MQ_1 9_Questions_from_industry_as_of_31_Jan_13.docx

Continuation of Questions from Industry after the Pre-Proposal Conference held 12 Dec 12 and before Receipt of Proposals As of 31 Jan 13 NOTE 1: The PWS Summary of Changes dated 17 Jan 13 was missing some of the changes when it was originally posted to FBO with Amendment 1. It was updated accordingly to add the missing changes and posted to FBO on 24 Jan 13 to incorporate all changes made to the PWS through Amendment 1.

NOTE 2: Amendment 2 will capture the changes required to the PWS due to the following questions.

18. Clarification to previous Question #1 for Questions from Industry during the Pre-Proposal Conference (posted to FBO on 24 Jan 13): Must the offeror bid labor using current CBA rates?

ANSWER: Note the current CBAs are broken out by Fiscal Year; ensure to submit pricing that incorporates the CBA rate applicable to each period of performance.

19. Question: If the CLINs for the optional services are not exercised until an option year, are the employees to be paid according to the AWD wages attached to the RFP or the AWD in effect for that location at the time of exercise?

ANSWER: Reference FAR clause 52.222-43 concerning price adjustments.

20. Question: If the wages are to be paid according to the AWD in effect at the time of exercise, is the contractor entitled to an equitable adjustment for the difference between the AWD attached to the RFP and the AWD wages at time of exercise?

ANSWER: Since there are existing CBAs with the incumbent contractor, the successor contractor shall initially pay wages and fringe benefits at least equal to those in the CBAs; reference FAR Subpart 22.1008-2 and clause 52.222-41(f). Reference FAR clause 52.222-43 concerning price adjustments.

21. Question: There is not a CLIN for startup costs such as equipment associated with additional employees required for the optional CLINs. Will this be separately negotiated when the CLIN is exercised?

ANSWER: No. These types of costs are normally included in the pricing for the Phase-in CLINs.

22. Question: RFP CLIN X103, X123 and X151. Does the Government want bidders to price the labor IAW the specified paragraph references or IAW Appendix 1 for this CLIN?

ANSWER: Since this acquisition is performance-based, pricing shall be based on the offeror’s approach to meet the PWS requirements.

23. Question: RFP. The Government included the FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Act of 1965 as an incorporated clause. The Government has also released the CBA for each geographical area of performance for those position characterized as CBA. Please provide the SCA Wage Determinations (WD) so that bidders may map non-CBA labor categories to the correct DOL SCA WD.

ANSWER: All positions fall under the CBAs except the JICO position which is not currently under a CBA and is exempt from wage determinations.

24. Question: RFP Section 4a Required Insurance: Contractor is required to provide specified level of insurance coverage, specifically “$200,000 per occurrence for property damage.” Is the aircraft itself considered “property” for the purposes of this coverage or is the property damage only referring to equipment, buildings, etc that may be damaged during an aircraft incident?

ANSWER: FAR 52.245-1 defines property as “Property means all tangible property, both real and personal”, therefore any determinations of loss or damage to property would be based on this definition.

25. Question: FAR 52.246-25: The FAR states, “If the Contractor carries insurance, or has established a reserve for self-insurance, covering liability for loss or damage suffered by the Government through the Contractor’s performance of services or furnishing of materials under this contract, the Contractor shall be liable to the Government, to the extent of such insurance or reserve, for loss of or damage to property of the Government occurring after Government acceptance of, and resulting from any defects and deficiencies in, services performed or materials furnished under this contract.”

The contractor instructors complete a Government approved training program and are certified to fly and instruct by the Government. The Government also makes all decisions whether to fly (i.e. weather issues, high winds, icing conditions, etc.) as well as whom to fly (contractor or active duty). As such, the contractor appears to be held responsible for incidents which they have little to no control over. Is it the Government’s intent to hold the contractor responsible for the cost of the MQ-1/9 damage/replacement during an incident?

ANSWER: In the event of loss or damage to property, liability would determined when “services performed or materials furnished results from willful misconduct or lack of good faith on the part of any of the Contractor’s managerial personnel “ per FAR Clause 52.246-25(b), which is also cited in 52.245-1(h)(1)(ii). The contractor could be determined liable up to the amounts of insurance coverage required, which are stated in the Required Insurance local instruction of Section 4.a. in the solicitation.

26. Question: RFP Instruction to Offerors, para 12.6. If the bidder presents a past performance as a subcontractor on a contract where the Government issued the Prime contractor a CPAR is the bidder required to send a PPQ to the Prime contractor? Typically, the Subcontractor does not have access to the Prime contractor’s CPAR nor will the Prime contractor release their CPAR to the Subcontractor for inclusion in Volume I.

ANSWER: No.

27. Question: PWS para 1.2.2 last sentence. Please clarify our understanding. In this paragraph, bidders are required to provide a number of SME for CWD. For bidders to properly quantify and include cost for this requirement, we need access to the ACC syllabi to assess the workload requirement. In previous Q&A, the Government denied request to establish a bidder’s library to include syllabi. Therefore, is it correct to interpret the requirement to provide SMEs for CWD as a requirement supported by the bidder’s SME staffing; that is, this requirement is not in addition to the labor in Appendix 1.

ANSWER: SME support is part of the overall courseware development effort. See PWS para A6 CWD WORKLOAD ESTIMATES.

28. Question: PWS para 1.2.3.5.

1. If we interpret it correctly, the Government requires the offers to provide a TMS will “interface with the Patriot Excalibur go-no-go and Stan/Eval functions.” For a bidder to provide a TMS interface to PEX (e.g.: design, build and cost), bidders must have access to the PEX interface control document (ICD). It would be helpful, to a more accurate design and price considerations for the Government to also provide:

0. PEX software design specifications

0. PEX operating system documentation

0. PEX database documentation

0. Identity of the software system (database) houses PEX data to include software version

0. To know if PEX can accept and send flat data files (e.g. Comma Separated Value)

0. To know if the interface described in the PWS meant for data to be pulled from the TMS into PEX, or from PEX to the TMS, or both?

ANSWER: The interface requirement for PEX interface is deleted. LMS/TMS interface with PEX will be completed, in the future, as PWX features become available.

PWS para 1.2.3.5 will be updated in Amendment 2.

1. The Government specifies that the TMS/LMS “shall be operational at all times 24/7/365…”; however, page 21, Section 2 (8) specifies TMS/LMS “shall be operational at all times during duty hours (0700-1800). Please clarify the operational availability standard.

ANSWER: The TMS/LMS should be operation during normal duty hours including when the squadron(s) are flying outside of normal duty hours e.g. exercises, night ops, special event support, or as needed by prior scheduling coordination. Maintenance should be done during non-duty hours to the max extent possible. If it is necessary for the TMS/LMS to be taken off line, the contractor will coordinate with the Wing QPC’s to determine the best time to perform maintenance when during duty hours.

29. Question: PWS para 1.2.4.6.1 and A4.5. The addition of Holloman AFB to paragraph 1.2.4.6.1 suggests that there should be a corresponding PMATS CO workload listed in section A4.5, but there is none shown. Is there a PMATS CO workload for either the base year or options years at Holloman AFB?

ANSWER: PWS para 1.2.4.6.1 added Holloman in error in the draft PWS; it was corrected in the version attached to the RFP issued on 20 Dec 12. There is no console operator work at Holloman. This work is done by a different contract separate from this solicitation.

30. Question: PWS para 4.2.4.1.1 and 4.2.4.1.2 requires instructors to have previous experience as an Instructor/Instructor Aircrew Member with an “(Air Force Specialty Code “K” prefix)”. Since RPAs in general and the MQ-1/9 in particular are flown by other U.S. Federal Government organizations outside the Air Force, their instructors will not carry the AF “K” prefix designation. Will the Air Force accept these individuals as long as there is sufficient documentation they served in an instructor pilot position in their respective service/agency and meet the other required qualifications?

ANSWER: Yes, the Air Force will accept non "k" coded MQ-1/MQ-9 instructor pilots/sensors with the appropriate documentation supporting that they were previous MQ-1/9 instructors in a non Air-Force MQ-1/9. PWS para 4.2.4.1.1 and 4.2.4.1.2.will be updated in Amendment 2.

31. Question: PWS para A2.2.2.1. The Creech collective bargaining agreement specifies that instructors performing launch and recovery operations are entitled to a specialty qualification pay (SQP). Please break out the L/R from the FIUT PMATS requirement so that bidders can accurately price the requirement.

ANSWER: Para A2.2.2.1, table title is in error. It should read FY14-18 Creech AFB MQ-1 FIUT PMATS. PWS para A2.2.2.1 will be updated in Amendment 2.

32. Question: PWS para A2.2.3.2. Please clarify the first course, is it MQ-1 FIUT Pilot?

ANSWER: Yes, word “Pilot” does not show due to the table border.

33. Question: PWS para A2.2.5.1. The Creech collective bargaining agreement specifies that instructors performing flying and launch and recovery operations are entitled to a specialty qualification pay (SQP). Please break out the flying (mission) and L/R from the academic and PMATS simulator training support requirements for accurate pricing.

ANSWER: Para A2.2.5.1. is changed to add estimates of 25% Mission Pilot/SO, 25% L/R Pilot/SO; 30% for simulator and 20% for academic. PWS para A2.2.5.1. will be updated in Amendment 2.

34. Question: PWS para A3.2.3.1. Please clarify the courses for the FY 14-18 Instructor Upgrade Training requirement.

ANSWER: There is only one course for the Instructor Upgrade Training, which is the MQ-1/9 Formal Training Unit Instructor Upgrade Course as referenced in Appendix 2 of the PWS.

35. Question: PWS para A3.2.5.1. The Creech collective bargaining agreement specifies that instructors performing flying and launch and recovery operations are entitled to a specialty qualification pay (SQP). Please break out the flying (mission) and L/R from the academic and PMATS simulator training support requirements for accurate pricing.

ANSWER: Para A3.2.5.1. is changed to add estimates of 25% Mission Pilot/SO, 25% L/R Pilot/SO; 30% for simulator and 20% for academic. PWS para A3.2.5.1. will be updated in Amendment 2.

36. Question: PWS para A4.4.1. Please clarify the courses (pilot, SO and or pilot/SO) for the FY 14-18 Holloman AFB MQ-9 Academic Classroom Instruction.

ANSWER: This academic instruction is from the MQ-9 IQT syllabus.

37. Question: PWS para A5.2.4.1 page 54 has the same paragraph number A5.2.4.1 on page 55.

ANSWER: Para A5.2.4.1. Scheduler is changed to .2, Registrar .2 to .3 and Training Specialist .3 to .4. PWS will be updated in Amendment 2.

38. Question: PWS para A6.2.4.1 and A6.2.4.3 have the same title; yet, the position in the “box” is contradictory. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Para A6.2.4.3 is changed to Registrar to agree with the associated table.

PWS para A6.2.4.3 will be updated in Amendment 2.

39. Question: PWS para A6.7 and the included CWD workload tables. Note 2 regarding the newly added PMATS/Flight Lesson Package courseware indicates that the package consists of a Lesson Strategy Report, a PMATS or Flight Lesson Plan (as appropriate), an Instructor Guide and a Student Instructional Guide. Can the government confirm whether the PMATS Lesson Plan is expected to include the PMATS simulator Initial Condition (IC) files to run the training mission?

ANSWER: Yes, IC files are part of the PMATS lesson plan and will be included.

40. Question: PWS para A6.8. Which SME skill (e.g. Instructor pilot or SO) does the Government require? This determination would be very helpful in arriving at an accurate cost/price.

ANSWER: The SME skill sets involve both pilots and sensor operators and the workload is estimated at 100 hours between the two based on the particular manuals for the total 200 hours estimated annually for SME support. PWS para A6.8. will be updated in Amendment 2.

41. Question: PWS para A6.9. Which SME skill set does the Government require for Syllabus and TTL support? A determination, quantified by hours, would be very helpful in arriving at an accurate cost/price.

ANSWER: The SME skill sets involve both pilots and sensor operators; the workload will fluctuate between the two for the 500 hours estimated annually for Syllabus and TTL support.