to bid the Step Ladder flying-hour ranges?

See ID 15 response.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

"AETC requires each bidder to price a staffing plan with the proposed number of FTEs.

However, the DRFP contains enough information (manpower matrix, Step Ladder flying-hour ranges, and the current CBA) for AETC to define exactly the staffing/manpower numbers that are required for a successful flight operations support program. "

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Price

Evaluation

Contracting17

16._Draft_Vance_FOS_Performance_Incentive_Plan_(19_June_13)

3.1. Corrective

Action Requests (CARs):

CARs may be issued at the discretion of the Government in accordance with applicable guidance for reasons including, but not limited to any major non-co

15._DRAFT_Vance_FOS_QASP_(26_June_2013): [Specifically the Service

Delivery Summaries in each of the referenced Surveillance Plans]

1. Aircraft

Maintenance Surveillance Plan

2. Aircrew Flight Equipment Surveillance

Plan

3. Airfield Management Surveillance Plan

Not sure what really constitutes a CAR.

In regards to the Performance Incentive Plan, does a CAR result from failure to meet any item on the Service Delivery Summary in each of the three Surveillance Plans (Aircraft Maintenance, Aircrew Fight Equipment, and Airfield Management)? For example, is a CAR generated for failure to meet the monthly aircraft availability rate in the Aircraft Maintenance Services Summary in the

QASP?

Yes. Failure to meet any performance objective could result in a CAR.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Performance

Incentive Plan

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 8 of 26

Contracting18 63-64

Section B _ CLIN Pricing:

The Solicitation currently has incorporated the following clauses that require certified cost or pricing data and associated 15-2 tables for the prime and its subcontractors or that they submit a “written request for exception”

Page 195:

1.1.1. Competitive Acquisition. The contracting officer has

determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists; no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate and to the extent necessary, for the contracting officer to determine the fairness, reasonableness, and affordability of the price.

The Solicitation currently has incorporated the following clauses that require certified cost or pricing data and associated 15-2 tables for the prime and its subcontractors or that they submit a

“written request for exception”.

However, the referenced section of the solicitation (Page 195) appears to indicate that certified cost or pricing data and associated 15-2 tables would not be required.

Which is correct? Please clarify whether the incorporated clauses related to certified cost or pricing data and associated 15-2 tables will only be required with the price submission for the prime and its subcontractors if deemed necessary by the Government.

If at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate and to the extent necessary, for the contracting officer to determine the fairness, reasonableness, and affordability of the price.

Per 252.215-7008(a) The provision at FAR 52215-20...does not take effect unless the Contracting

Officer notifies the offerrr.

Per 52.244-2...consent to subcontract is required only on unpriced contract actions ...and only if required in accordance with paragraph (c) or (d) of this clause

252.215-7009 applies only when the submission of certified cost or pricing data is required.

Certified cost or pricing data or information other than certified cost or pricing data may be required if deemed appropriate and necessary by the contracting officer.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Price

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 9 of 26

Contracting19

There is a mismatch in the base-year performance period dates in Section F, the quantity in Section

B, and the Schedule B Excel file for the Base Year: CLIN 0019 - Section F and the Section B show the transition period as 1 month whereas the Schedule B Excel model shows it as 2 months. Other

Base Year CLINs – Section F shows the base year period to be the 11 month period 01-Nov-2014 to

30-Sep-2015 whereas Section B and the Schedule B Excel model shows it to be a 10 month period.

Which is correct? Please clarify.

Sections B and F CLIN 0019 mobilization corrected to 2 months. See ID 1 response.

Base Year Period of Performance Adjusted:

1 Oct 2014 through 30 Nov 2014 (Mobilizaon)

1 Dec 2014 through 30 Sep 2015 (Base Year) full performance

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Price

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 10 of 26

Contracting20

General Comments: The plan as written is not an “incentive plan”, but a “disincentive plan.” It does not provide incentive for the service provider to provide excellent service, but is a tool for punishing the contractor for not meeting standards that in some cases are focused on an arbitrary metric that does nothing to ensure the quality of service. For example, simply measuring the time a

CAR is open only “incentivizes” the contractor to find a band aid to answer the CAR, rather than to take the time to determine the root cause and implement proper corrective action. Band aids simply perpetuate poor performance, since it does not correct the actual problem. It is also unclear if evaluations will be broken out by airframe or combined. Since the draft plan decrements the FFP, it forces the offerors to bid in costs of the risk of being decremented. This unnecessarily inflates the

FFP cost, while on the other hand, an award fee contract allows you to provide an “incentive” for exceeding metrics or going over and above, without driving the cost of risk into the FFP. Chasing the grading criteria may also result in customer dissatisfaction or mission degradation (like allowing fleet time to drop, while capitalizing on good weather). It is metric chasing versus customer satisfaction, and creates an adversarial relationship with the CORs. This is counter to the stated goal of the QASP. The QASP states the following: 2.1.1. Partnering: Partnering is the creation of a government/contractor relationship that promotes achievement of mutually beneficial goals during a government contract period or project. Partnering involves people who believe cooperation is the most effective and efficient way to achieve their goals. The ultimate goal of partnering is to change the “us vs. them” attitude and create the “we” relationship. 2.1.2. The most important step in partnering is for each party to first seek to understand the goals, objectives, and interests of the other party. This will create a “win-win” situation. Efficient partnering has specific attributes that contribute equally to its success. They are common goals, communication, problem solving, and synergies. These attributes seek to accomplish the ultimate goal of cooperation and shared vision.

It is evident the Government has developed a disincentive model for Vance that reflects mediocre or poor performance by a contractor and rather than establish a best value acquisition strategy to ensure a good performing contractor can get an award and execute. Developing a strong stick to decrement the FFP will assure you have 5 or more years ahead with a similar outcome as the last several.

See ID 10 and 12 responses.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 11 of 26

Contracting21

We understand that a fair and reasonable method of assessing contractor performance is needed as well as a process to correct deficiencies quickly. It is our objective in this response to provide comment based on our experience in the aviation industry. We noted two general observations: 1) the PIP contained in the draft RFP only provides penalties and does not contain any positive incentives, and 2) in our experience, the PIP as drafted will inevitably lead to higher cost, greater workload for the Government, and may not achieve the quality performance needed to support

Flight Operation Services at Vance AFB. It is our earnest belief that a better approach is possible.

Addressing our first general observation, incentives in the draft PIP, the PIP only provides penalties and does not contain any positive incentives. The PIP provides the Wing with a method to influence the contractor focusing on the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) that seem most important to the

Wing leadership and a process to impact the contractor immediately. It requires objective comment on contractor performance and provides very detailed and concrete measures. In this regard, the PIP appears to be clearly measureable vs. subjective. It is based on quality performance and responsiveness in addressing and fixing performance issues. The only subjective part of the proposed PIP is that the Wing chooses which CLINs would be part of the PIP process. Since all

CLINs should be addressed and worked with a quality approach this is understandable. However, we believe that prospective bidders would need clarification as to whether the PIP is intended to be positive motivation or negative. Addressing our first general observation, incentives in the draft PIP, the PIP only provides penalties and does not contain any positive incentives. The PIP provides the

Wing with a method to influence the contractor focusing on the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) that seem most important to the Wing leadership and a process to impact the contractor immediately. It requires objective comment on contractor performance and provides very detailed and concrete measures. In this regard, the PIP appears to be clearly measureable vs. subjective. It is based on quality performance and responsiveness in addressing and fixing performance issues. The only subjective part of the proposed PIP is that the Wing chooses which CLINs would be part of the

PIP process. Since all CLINs should be addressed and worked with a quality approach this is understandable. However, we believe that prospective bidders would need clarification as to whether the PIP is intended to be positive motivation or negative.

Regarding our second general observation, potential impact, we think the key point that should be considered is that the

Government will likely see higher prices and will be constantly engaged in debates and conflict over the grading. If the proposed PIP is intended to be a truly and totally negative incentive, with no possibility of earning additional funding, then it must be realized that contractors will likely build some risk into their price. As a result, the Government may actually be obliged to pay a higher price for these services than they would have without the PIP. In addition to potential cost impact, it appears that the PIP will require considerable administrative oversight. The envisioned approach will result in a fairly significant amount of tracking and calculating, both for the contractor as well as the Government. With personnel cutbacks, time spent tracking performance using calculations in the proposed PIP may be better invested in higher priorities.

See ID 10 and 12 responses.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 12 of 26

Other22 RFP 186 of 224

RFP Section L, Clause 252.215-7009

Clause 252.215-7009, Proposal Adequacy Checklist, instructs offerors to complete 5 1/2 page checklist, providing location of requested information, or an ixplanation of why the requestd information is not provided. We have been unable to locate within the Proposal Preparation

Instructions To Offerors (PPITO), where the Government wishes the completed checklist to be placed within our proposal submission--we assume somewhere within Volume I, Price Proposal.

Where does the Government wish the completed Proposal Adequacy Checklist to be placed within each offeror's proposal submission?

Will this checklist count against the "yet-to-be-determined" maximum page count?

See ID 18 response. The checklist will not count against the maximum page count.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Other

Technical23 RFP 11 of 112

RFP Section B, CLIN 00019

RFP Section B, Clause B-5

Government Q&A Response ID 15

RFP Section B, Clause B-5

Government Q&A Response ID 15

Section B, CLIN 0019, Mobilization Transition, identifies the mobilization period as one (1) month .

Section B, Clause B-5 identifies Mobilization as CLIN 0013 (0013 is actually T-6A

Monthly Adjustment Rate).

The Government's response to Q&A ID 15 states that the mobilization period will be 60 Days

What time period does the Government intend to allow for mobilization/transition?

Will the Government please reconcile the cited references to mobilization for this contract effort?

See ID 1 response.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Schedule B

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 13 of 26

Contracting24 RFP 96 of 224

RFP Clause H-18

Clause H-18, Contractor Responsibility for Contract Integration, refers to two separate contracts to be awarded: a "C" type for Aircraft Maintenance and Base operating support, and a "D" type for

Local Purchase. In addition, this clause refers to CLINs (X044, X045, and X046) that are not a part of this contracting effort. We believe this clause may be a hold-over from the current contract and not intended for this solicitation.

Is Clause H-18 applicable to the Vance AFB Flight Operations Support solicitation FA3002-13-R-

0008?

See ID 6 response.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

General

Contracting

Other25 RFP 199 of 224

RFP Section L, PPITO paragraph 1.3.1.7.3

Section L, PPITO, paragraph 1.3.1.7.3 states: Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch, Times New Roman font. Smaller font size may be used in tables, drawings, charts, graphs, and diagrams, but shall not be less than 8 pitch, Times

New Roman.

The measures of pitch and point are not interchangeable. Pitch is the measure of the number of characters per inch, and Point is the meaure of font size. Basically, 12 pitch roughly equals 10 point and 8 pitch roughly equals 15 point. The fewer characters per inch (Pitch), the larger the font size, We believe the requirement of this paragraph was meant to specify the smallest font sizes permitted, the therfore the intended measure was intented to be "point".

Did the Government intend for the minimum font sizes to be not less than 12 point Times New

Roman font for normal text, and not less than 8 point Times New Roman font for tables, drawings, chanrts, grapohs, and diagrams?

Edited...font size shall be no less than 10 point…For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the font shall be no smaller than 8 point.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Other

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 14 of 26

Technical 03 - Aircraft

Maintenance

26 3-2-2

3.2.1

Table 3.2.1, Performance Thresholds Government Q&A Response ID 99

Table 3.2.1 and associated Notes L and M, identify performance thresholds for TMDE availability and TMDE working backlog. Per the description of these performance thresholds in notes L and M, these thresholds are measures of the performance of the PMEL function, which is outside the scope of the FOS contract effort. The Government's response to Q&A ID 99 states that PMEL support is under a separate Air Force contract.

Will the Government consider removing the performance thresholds for TMDE availability and

TMDE working backlog from table 3.2.1 and associated Notes "L" and "M"?

Yes, thank you for identifying the TMDE references in table 3.2.1. TMDE availability and working backlog have been removed and Notes L & M have been reutilized.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Performance

Work

Statement

Technical 03 - Aircraft

Maintenance

27 3BAA-3

3BAA.3 Note

The note at the top of paragraph 3.B.A.A.3 references example daily flying schedules for T-1A, T-

6A and T-38C aircraft. Table 3BAA.3.1 provides an example of a T-1A daily flying schedule;Table

3BAA.3.2 provides an example of a T-6A daily flying schedule; but there is not an example of the T-

38C daily flying schedule provided within this section. Although the Prime Flyer & Spare

Requirements Appendix 3BBB spreadsheet indicates what must be flown to meet mission requirements, it does not indicate how the customer intends to execute the daily flying program.

Will the Government please provide an example of the expected daily flying schedule for the T-38C training mission at Vance AFB?

Table 3BAA.3.3, T-38 Daily Flying Schedule was added to appendix 3BAA.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Performance

Work

Statement

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 15 of 26

Other28 RFP Page 204 of

RFP Section L, PPITO paragraph 2.2.1.2

RFP Section L, PPITO paragraph 1.3.1.4

RFP Section L, paragraph 2.2.1.2 requires the Manpower Matrix provided as RFP Attachment 8

(8._DRAFT_Vance_FOS_Manpower_matrix_(27_Mar_13).xlsx) to be incorporated into the staffing and workforce plan. Per paragrph 1.3.1.4, the page limits (yet to be determined) will be maximum limits.

Will the Government exclude the manpower matrix (RFP Attachment 8) from the maximum page count for Volume II, Technical Proposal?

Yes. The manpower matrix will be excluded from the Technical Volume page count.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Other

Other XX - Other 29 RFP Attachment

3, Vance CBA, Article 20.1

The Service Contract Act (SCA) requires the successor contractor to provide wages and fringe benefits no less than those provided for by the predecessor contractor CBA in the first year of the contract. It is customary for the incumbent contractor to provide minimum health and welfare rates to ensure SCA compliance.

Will the Government provide employee group insurance participation data to allow offerors to more accurately estimate comparable/reasonable benefits?

Group insurance participation data has been requested from the incumbent contractor and will be provided at the appropriate time (i.e. solicitation/site-visit) or as it becomes available.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Collective

Bargaining

Agreement

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 16 of 26

Other XX - Other 30 RFP Attachment

3, Vance CBA, Article 23.1

The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) contains unusual criteria concerning pay, in that it identifies minimum and maximum wage rate ranges.

Since union wage rates are typically tied to seniority, in an effort to ensure reasonable wage rate estimates for personnel currently on the program, would the Government provide a seniority listing?

Information not releasable due to its proprietary nature.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Collective

Bargaining

Agreement

Other XX - Other 31 RFP Attachment

3, Vance CBA, 13.1

CBA Article 23.1 states: "Unused paid time off will become banked sick leave the fiscal year following the calendar year of accrual.” “In no event will employees be paid for unused banked sick leave.”

Will banked sick leave be transferred over to the new service provider should other than the imcumbant be awarded this contract?

Yes. According to FAR 22.1002-3 (a) Successor contractors performing on contracts in excess of

$2,500 for substantially the same services performed in the same locality must pay wages and fringe benefits (including accrued wages and benefits and prospective increases) at least equal to those contained in any bona fide collective bargaining agreement entered into under the predecessor contract. This requirement is self-executing and is not contingent upon incorporating a wage determination or the wage and fringe benefit terms of the predecessor contractor’s collective bargaining agreement in the successor contract.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Collective

Bargaining

Agreement

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 17 of 26

Technical 21 - Airfield

Management

32 PWS Page 21-1-6

21.1.2.8

21.1.2.7

Paragraph 21.1.2.8, Airfield Safety and Compliance Inspections and Checks, was inadvertently rolled into previous paragraph 21.1.2.7, Airfield Restriction, Closures, and NOTAM Procedures.

(See page 21-1-6, third line). Then the following paragraph, Kgelmen Auxiliary Airfield (KCKA) was improperly numberd.

Will the Government consider separating paragraph 21.1.2.8, Airfield Safety and Compliance

Inspections and Checks, from the previous paragraph, and renumbering the following paragraph

Kegelman Auxiliary Airfield (KCKA) as paragraph number 21.1.2.8.1?

Corrected, thank you for identifying the problem with paragraphs 21.1.2.7 and 21.1.2.8. Also, yes we have added paragraph 21.1.2.8.1 Kegelman Auxiliary Airfield (KCKA).

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Performance

Work

Statement

Contracting33

The PIP as currently written does not appear to be an award for superior performance, but a penalty for failure for anything other than perfect performance. Basically 4% of estimated profit on the FFP

CLINs is at risk each quarter, with no way to recover if not earned in that quarter.

Could the Government clarify whether the PIP is intended to be positive motivation or negative? Is an alternate monitoring approach under consideration that would include a fair and reasonable method of assessing contractor performance as well as a process to correct deficiencies quickly?

Are any positive incentives for superior performance being considered for inclusion to the PIP? Is an alternate monitoring approach under consideration that would include a fair and reasonable method of assessing contractor performance as well as a process to correct deficiencies quickly?

See ID 10 and 12 responses.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

The performance incentive approach described in the Performance Incentive Plan will result in higher cost to the Government.

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Performance

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 18 of 26

Contracting34 2

Paragraph 2 of the proposed PIP addresses a percentage of TV-FFP that would be set aside.

Is that amount intended to be in addition to the FFP or subtracted from the FFP?

Subtraction from TV-FFP CLINs.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Prospective bidders would need clarification if the amount intended is in addition to the FFP or subtracted from the FFP.

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Performance

Incentive Plan

Contracting35 73

The fairness of the proposed PIP approach should be considered. In the example of page 73 of the

Incentive Determination Calculation, the total loss calculated equals $102,750 out of the $150,000 designated as the quarterly pool. That figure represents a loss of 68.5% of the funds on the selected

CLINs, a very significant amount.

Could the Government comment on the Incentive Determination Calculation?

The calculation is based on CARs, AOFs, Tis, and OGIs.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Even realizing that this may have been used as a worst case example, this would amount to a large penalty or fine.

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Performance

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 19 of 26

Contracting36

The draft RFP appears to levy liquidated damages If an offerors services are not delivered within the timeframe specified in the contract. This appears to be in addition to the quality penalties described in the PIP. The clause is not filled in to address the amount of damages.

Does the USG intend to include the FAR clause 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages Supplies, Services, or Research and Development in addition to the PIP provisions and if so, what is the amount of liquidated damages per day as required by the clause?

Yes. The Government intends to include the FAR clause 52.211-11. This is another tool available to the Government in the event the Government suffers damages. The FAR Clause 52.211-11 is incorporated by reference. Currently, liquidated damages will be applicable to the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-16. Also, unearned Performance

Compensation will be liquidated.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

A thorough understanding of Liquidated Damages is needed in order to respond to the final RFP.Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Liquidated

Damages clause

Contracting37

Clause H-13 requires the contractor to maintain the same accounting system during the period of contract and any subsequent contracts awarded. In the course of normal business operations it is often the case that companies update or change accounting systems with Government approval to promote efficiency, provide greater visibility to clients, and leverage newer technology and innovation.

Can the Government provide clarification of the meaning of this requirement?

Clause H-13 has been removed and H-13 is now reserved.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

While it may be possible to maintain a unique accounting system for a single client, the cost associated would be considerable and maintaining an older accounting system would deprive the

Government of benefits provided to the larger US Government customer base.

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Clause H-13

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 20 of 26

Contracting38

Clause H-18 indicates that there will be two separate contracts awarded as a result of this RFP.

Can the Government clarify CLIN structure of both contracts anticipated?

See ID 6 response.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

The CLINS for the second contract (Contract Y) “Weekend/Holiday Flying and Wing Funded

Services (CLINs X044, X045 and X046´) do not line up with the CLINs in this RFP. (Example:

Weekend/holiday Flying is CLIN X008 in the RFP)

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Clause H-18

Contracting39

Clause H-19 imposes fines for environmental issues.

Can the Government clarify that Clause H-19 will be required in the final RFP?

Yes. Enviromental issues will be included in the RFP. Please note H-19 is now H-18.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Offerors will need to request a baseline environmental study.Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Clause H-19

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 21 of 26

Contracting40

FAR 52.222-17 is incorporated into the contract. It will require contractors to offer to incumbent service employees’ right of first refusal on any positions for which they are qualified. The clause also prevents using pre-employment screening unless required by the RFP. Employment cannot be offered to anyone else until provisions of the FAR clause are complied with; there are severe penalties for non-compliance. Unless there is documented evidence that a worker is not fit an offeror cannot refuse employment to incumbent employees. Incumbent employee screening is not addressed including drug testing.

Will the Government consider incorporating employee screening criteria that as a minimum includes drug screening in the final RFP? Will the Performance Work Statement recognize impact of FAR

52.222-17 on transition time?

Clause 52.223-6 Drug Free Workplace is incorported by reference as part of the terms and conditions. Drug screening and qualification screening is contingent on service provider's policy for maintaining a drug free workplace and qualified workforce. Nothing in FAR 52.222-17 shall be construed to permit a failure to comply with any provision of any other Executive order or law.

Mobilization period will be 2 months.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Compliance with FAR 52.222-17 will impact transition time. Workers get 10 days to consider an offer and the PCO may not provide the list of eligible workers until after award. Between the 10 days to consider and internal processes for hiring personnel, it could be several weeks after award before staffing is finalized.

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

FAR 52.222-17

Contracting41

52.246-20 Warranty of Services does not include anticipated timeframe.

Can the Government provide the timeframe within which the government can exercise this clause?

The timeframe will be in accordance with the QASP. FAR Clause 52.246-20 is incorporated by reference.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

The timeframe within which the government can exercise this clause is not identified.Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

52.246-20

Warranty of

Services

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 22 of 26

Contracting42

There appears to be a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in place that the contractor will be required to honor. Collective Bargaining Agreement, paragraph 2.2.1.2.10 (Page 205) requires the contractor to discuss their approach “for CBA and contingencies that will ensure there will be no interruption of services due to labor disruption and disputes or call up of reservists by executive order.”

Can the Government provide the current CBA for review? To ensure that “no interruption in services” occurs, is the contractor to assume that "Non-Union” employees would be hired to fill positions in the event of a strike?

The current CBA is provided as Attachment 3 Draft Vance FOS CBA. The contractor should not assume what actions would transpire in the event of a strike. Contractors should seek legal advice as required.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

A careful assessment of the CBA will be needed to ensure a thorough understanding of provisions and obligations.

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Collective

Bargaining

Agreement

Contracting43 192

Section L

252.225-7003 REPORT OF INTENDED PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

AND CANADA--SUBMISSION WITH OFFER (OCT 2010)

The RFP contains numerous references to clauses for performing work outside of the United States that is not referenced anywhere in the draft performance work statement. Is this a Section L error or an omition from the DPWS.

DFARS 225.7204 prescribes the provision at 252.225-7003 for solicitations with a value exceeding

$12.5 million.

This is notSection L error nor an ommission from the Draft PWS. The clause states

Offerors are required to report their intentions of performing any part of the contract outside of the United States…"

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Technical

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 23 of 26

Technical 00 - Table of

Content

44 Page i

2.1.26 Reserved

This paragraph reference is missing.

Table of Contents has been revised

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Performance

Work

Statement

Technical 00 - Table of

Content

45 Page i

2.1.27

Vehicles, Page 2-1-22

Recommend adding "Vehicles" to 2.1.27 Service Provider Services, Equipment, Property, Supplies, (Vehicles) and deleting Line titled Vehicles, Page 2-1-22

Table of Contents has been revised

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Performance

Work

Statement

Technical 00 - Table of

Content

46 Page ii

Appendix 2E, Collateral Tasks, is missing

Table of Contents has been revised

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Performance

Work

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 24 of 26

Technical 00 - Table of

Content

47 Pages ii and iii

2.3.5, 3.1.5, 3.1.9 thru 3.1.24, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3

These paragraph references have incorrect page references.

Table of Contents has been revised

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference:

Proprietary IndicatorRFP Section

Performance

Work

Statement

Technical 06 - Aircrew

Flight

Equipment

Q&A ID 72 indicated CFETP10X1 would be included as an appendix with STS tasks highlighted that are not required.

We could not find CFETP1P0X1 in the appendices.

CFETP1P0X1 was included with the AFE PWS. In the final PWS the CFETP will be attached to the PDF file.

Comment:

Question:

Response:

Concern:

Type Response: PWS SectionID Page Reference

Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross…