Presolicitation_-_Amendment_3.pdf

Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) FA4890-13-R-0111

Questions & Answers

Q57. What is the date for the site visit to the PMEL at Wright Patterson AFB?

A57. Information will be posted on FBO.

Q58. Will the 7808 report data on all sites for the last 3 years be provided?

A58. Workload required to be supported is part of the RFP. 7808 report data will not be provided.

PWS 2.1.1: “Provides a focal point and primary interface between the Strategic Sourcing Office

(SSO) and all contractor-operated sites. The contractor will respond to Contracting Officer

(CO) or SSO requests within 2 duty hours of receipt of government request.”

Q59. Will the notification be to the contractor’s Program Manager or the Site Manager?

A59. This requirement relates to the Program Manager so notification will be to the contractor’s

Program Manager

PWS 2.1.2: “Provides all electronic data exchanged between the government and the contractor in a format compatible with existing government-preferred software (currently Microsoft Office).

The government will consider any cost-effective proposals submitted by the contractor detailing alternative or supplemental methods of data interchange.”

Q60. Is an alternative to Microsoft acceptable?

A60. Currently the requirement is Microsoft Office.

PWS 2.1.2.1.2: “The contractor shall provide the government access to CDRLs, metrics, operation instructions (OIs), standard operating procedures (SOPs), quality control/quality assurance documentation (QMS, audit schedule, audit checklist/reports, root cause analysis), training records, and official contractor PMO letters at a minimum.”

Q61. This requirement appears to be a micro level of the contractor verses a macro level. Is this requirement to evaluate the contractor or individuals on the contract?

A61. The requirement is to have access to the information that the contractor uses to control the quality of their performance. Evaluation of performance includes contractor employees

PWS 2.1.2.1.3: “Quality control/quality assurance documentation (QMS, audit schedule, audit checklist/reports) and training records shall be accurate and updated on the MIDS within ten calendar days of completion.”

Q62. Are you reviewing individual training records or the contractor’s training plan/program?

Are the training records in electronic format at each site? Please clarify – are the PAMS/FEMS reports exempt from being in the MIDS? Is the MIDS only for contractor generated reports and/or date?

A62. The PWS and TO 00-20-14 requires personnel to be trained/qualified on the items that they certify, so review of individual training records is required. The format of a company’s electronic training records is the company’s choice and if the records are currently in place is irrelevant, current training records will be not be provided by the government. As far as

PAMS/FEMS reports, whatever documentation that a company uses to control their quality and meets the minimum information required by the PWS is their choice. Normally would not expect this to be information that is available through our systems but again, it is a company’s choice.

PWS 2.1.4: “Identifies and recommends AFMETCAL Program process improvement and potential savings to the SSO.”

Q63. Is there a financial incentive for the contractor to make these types of recommendation?

A63. There is a cost piece to the incentive plan

PWS 2.2.1: “Reimbursable Expense Documentation Report. The contractor shall establish procedures to identify and report man-hour expenditures and on-site travel expenditures that are reimbursable to this contract. ……….”

2.2.1.1 Air Force units within the host-MAJCOM and those listed in AFI 25-201, Support

Agreement Procedures, are not required to reimburse for labor or parts.

Q64. Is ACC the host MAJCOM? If not who is the host MAJCOM?

This requirement is unclear. Example WPAFB is under AFMC and ACC is the contracting command. WPAFB supports many units and several on-site/TFCU units from different organizations. Are the reimbursable units currently identified in PAMS? IF not will this be completed for all sites prior to contract phase-in?

Q65. Are the funding requirements in-place for each command and units that will be require to provide reimbursement for calibration support?

Q66. What is the contractor’s responsibility for reviewing and coordinating on the support agreements during the phase-in period and at contract start?

Q67. If the source document for the reimbursable report is the PAMS or FEMS report, why is it required when it could be pulled like the 7808 report is pulled from PAMS?

Q68. Will there be work-load realignment by the commands as a result of the procurement?

A64-68. There are no changes to the Air Force’s organizational structure through this contracting action, whatever MAJCOM a base belongs to is still who they belong to in the end. For an

AFMC base, AFMC is still the host-MAJCOM and all reimbursable customers today are still the reimbursable customers after the contract. Any funding requirements are internal governmental concerns and do not require any contractor action. Support Agreements review/coordination is inherently governmental so it is handled by government personnel so again, no contractor action is required. While there is a reimbursable report available in PAMS, the CDRL requirement includes information beyond what is available in PAMs which is why it is included as a CDRL.

This procurement is not driving any workload realignment, however there may be some changes based on other actions within the Air Force. Estimated workload is provided in the Schedule B location specific bandwidths.

PWS 2.2.1.2: “Air Force units not part of the host-MAJCOM shall reimburse for contract labor, unique parts and material, and commercial calibration and maintenance.”

2.2.1.3 Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve (AFRES) units are required to reimburse for contract labor, unique parts and material, commercial calibration and maintenance, and travel associated with on-site calibration/maintenance.

2.2.1.4 Other Department of Defense (DoD) and Federal agency units are required to reimburse for contract labor, parts and material, commercial calibration and maintenance, Q69. How are the reimbursable units determined at the ALC’s?

Q70. Are the reimbursable units currently identified in PAMS or FEMS?

Q71. Are the Support Agreements in place? If not will they be completed prior to contract start?

Q72. Will a template be provided for the required CDRL?

Q73. Will the PAMS reimbursable report provide the required data for the CDRL?

Q74. Is there a reimbursable report for FEMS?

A69-74. As has previously been explained at Industry Day, all locations will be on PAMS.

Reimbursable customers have been/will be identified for each location. Support Agreements are the government’s responsibility and require no contractor action. See also question above for additional information.

PWS 2.3.4: “Submit projected budget requirements for the PMEL operation to the responsible unit resource advisors as required.”

Q75. Who will provide the resource advisors the budget projection prior to contract start? Are funding lines currently in-place with the local units? If not, what is the impact on the operation at contract start?

A75. As there are no new starts in this procurement, all actions are currently being performed so that will continue before contract start. There will be no negative impact to contractor performance.

PWS 2.4.4: “Perform all calibration process audits in the presence of the government COR.

These calibration process audits shall be performed by the contractor's quality assurance personnel or qualified technician requested by the government.”

Q76. Suggest the wording “requested by the government” be deleted.

A76. Requirement will remain.

PWS 3.1.1: “Submit a written request for PMEL evaluation and certification to the SSO within

90 calendar days of the performance start date at each contractor-operated PMEL. At the discretion of SSO, the evaluation may be performed without notice.”

Q77. Is the command going no-notice for AFMETCAL?

A77. Requirement will remain. PWS does not determine notification process, AFI 90-201 drives this process.

PWS 4.1.4: “Load personnel data files to the PMEL MIS.”

Q78. Please define information you are requesting in the personnel data files. ( Privacy act concern)

A78. The information required by PAMS is all that is required to be loaded, i.e. name, k-stamp, etc .

PWS 5.1.4: “Advise the customer of a need for a calibration interval extension IAW TO 00-20-

14 when mission requirements prevent delivery of an item to the PMEL. The contractor shall request calibration extension approvals from the SSO. Printed copies of requests and replies shall be maintained on file at the contractor-operated site for the life of the contract.”

TO 00-20-14 states: “Requests for extensions shall be forwarded to the OWC’s command PMEL

Functional Manager through the PMEL. The request shall describe the TMDE involved, the calibration due date, the specific reasons calibration cannot be accomplished as scheduled, the estimated date calibration action can be initiated, actions taken to locate a suitable alternative or substitute item, and the calibration history of the TMDE. Also include a statement from the

OWC Maintenance Superintendent or equivalent indicating the understanding that calibration interval is the period of time over which TMDE maintains a statistically derived end-of-period reliability of 85% or better and that extending the interval may jeopardize TMDE accuracy and reliability.”

Q79. Recommend the PWS wording be changed to “calibration extension on laboratory standards from the SSO.” Customers will copy the PMEL on calibration extension request.

A79. Requirement will remain as written and supplements 00-20-14 requirement. The SSO will coordinate with MFMs as applicable.

PWS 5.4: “Overdue TMDE. The contractor shall contact customers who fail to deliver TMDE to the contractor-operated site on the scheduled input date. Contact shall be made via telephone or email within 1 workday of late delivery and shall provide the customer with a new delivery date for the TMDE.”

Q80. Suggest the 1 workday be changed to 5 work days. The customer should be managing their equipment for overdue items verses the contractor.

A80. Requirement will remain as written.

PWS 5.5.2: “The contractor shall provide TMDE Coordinator Training. Training shall be conducted at each contractor-operated site at least once each month whenever customer training requirements exist. The contractor shall document TMDE coordinator training on AF Form

2426, Training Request and Completion Notification or equivalent. A copy shall be provided to the TMDE coordinator.”

Q81. The wording at least once a month opens the question. Is each site required to provide the training once a month or as needed by each site?

A81. At least once a month whenever there is a customer that requires the training.

PWS 5.6: “TMDE Collection Point. The contractor shall operate Collection Points IAW AFI

21-101, para 5.13.10 when assigned. PMEL MIS will be utilized at the collection point and the requirements of Section A, para 5.0-5.4 shall be accomplished. Equipment will be transported/shipped daily to PMEL.”

Q82. How many TMDE Collection Points are currently being used and where are they located?

Should packing and crating be required and number of equipment items, suggest the word daily be changed to 2 workdays.

A82. Currently RAF Lakenheath is the only location where the contractor is operating the collection point. This may increase in the future though based on other actions. If this happens, the information will be provided in a location specific RFP along with the verbiage for that specific location.

PWS 5.7: “Pickup and Delivery. The contractor shall establish and maintain a pickup and delivery service for TMDE at owning organization locations when assigned on a regularly scheduled basis. The pickup and delivery route is subject to change in order to meet mission requirements.”

Q83. Define the customers and locations at each site that the pickup and delivery service is now being provided and any changes with this contract.

A83. There are no changes based on this contacting action. Currently Sheppard, Vandenburg, Patrick/Cape that are operating some level of this service. Specific information will be included in site specific RFPs.

PWS 7.1.11: “Provide customer assistance to resolve customer TMDE related problems, which could include providing customers with the technical knowledge and support required to understand measurement, calibration, and laboratory processes; providing technical information on the care, capabilities and limitations of the customers TMDE; helping to determine calibration requirements; performing uncertainty analysis; and fault isolation involving TMDE.”

Q84. Will the contractor be able to request approval to go onsite to perform assistance and it be reimbursable?

A84. On-site, on-base requires no approval as there is no reimbursement authorized for this type of support. On-site, off-base would require approval prior to be considered reimbursable.

PWS 7.6.1.2.1: “The CO reserves the right to direct the contractor to repair TMDE that, based on repair cost analysis, is beyond economical repair.”

Q85. If directed to repair, will the item be exempt from the TAT requirement?

A85. Case by case basis and would be included in the direction to repair.

PWS 9.1.2: “Fuel for any vehicles within CONUS used in the performance of the contract.”

Q86. What is the historical data for annual mileage supporting the TFCU and onsite calibration support?

PWS 12.3. TODO. “The contractor shall assume responsibility for, or establish, a TODO IAW

TO 00-5-1, AF Technical Order Distribution System. The contractor shall appoint one primary and one alternate TODO custodian who shall:”

Q87. Will one TO account be established for the contract or will each site be required to have a

TODO?

A87. Contractor’s decision on approach to satisfy requirement.

PWS 3.0 SS TABLE states:

1. Quality Management System (QMS) - 2.4 No major nonconformance is allowed. If a major nonconformance is discovered the QMS will be considered non-compliant.

Q88. The definition for major nonconformance appears to be unclear. Please provide examples for item number 1 and 2 in the SS table for major and minor non-conformances.

A88. Impossible to provide an all-inclusive list of examples, however government is looking at potential risk in terms of performance, schedule, or cost at the contract level, not the individual item level.

For SS1, a single item missing from a report probably does not increase risk to the government so would be viewed as minor at most; however, if the entire report has issues it could increase risk. For SS2, a good example is during the review of a calibration process, if the technician misses a step, while incorrect and it would be identified, that in and of itself does not increase the government’s risk. Your internal quality program should be finding things on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. So take that same error a step further and if we are watching your

QA perform a PR of the process and your QA does not identify that same missed step, then your

QA’s inability to identify the error does increase government risk resulting in a minor contract non-conformance at minimum.

Q89. Draft RFP FA4890-13-R-0111, Attachment 3, Collective Bargaining Agreements/Wage

Determinations. It is not readily apparent what the PMEL job classifications and wages are for the Arnold, Vance, and Wright-Patterson CBAs. Please provide.

A89. Arnold PMEL job classifications: PMEL techs are instrument technicians and in the dimensional area, they are designated as precision inspectors.

Vance PMEL job classifications are currently Labor Grade 12 with a Lead as a LG13

Wright Patterson PMEL job classifications are Electronics Technician I, Electronics Technician II, Electronics Technician III, PQA Technician, and

Production Control Clerk.