The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Draft RFP Reference
| Industry Question |
| Government Response |
| 1 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 6.1.8.1 |
| Follow up Question to USG Q&A Reference DRFP PWS 6.1.8.1 Facility Description Books. Electronic copies of current Facility Description books in Appendix A010 do not appear in the Draft RFP. Would the Government provide the Facility Description books? The Q&A mentions as-built drawings only, will the Facility Description Books be included on the CD? |
| Available drawings will be provided on CD-ROM at the pre-proposal conference. Facility Description books will be made available in Appendix G – Level of Effort with the RFP. |
| 2 |
| ADWH |
| Follow up question to the USG Q&A responses regarding the ADWH. Will the USG establish a plug number to offset an unfair incumbent advantage? |
| No. Each offeror must propose based on their technical approach and price for the capability required to support off-base WRM operations in Abu Dhabi. The ADWH (or the capability they provide) will be considered contractor-leased facilities. A separate CLIN will be added to the RFP for ADWH to include relocation effort (if necessary), labor, facility lease and transition period/costs for base and all out years. Reference new paragraph in PWS, Section A, para 4.12. |
| 3 |
| SOFA |
| Will the USG provide access to the existing Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) and/or Defense Cooperative Agreements for Qatar, Kuwait, UAE and Oman? These documents are classified and are not readily available. |
| Access to these documents is not required for WRM contract operation and support. |
| FTE allocations for each PWS element provide a level of specificity that enhances any offeror's technical approach. Will the Government require FTE labor allocations to be assigned to PWS elements? |
| The more specificity provided in an offeror's proposal the more clearly the Government can determine technical acceptability. |
| 5 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 2.2.1.8 |
| Reference PWS 2.2.1.8 Expeditionary Site Plan (ESP). The first sentence of this requirement states: “The contractor shall develop and implement an ESP that identifies resources and capabilities of a location by functional area.” Our understanding is the ESP is a Wing Level document with unclassified (Part I) and Classified (Part II) elements. Is it the government’s intent that the Contractor “shall support development and implementation of an ESP that identifies resources and capabilities of a location by functional area for inclusion?” |
| Yes that is the Governments intent. |
| 6 |
| Appendix G, Section 1.4 |
| Reference Appendix G, Section 1.4. AGE Equipment Analysis, embedded Word document AGE PMI Breakout.doc. Is the AGE PMI breakout data provided in the referenced Word document operational unit PMI requirements, or storage PMI requirements? |
The PMI Breakout lists all the inspection requirements for equipment in storage and when the unit is pulled for active use. While equipment is in WRM it is considered in storage.
| 7 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.2 |
| Reference PWS 3.2 AGE. Are AGE Equipment Equivalency and Vehicle Equivalency interchangeable? What is the difference between Equipment Equivalency and Vehicle Equivalency? |
| No; the concept is the same but the level of effort to perform the RECONs are different than vehicles. |
| 8 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.2.7.1 |
| Reference PWS 3.2.7.1. Will the government consider equivalent commercial instruction as an “or equal” substitution for the USAF Cryotainer Maintenance Course? We have located industry training courses that appear to be equivalent to the USAF Cryotainer Maintenance Course. (e.g. GAWDA’s Cryogenic Container Course) |
| Yes. |
| 9 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.2.7.1. |
| Reference PWS 3.2.7.1. Will the Government sponsor contractor and subcontractor employees’ attendance to the USAF Cryotainer Maintenance Course? |
| Yes. If a contractor employee must attend this course to meet the requirement it can be done as part of Government Directed Travel. |
| 10 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.2.7.1. |
| Reference PWS 3.2.7.1. Can non-US citizen contractor and subcontractor employees attend the USAF Cryotainer Maintenance Course? |
| Yes. |
| 11 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.2.7.4. |
| Reference PWS 3.2.7.4. The PWS states: “The contractor shall adhere to all technical order publications when performing LOX Cart maintenance.” The use of the phrase “all technical order publications” is an overly broad requirement for which technical acceptability would be difficult, if not impossible, to establish. Would the Government identify the specific technical order publications applicable to LOX Cart maintenance requirements? |
| We do not have LOX carts in the WRM program, only 400 and soon 500 gallon LOX/LIN tanks. Technical orders specific to the individual tanks are/will be provided. All TO’s are listed in Appendix C. |
| 12 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.3 |
| Reference PWS 3.3 Fuels Support Equipment. We are unable to locate equipment equivalency values for FSE. Will the Government provide FSE equivalency values? |
| 3.3 is BEAR; 3.4 is FSE. |
FSE does not have any equipment equivalence
| 13 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.3 |
| Reference PWS 3.3 BEAR. We are unable to locate equipment equivalency values for BEAR. Will the Government provide BEAR equivalency values? |
| BEAR has no equipment equivalence. |
| 14 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.3.2. |
| Reference PWS 3.3.2. BEAR Readiness Rate. How will the readiness rate of BEAR assets be determined, by set, or by individual assets within sets? |
| BEAR readiness will be determined by set and UTCs. A Unit Type Code (UTC) is a potential capability focused upon accomplishment of a specific mission that the military Service provides. See attached reports examples. |
| 15 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.3.2. |
| Reference PWS 3.3.2. BEAR Readiness Rate. If serviceability of BEAR assets is determined by set, and not the individual assets within a set, how will serviceability of a set be determined? |
| Based on contractor provided reports on status of individual assets, Serviceability by set and mission capable rates will be determined by AFCENT. |
| 16 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.5 |
| Reference PWS 3.5 Vehicles. We are unable to locate the “Equivalent Vehicle” values for vehicles and the only apparent source integral to the OLVIMS program. Will the Government provide vehicle equivalency values? |
| 17 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.5. |
| Reference PWS 3.5 Vehicles. How is the Fully Mission Capable (FMC) rate for vehicles calculated? |
| - Maintain a vehicle in commission (VIC) rate of 95% utilizing the following formula for WRM Vehicles within organizational code 0W: |
-- Utilize the VIC rate from PCN 32 part 6 for organizational code 0W for each site -- Utilize the OLVIMS PCN 32 part 6 for the number of vehicles and calculate site percentage of 0W vehicles program wide -- Multiply VIC percentage from PCN 32 part 6 with site percentage in decimal form -- Add all subtotals from each site with 0W vehicles to calculate weighted VIC for overall vehicle program
| 18 |
| PWS, Section A, 3.5.1 |
| Reference 3.5.1 Vehicle PMI Intervals/Storage Requirements. We are unable to locate USAFCENTI 24-301 in publically accessible form. Will the Government provide the referenced document? |
| 19 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.5.8.3 |
| Reference PWS 3.5.8.3 Air Certification Letters. The requirement states: “If the asset is not listed in the -9 as …… ” Would the Government provide the reference indicated as “-9”? |
| The Government will provide access to any applicable aircraft TOs (Dash -9) as required |
| 20 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.5.8.7 |
| Reference PWS 3.5.8.7 Transparent Armor. The "Transparent Armor" letter does not appear in Appendix B. Would the Government provide the missing reference? |
| 21 | |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.5.8.8 | |
| Reference PWS 3.5.8.8 Other Vehicular Equipment. Appendix B, "WRM OVE List by Mgt Code - AFCENT" does not appear in the DRFP. Would the Government provide the missing reference? | |
| 1. | The Government has reviewed and directs DI to follow the changes listed in the attached OVE list. The list was developed using the following criterion for justification: |
a. Only vehicles critical to the current OPLAN were considered as having spare tire/OVE on the list.
b. Sortie generating vehicles are required to have spare tire/OVE due to mission requirements.
c. Sortie supporting vehicles requiring spare tire/OVE was determined under the following criterion:
1) Vehicles exposed to rough terrain conditions and susceptible to excessive wear & tear within the first 60-days require spare tire/OVE.
2) Multi-purpose fire fighting vehicles (Structural, Crash, etc...) require spare tire/OVE.
3) Emergency service (i.e. Ambulance, Fire Rescue, etc...) require spare tire/OVE.
4) One-of-a-kind vehicles require spare tire/OVE.
2. AFCENT/A4RV will continue to develop, modify, and change the OVE list on an as-needed basis to meet Operation Plan requirements.
a. The AFCENT/A4RV published OVE list will be regarded as the minimum OVE required to be purchased and/or replenished before the vehicle is properly coded for "0W" status.
b. Vehicles received into the WRM program with OVE/Spare tires will be documented as such and the items will be maintained IAW T.O. 36-1-191 standards.
c. OVE will be removed from vehicles destined for DLA/DS to support OVE requirements within the program.
d. OVE will be properly identified; either stored on the vehicle or packaged and labeled with "Registration" number.
e. Precision measurement tools (i.e.: torque wrenches) will "NOT" be required and/or included as OVE.
| 22 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.5.8.11 |
| Reference PWS 3.5.8.11 Vehicle/Equipment Preservation Checklist. The applicable Checklist does not appear within Appendix C. Would the Government provide the missing Checklist? |
| 23 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.6.5.2 |
| Reference PWS 3.6.5.2 Vehicles. What is the standard of performance for the Monthly Mission Capable (MMCR) rate? Is it the same as that for FMC (85%)? |
| 85% for stored MRAPs. |
| 24 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.7 |
| Reference PWS 3.7 TRAP. Equipment Equivalency values for TRAP do not appear in the DRFP. Will the Government provide TRAP equivalency values? |
| TRAP does not use equipment equivalency values. |
| 25 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.8 |
| Reference PWS 3.8 Medical. The DRFP states: “The contractor shall ensure the Balance List by Account Requirement Code (ARC) and Strat shall ….. ”. Would the Government clarify the meaning of the term “Strat”? |
| The report is Balance report by Accounting Requirement Code and Stratification Report. This report reflects the DMLSS inventory balance position for selected month. |
| 26 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.8.2 |
| Reference PWS 3.8.2 Medical Vault Storage. Are the Medical Material Manager (MMM), Medical Program Management Officer (MPMO), and the Medical Item Custodian, all contractor provided positions? |
| No, only the Medical Item Custodian is contractor provided positions. The Medical Material Manager and Medical Program Management Officer are one in the same and will be appointed by AFCENT/SG to AFCENT/SGX (Major) |
| 27 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 4.1.6.25 |
| Reference PWS 4.1.6.25 Inventory of WRM Assets. The requirement states: “The contractor shall physically inventory all WRM and BOB assets annually ……” How does the Government define “all WRM and BOB assets? For example, large BEAR sets. Are offerors required to physically inventory the individual assets comprising sets, or physically inventory only the sets themselves? |
| All assets must be physically individually inventoried |
PWS, SECTION A, 3.6.2.2 PWS, SECTION A, 4.5.1
PWS, SECTION A, 4.3
| Reference PWS 4.2 Traffic Management; PWS 3.6.2.2. Controlled Cryptographic Items (CCI) Security; PWS 4.5.1 Thumrait; PWS 4.3 Air Transportation Services; etc. The term “western employees”, “western passport holders”, “US western”, “westerners”, and “non-western” is ambiguous. Would the Government define the specific nationalities comprising “westerners”? |
| Those nationalities native to North America and western Europe are considered “westerners” |
| 29 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 4.2.2.6 |
| Reference PWS 4.2.2.6 International Traffic and Armed Regulation; and DRFP Appendix G - Level of Effort (DRAFT), section 1.13 ITAR. The list of ITAR items in section 1.13 of Appendix G appears to include items not subject to ITAR restrictions. Would the Government please confirm that all items appearing in section 1.13 of Appendix G require an ITAR License per DRFP PWS 4.2.2.6? |
| All items appearing in section 1.13 of Appendix G may be subjected to ITAR Licensing. |
| 30 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 4.5.2 |
| Will the government provide a RAFO Point of Contact where bidders can obtain Reimbursement Rates? |
| There is no single RAFO POC for this; offerors should propose based on food supplies purchased on the local economy which would be comparable to rates that RAFO would provide. |
| 31 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 4.9.1 |
| Reference PWS 4.9.1 C4I Systems and Support. Which C4I systems under the WRM contract does this requirement pertain to? For example, is the WRM contractor providing C4I Systems and Support of WRM assets, WRM contract support (institutional) systems, or some other system? Please clarify which C4I systems are to be supported under this requirement. |
| These C4I systems are identified all through the PWS as ESS, CAS, GATES, etc. |
| 32 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 4.10.3 |
| Reference PWS 4.10.3 Connectivity. The requirement states: “The contractor shall provide connectivity support to appropriate command and control centers and external agencies.” Connectivity support is a broad requirement. Would the Government clarify the connectivity support requirement, providing offerors a definitive scope of support for this requirement? |
| PWS 4.10.3 is modified to read as follows: "The contractor shall acquire and provide .com support as required while the USG will provide .mil support." |
| 33 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 5.3 |
| Reference PWS 5.3 LRC Tasking. The requirement states: “The requested time for shipment shall not exceed the most stringent requirement identified para 2.2.1.9 above.” Shipping time requirements do not appear in paragraph 2.2.1.9. Would the Government clarify the requested time for shipment requirement? |
| Shipping timeline varies by mode of shipment (air or surface), quantity, bulk, volume, etc. |
| 34 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 6.1.1.1 |
| Reference PWS 6.1.1.1 Program Support. The requirement states: “The contractor shall provide management, supervision, personnel, depot, and technical and logistical support functions in support of the maintenance and management of facilities listed in Appendix J.” What depot functions are contractors required to provide in support of Facilities Management? |
| "depot" has been removed from 6.1.1.1. |
Proper supplies and equipment needed to support corrective and preventative maintain of facility and RPIE and needed supplies and equipment as necessary to support facility’s function.
| 35 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 6.1.2.4 |
| Reference PWS 6.1.2.4. Of the RP and RPIE listed in Appendix J, which are currently assessed within condition zone 3? |
| Condition zone 3 assessment reference has been removed |
| 36 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 6.1.7.3 |
| Reference PWS 6.1.7.3 Proactive Facility Maintenance and WRM Site Visit. Will the USG confirm deficiencies (as defined in PWS 6.1.7.3) existing at the time of contract award and not remedied by the outgoing contractor will remain the obligation of the outgoing contractor, and not the incoming contractor? |
| No. Incoming contractor will prepare an existing conditions report informing the government of existing deficiencies and the government will decide which deficiencies will be corrected on a cost reimbursable basis. |
| 37 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 6.2.2.1.2 |
| Reference PWS 6.2.2.1.2 (CE Design and Construction Services) states that requirement should be priced as part of FFP CLIN 11. Appendix M states the position performing the activity should be part of the PMO (priced under CLIN 01). Would the Government clarify which CLIN (01 or 11) offerors should price this requirement and position under? |
| Civil Engineering (CE) Manager is identified in Appendix M ("PMO Only" statement removed). It is up to each offeror to determine if this position will be identified in Appendix N as Key Personnel with specific qualifications. Price the requirement under CLIN 11 as called for in the PWS. |
| 38 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 6.1.4 |
| Reference PWS 6.1.4 Other Computerized Systems. The requirement states: “All systems shall be commercial off the shelf (COTS) or existing government programs. No contractor developed solutions are allowed.” Does this restriction pertain to the proposed CMMS solution only? |
| No this instance pertains to the web-based access to the PO system and the web-based access to the Library of Standards and Maintenance Documents. |
| 39 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 6.1.4 |
| Reference PWS 6.1.4 Other Computerized Systems. The requirement states: “All systems shall be commercial off the shelf (COTS) or existing government programs. No contractor developed solutions are allowed.” COTS software often requires customization to effectively fulfill complex end use requirements. Does the restriction in this paragraph pertain to contractor customizations made to COTS software? |
| The requirement in the referenced section does not pertain to contractor customizations to COTS software. |
| 40 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 6.1.4 |
| Reference PWS 6.1.4 Other Computerized Systems. The requirement states: “All systems shall be commercial off the shelf (COTS) or existing government programs. No contractor developed solutions are allowed.” Industry often uses various COTS software solutions within their enterprises. Some contractors develop scripts and/or custom software codes to integrate COTS solutions to ease data integration and integrity. Does the restriction in this paragraph pertain to custom scripts and/or software codes used to integrate COTS software? |
| The requirement in the referenced section does not pertain to contractor customizations to COTS software using custom scripts or software codes. |
| 41 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 6.1.4 |
| Reference PWS 6.1.4 Other Computerized Systems. The requirement states: “All systems shall be commercial off the shelf (COTS) or existing government programs. No contractor developed solutions are allowed.” Our DCAA/DCMA approved accounting system, approved purchasing system, and ISO-certified QMS, use contractor developed software codes in their operation and management. Does the restriction in this paragraph pertain to contractor enterprise and/or institutional systems and software already approved by the Government? |
| This instance pertains to the web-based access to the PO system and the ability to allow for ad hoc queries on purchase orders. It does not pertain to the purchase order system. |
| 42 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 6.1.4 |
| Reference PWS 6.1.4 Other Computerized Systems. The requirement states: “All systems shall be commercial off the shelf (COTS) or existing government programs. No contractor developed solutions are allowed.” Our past performance includes US Federal contracts where we successfully used systems and methods based, in part, on contractor developed software codes. Does the restriction in this paragraph pertain to contractor systems and methods demonstrated successful on other US Federal contracts? |
| Yes |
| 43 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 6.2.1.9.1 |
| Reference 6.2.1.9.1 Shaw AFB. The DRFP states: “The US Government provides a facility for contractor use.” Our review of the DRFP and related solicitation documents identified only the Contract Liaison Officer (CLO) as a function contractors are to provide at Shaw AFB (PWS 2.3.2). What other functions are to be performed by the contractor at Shaw AFB that would require a facility for contractor use? |
| The CLO function will be provided workstations (embedded with near the WRMO in AFCENT/A4XR; no additional facility is required. However, there is another faciliy with space and GFE that will support 10 Personnel and is available but solely based on your proposal and technical approach. |
| 44 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 6.2.1.6 |
| Reference PWS 6.2.1.6 Refuse Collection and Disposal. Workload data for refuse collection does not appear in the DRFP. Would the Government please provide workload data for refuse location and disposal? |
| No workload data available for refuse collection and disposal |
| 45 |
| DRFP |
| Reference solicitation attachments in PDF format. All of the embedded documents appearing in PDF formatted documents released with the DRFP are inaccessible. Would the Government provide all embedded documents as separate, individual files? |
| The Government has reloaded the embedded files and verified their accessibility. |
If issues arise with the final RFP we will provide the documents.
| 46 |
| Section L-7.4.1.4. |
| Reference Section L-7.4.1.4. The paragraph at this location includes two closely related instructions with overlapping requirements, namely, “Describe use of metrics to show performance trends for key processes and outcomes and how that information will be used to meet or exceed contract requirements.” and, a few sentences later, “Explain methodologies for developing/using metrics to track performance trends for key processes and outcomes and how this information will be used.” Given proposal response page limitations, would the Government clarify whether offerors should respond to both of these instructions? |
| Yes. Offerors must respond to both. |
| 47 |
| Section L-7.4.1.4. |
| Reference Section L-7.4.1.4. The paragraph at this location includes two closely related instructions with overlapping requirements, namely, “Explain your approach to maintain data integrity, preservation, timeliness, control, recovery, and continuous access by the Government.” and, the last sentence of the paragraph, “Describe your approach to achieve data integrity, preservation, timeliness, and Government access.” Given proposal response page limitations, would the Government clarify whether offerors should respond to both of these instructions? |
| Last sentence of the paragraph has been deleted. |
| 48 |
| Section L-7.4.1.4. |
| 1. Reference Section L-7.4.1.4. Aspect IV: Data Management System. The requirement states: “Include a diagram of your proposed solution, which models the relationships between key data fields from the input phase through output phase and relationships to and/or use of standard Government systems when required by the PWS (i.e. IMDS, AFEMS, CAS, etc.).” This is a design level requirement that requires additional information to respond to in a technically acceptable manner. The following individual questions are submitted in this context: |
a. Is there a preferred choice for an Extraction/Transform/Load (ETL) tool to interface with the prescribed Government systems (e.g. IMDS, AFEMS, CAS, etc.)?
b. Is a Master Data Management or Information Architecture already in place for all the prescribed Government systems?
c. Is a Master Data Management or Information Architecture already in place for the DMS?
d. Is a Master Data Management or Information Architecture part of the scope of the project?
e. Do all the prescribed Government source systems use relational databases?
f. Would the Government provide an inventory of the reports and dashboards that are needed?
g. Is there a target platform/language/database that is preferred for the DMS, such as Windows .NET, Java/Open Source, SQL Server, DB2, Oracle, or some other target?
h. Is there a target software version for the target platform / language / database?
i. How many users are expected to use the DMS, and what is their breakdown by role, such as end-users, System Administrator, etc.?
j. For security (authentication/authorization), does the DMS need to integrate with Microsoft AD or LDAP?
k. Does the end-user need the ability to customize dashboards based on different attributes?
l. Can the DMS data be hosted on a FedRAMP certified cloud facility?
m. Is there an Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) solution deployed?
n. Is there a preference between a DMS and an EAM?
The contractor is not required to independently modify and/or interface with USG systems. In most cases this is not allowed or requires extensive approvals to achieve.
It is understood that there may be some redundancies necessary to populate both the DMS and specific Government systems. In some cases this may be possible by exporting data from DMS into "flat files" and importing into the Government system (e.g. ESS). In other cases separate manual entries may be required for each system.
| 49 |
| Section L-8.1. |
| Reference Section L-8.1. It is unclear what the Volume II Past Performance page limitation is. For example, L-8.1 Item 3. states “Contents of PPI Reference Sheet is limited to five (5) pages.”; however, it appears up to five PPIs may be included; hence, the page limit for responding to L-8.1 Item 3. could be interpreted as either 5 or 25 pages. Further, no page limits are provided for Subcontractor / Teaming Partner Consent Letters, and L-5.4.3 does not specifically exclude consent letters from the page count. Also, paragraph L-8.1 Item 1. requires a past performance Table of Contents limited to 1 page; however, L-5.4.3 excludes tables of contents and indices from page counts. Would the USG clarify the allowable total page count for the past performance volume, excluding items identified in L-5.4.3 as outside the page count, such as acronym lists, indices, and table of contents? |
| L-8 has been rewritten to include instructions for offerors to load Past Performance Information using a web-based tool. |
Five (5) PPIs may be included total with a proposal. Each PPI is limited to five (5) pages.
Subcontractors/Teaming Partners are included in the above page count.
Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letters, however, are not counted against the page count.
| 50 |
| Section L-9. |
| Reference Section L-9. Paragraph L-9.9 does not appear in the DRFP. Would the Government clarify if this is a missing requirement, or a miss-numbered section? |
| Paragraph numbering has been corrected. |
| 51 |
| Section M-3.1.1.3. |
| Reference section M-3.1.1.3. Aspect III: Quality Management System, paragraph e., which states: “QMS is in place and ready for Government audit by contract start.” Does contract start occur upon contract award, upon phase-in start, upon first day of full capability performance, or some other contract milestone? Would the Government please clarify terminology for the various contracting milestones leading to full WRM performance? |
| Contract start is the first day of the base year of the contract (after transition). |
| 52 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 2.2.1 |
| Errata – Reference PWS 2.2.1 Management Plan. CDRL A006 appears to be an incorrect reference. What is the correct CDRL? |
| The correct deliverable is Deliverable 37. |
| 53 |
| PWS, Section A, 2.2.1.1 |
| Errata – Reference PWS 2.2.1.1 Appendix N does not appear among the draft solicitation documents. Would the Government please provide Appendix N? |
| Where required "Key Personnel" positions are known the Government has identified them within the PWS. Other Key Personnel will be dependent on each offeror's technical approach. Appendix N is reserved as the key personnel/qualification list that shall be provided by the contractor. If the Government further identified other Key Personnel we would be dictating potential offeror's technical approach. |
| 54 |
| PWS, Section A, 2.2.1.4.3 |
| Errata – Reference PWS 2.2.1.4.3 AGE Training. The final sentence in this paragraph is an incomplete sentence. What is the intent of this sentence? |
| All other training refer to paragraph 2.2.1.4 |
| 55 |
| Section L-7.4.1.2. |
| Errata - Reference Section L-7.4.1.2. Aspect II: Human Resources. Line 6 of paragraph is an incomplete sentence “Sufficient numbers of personnel with sufficient qualifications to fulfill contract requirements.” Would the Government clarify the requirement? |
| Changed to: "Provide your approach to ensure sufficient numbers of personnel with sufficient qualifications to fulfill contract requirements." |
| 56 |
| Section L & M |
| Errata - Reference Section L & M. Section L-7.4.2 refers to “Subfactor B: Operations & Maintenance (O&M)”, whereas M-3.1.2 refers to “Subfactor B: Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and Contingency Logistics Support (CLS)” |
| Corrected. Subfactor B in Section M is "Operations & Maintenance (O&M)" |
| 57 |
| Section L & M |
| Errata - Reference Section L & M. Section L-7.4.4 refers to “Subfactor D: Infrastructure Support”, whereas M-3.1.2 refers to “Subfactor B: Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and Contingency Logistics Support (CLS)” |
| Paragraph numbering in Section L & M have been corrected for consistency. |
| 58 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 3.2.7.3 |
| Errata – Reference PWS 3.2.7.3. This is an incomplete sentence. ” 3.2.7.3. AGE contractor shall be a 7 Level equivalent and signed off on the appropriate skill level of the task(s) will sign off Red X discrepancy(s).” |
| Changed to: " AGE contractor shall be a 7-Level equivalent and signed off on the appropriate skill level task(s) and will sign off Red X discrepancy(s)." |
| 59 |
| Section M-3.1.1.1.e. |
| Errata - Reference Section M-3.1.1.1.e. The evaluation criteria at item e., “Cohesive functional relationships and effective roles and relationships that will ensure effective execution of PWS requirements.” appears to lack a corresponding L-7.4.1.1 response instruction. In all other cases in the paragraph (items a. – d., f.) a corresponding L-7.4.1.1 paragraph sentence can be identified. Would the Government provide a corresponding section L instruction, or delete the specific evaluation criteria? |
| Section M evaluation criteria is not necessarily matched sentence for sentence with Section L. |
M-3.1.1.1.e. is covered by L-7.4.1.1. in general.
| 60 |
| Section M-3.1.1.4.a and e |
| Errata - Reference Section M-3.1.1.4.a and e. The paragraphs at this location include two very similar evaluation criteria, namely, “a. 3) Maintaining data integrity/preservation, timeliness, control, recovery, and continuous Government access.” and, “e. Logical …………. contract. Demonstrates sound approach to accurately maintain data integrity and preservation, timeliness, and provide continuous Government access.” Is this correct? |
| Some but not all of the details are redundant; offerors must ensure all Section M details are addressed in the proposal. Redundancy in the proposal is not necessarily required. |
| 61 |
| Section M-3.1.1.4.b and d |
| Errata - Reference Section M-3.1.1.4.b and d. The paragraphs at this location includes two very similar evaluation criteria, namely, “b. Use of metrics show performance trends for key processes and outcomes and how that information will be used to meet or exceed contract requirements.” and, “d. Provide ………. proposed. Develop metrics to track performance trends for key processes and outcomes and how this information will be used.” Is this correct? |
| M-3.1.1.4.b. and d. have been updated to remove this redundancy. |
Added "Development and" to beginning of M- 3.1.1.4.b.
Deleted second sentence of M-3.1.1.4.d.
| 62 |
| Section M-3.1.1.4.c and d. |
| Errata - Reference Section M-3.1.1.4.c and d. The paragraphs at this location includes two very similar evaluation criteria, namely, “c. Effective …….. PWS. Detailed descriptions of information available, hosting solutions, and access/visibility controls proposed.” and, “d. Provide detailed description of information available, hosting solutions, and access/visibility controls proposed. ” Is this correct? |
| Deleted second sentence of M-3.1.1.4.c. |
| 63 |
| Section M-3.1.3.1. |
| Errata - Reference Section M-3.1.3.1. The evaluation criteria at item b., “Establish multilayered personnel who will comply with public law, policy, agreements, and applicable international, federal, and military directives when preparing, packaging, processing, certifying, labeling, marking, handling, and shipping hazardous material.” seems to lack a corresponding L-7.4.3 response instruction. Would the Government provide a corresponding section L instruction, or delete the specific evaluation criteria? |
| Verbiage added to L-7.4.3.: "Describe your multilayered personnel structure that ensures compliance with all applicable laws, policies, agreements and directives for movement of hazardous materials. |
| 64 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 4.6.2 |
| Errata – Reference PWS 4.6.2 Compatibility, and 4.6.4 Computer Operating System(s) Compatibility, are identical requirements. |
| Para 4.6.2 has been deleted |
| 65 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 4.6.5 |
| Errata – Reference PWS 4.6.5 Commercial Software, and PWS 4.10 Commercial Software. These are two very similar requirements for commercial software. Is this correct? |
| Para 4.6.5 has been deleted; only 4.10 is in the PWS now. |
| 66 |
| PWS, SECTION A, 4.11 |
| Errata – Reference PWS 4.11 Systems Administration and Support. There is a missing subsection or incorrect subsection numbering – section 4.11.3 is skipped. |
| It was accidentally skipped, it has been corrected. |
| 67 |
| PWS, Section A, 1.3.3, 6.1.1.1.1, 6.2.2.1.4 |
| To adequately estimate the FP labor, will the government make available the number and scope of all pending 332 projects prior to issuance of the final RFP? |
Will these 332s requirement be transferred to the WRM III contractor at contract start?
Will the government provide workload data for unscheduled maintenance for Civil Engineering?
A budgeted amount for 332 projects will be provided in CLIN 13 and this will be the annual basis performing 332 projects. We will not be issuing a list of pending projects at any time. The existing 332 projects will never disappear from the program until the work is performed as the budget permits. Work load data for corrective and preventative maintenance will be included in Appendix G.
| 68 |
| PWS Section A, 2.1.3 |
| The PWS requires the contractor to support outside audits but no information is provided to assess anticipated workload. Will the final RFP provide information on expected workload (audit frequency, number, and duration by location) for proposal purposes? |
| The PCO will notify the contractor of audits as soon as they are known; unfortunately there is usually very little warning from agencies such as DoDIG, AFAA, etc. |
| 69 |
| PWS Section A, 2.2.1.1 – Key Personnel |
| The PWS leaves it up to each Offeror to identify key personnel and their qualifications, since Appendix N is Contractor-provided. For a LPTA acquisition, this lack of minimum standards invites proposals with the absolute minimum number of key positions staffed with minimally qualified, cheapest personnel, putting the WRM program and mission at risk. We recommend the final RFP specify the minimally acceptable number of key personnel positions (suggest no less than 30), detailed qualification and certification requirements for each key position (presumably specified in the Appendix M that is missing from the Draft PWS), with names and resumes of proposed candidates. |
| Where required "Key Personnel" positions are known the Government has identified them within the PWS. Other Key Personnel will be dependent on each offeror's technical approach. Appendix N is reserved as the key personnel/qualification list that shall be provided by the contractor. |
| 70 |
| PWS Section A, 2.2.1.3 – Host Nation Labor Laws |
| The PWS requires compliance with local labor laws, but in at least one instance the RFP does not provide the information necessary to comply. Omani labor law (article 48 bis) requires the successor contractor to keep the same Omani labor force as employed with the predecessor contractor and at the same rates, annually escalated by 3%. Since the incumbent wages are not public information, compliance with this Omani legal requirement is impossible for anyone but the incumbent. The only practical solution seems to be the use of a plug number for the wages of Omani labor in each year of performance. Will the final RFP provide a solution to this problem? |
| The Government is researching this with DCAA & DCMA to determine what can be provided; we will likely provide labor rates for Omani labor to allow for all offeror's proposals to be compliant with Omani laws. |
| 71 |
| PWS Section A, 2.2.1.3 - Climate condition |
| The PWS does not specifically address working in High Heat environment. What kind of relief or productivity loss does the AF expect or accept when the contractor must comply with labor laws mandating work rest cycles during high temperatures in the summer months? |
| The contractor shall comply with host nation’s labor laws as it relates to work rest cycles during high temperature months. |
| 72 |
| PWS Section A, 2.2.1.4.2, 3.1.2, 3.9.6 |
| Will the government provide Appendix M with the Final RFP listing all the certification requirements, such as AMMO 62/43, Surface, Air and Sea Freight Movement, which are required to support operations? |
| Appendix M identifies most certification requirements, however if a process is known to require a certification which is not listed in Appendix M the offeror should identify this in their proposal to ensure the ability to meet the PWS requirements. |
| 73 |
| PWS Section A, 2.2.1.10.3.1 |
| This is the only section in the PWs that addresses escort requirements. Yet, escorts are required not only for munitions handling but for base access at AUAB and ADAB. Moreover, base access limitations fluctuate. Request the Government specify in the final PWS detailed escort requirements for base access for proposal purposes. |
| AFCENT Detachment 6 will locally work and accomplish all escort requirements to include accounting and adjusting to evolving host nation’s requirements. |
| 74 |
| PWS Section A, 3.1.2, 3.1.9 |
| The PWS seems to miss one portion of the munitions workload. Please specify the annual level of effort expected in support of munitions retrograde at each applicable location in terms of short tons/types and quantities. |
| Munitions assets and Munitions Handling Equipment assets are not retrograded on an annual basis. Retrograde of these assets occur by event or as required, i.e. base drawdown/closure. Currently there are five locations where drawdown/closure is a potential. They have a combined total of approximately 2,000 short tons of munitions assets and 90 pieces of equipment. |
| 75 |
| PWS Section A, 3.1.2.5, 4.1.11, and 6.1.6 |
| The cited PWS paragraphs address warranty management, but the Appendices do not provide any data on assets under warranty. Will the final RFP provide information on assets that are under warranty by NSN, quantity and expiration date? |
| The warranty belongs to the equipment and should follow the equipment if it was paid for by the Government. A list of Government-owned assets that are still under warranty will be provided at transition. OEL replacement is cost reimbursable. |
| 76 |
| PWS Section A, 3.1.3 |
| While the PWS does not list tool control requirements, the cited AFI 21-101 does. Will the Government confirm a positive tool control program is required for all functional areas? There are many other examples where the cited AFI spells out requirements not described in the PWS. Recommend that the final PWS emphasizes this AMIC policy for RFPs. |
| Tool control programs must be maintained by all functions that cited AFI 21-101. These functions are exclusively composed of maintenance personnel. |
| 77 |
| PWS Section A, 3.5.5 |
| Paragraph 3.5.5 is the only reference in the PWS to CAC requirement for dot.mil system access. |
(1) Will the Government confirm that CACs are required to access any USG dot.mil system, not just the three vehicle management information systems cited in 3.5.5?
(2) Will the Government specify which USAF standard systems (such as IMDS) limit access to American Nationals only?
(3) Because USG rules on the eligibility of Non-Americans for CACs are somewhat ambiguous, and their enforcement may vary by local Commander, will the Government specify any limitation on non-US Western employees who can obtain CACs, if qualified, in support of the WRM contract? Same question for non-US Asian workers, assuming they are covered by a TAA?
(4) Please identify in the WRM asset listing (Appendix O) which items in addition to munitions and MRAP payload are subject to ITAR restrictions, thus requiring a DoS TAA for non-American maintenance personnel to comply with ITAR restrictions.
(1) Yes, CACs are required to access USG dot.mil systems; AFCENT will work with the contractor to issue CACs as required.
(2) Other country nationals (OCN) are able to access USAF standard systems with the exception of combat ammunition system (CAS).
(3) OCN system access is restricted to specific systems and computer terminals.
(4) Only munitions and MRAP payload are subjected to ITAR process.
| 78 |
| PWS Section A, 3.5.8.1 |
| Cited PWS para lacks any criteria for “not economically repairable.” Request final PWS include specific criteria for determining “economic reparability” for vehicles as well as all other types of WRM assets. |
| TO 36-1-191 governs this requirement and “economic reparability” will be determined based on the conditional limited technical inspection (LTI) on each vehicle. |
That criteria is based on a repair where the cost exceeds 75% or replacement cost. However WRM equipment assets meeting above criteria is reported to the AF Item Manager through AFCENT using AF Form 375 requesting disposition.
| 79 |
| PWS Section A, 3.5.8.7 and 3.5.8.8; Section E, Appendix B |
| The PWS cites refer to a Transparent Armor Letter and OVE list, respectively, that are supposed to be included in Appendix B, but are not. Request final RFP include updated Appendix B with the missing data, pointing out that Transparent Armor is ITAR controlled (thus requiring US Nationals for vehicle maintenance) and identifying any ITAR-controlled items in the OVE list. |
| 80 |
| PWS Section A, 3.6.9.8 |
| PWS requires contractor to submit drawings for any MRAP modifications. Will the Government clarify this requirement with the stipulation that the Government will provide CAD drawings for MRAP baselines? |
| The “contractor” is the entity providing the modification, not the WRM Contractor. |
| 81 |
| PWS Section A, 3.9 |
| Falcon 78 is an Army ASP. The PWS is not clear about the status of the Army-Air force MOU on contractor responsibilities such as facility maintenance, transportation, packaging, blocking/ bracing, etc. Will the Government provide clarification in the final RFP as to contractor responsibilities for Falcon 78? |
| The contractor is not responsible for Falcon 78, as it is an ASG-78 area of responsibility. However, facilities are assigned to AFCENT per the MOU and the contractor is responsible for submitting work-orders for any facility maintenance. As for the munitions assets stored at this location, the contractor will assume all munitions stockpile responsibilities as required by technical guidance (periodic inspections, packaging, transport, blocking/bracing, etc., as necessary). |
| 82 |
| PWS Section A, 4.1.1 |
| “Government Property. Item Unique Identification (IUID) Registry: The contractor shall utilize the Item Unique Identification (IUID) Registry, located on the internet….” In view of the Air Force-wide problems with IUIDs, what is the plan going forward for unique identifiers for GFE? Please clarify how serialization should be addressed or resolved in the CMMS and how this would affect data transfer from WRMMS to DMS during transition? |
| The contractor must report GFE items over $5,000 purchase price to the IUID registry. WRM property has already been placed on the registry and only requires sustainment if an item is received unmarked any not on IUID registry. Transfer of data from WRMMS to the CMMS should be addressed in transition planning. |
| 83 |
| PWS Section A, 4.1.6.14 |
| To propose a realistic estimate for procurement requirements, will the Government provide a level of effort (number of transactions) or estimated annual procurement value for the contractor’s procurement of parts, supplies and other assets to be purchased through the Contractor’s procurement system (outside of SBSS)? |
| We can’t project what will be bought but we did provide the value of assets bought over the last 4 years. |
| 84 |
| PWS Section A, 4.1.9.2 and 4.1.9.3 |
| While the PWS requires various tasks supporting disposal of assets, no information is provided to estimate workload. Will the final RFP provide estimated workload information for proposal purposes? |
| It is unrealistic to provide that info but contractors can use the M-32 provided in appendix G to determine the number of transfers to DRMO. The number of GFE transfers can be based on the life cycle listing’s asset life cycle. |
| 85 |
| PWS Section A, 4.2.1.4.1 |
| There are currently 13 NSNs for Classified Munitions which require the two-man concept handling, yet the PWS provides no workload nor SECRET clearance requirements in Transportation for moving such assets. Will the government clarify whether WRM-III includes the same classified munitions with associated requirements for clearances to transport these munitions? |
| The exact munitions types, by NSN, that will be in WRM storage at contract start is not known; offeror's proposals should ensure the capability to accomplish the requirements of the PWS. |
It is not required to have TMO personnel permanently assigned at potential munitions storage locations but the contractor should maintain the ability to process munitions as necessitated by mission requirements. Appendix M will be updated to add a Secret security clearance requirement for the Traffic Manager.
| 86 |
| PWS Section A, 4.6.1 |
| “The contractor shall maintain all publications in electronic format; when possible, “hardcopy only” publications shall be converted to an electronic format unless restricted by copyright or security. Electronic library shall be included in the MIS.” Please clarify the level of publications to convert to electronic format? And how much storage space should be allocated for storage? |
| Appendix C identifies publications and the format in which they are currently on-hand. |
| 87 |
| PWS Section A, 4.9.2.3 |
| “Appoint in writing, a qualified and certified Client Support Administrator (CSA) and Information Assurance Officer (IAO), who is responsible for installing computer SW and security updates on Contractor-controlled computers. IAO and CSAs must maintain certification IAW DoD 8570.01 IAT Level I.” Since currently there is no IAO on the program, please explain the need for an IAO position. |
| Offerors must propose on the requirement as stated in the PWS. The PWS requires appointment of an Information Assurance Officer.. |
| 88 |
| PWS Section A, 4.10.4 |
| “The contractor shall coordinate and assist troubleshooting efforts at all locations. Notify external communications service providers of all outages isolated to their systems within 15 minutes of discovery. Coordinate circuit and systems outages, affecting the mission, with external communications providers until services are restored.” Two questions: |
1. 15 minutes is not a useful requirement since many network issues self-resolve in less than 30 minutes.
2. Timeline for restoration may be difficult to set: e.g., it may take one hour or more to troubleshoot and identify problem; restoration might be 12-24-48 hours depending on level of emergency. Recommend standardizing Service Level Agreements (SLA) for all areas.
1. This is a notification only; if the issue self-resolves there is no harm in having made the notifications.
2. Contractor must prioritize issues for troubleshooting and restoration.
| 89 |
| PWS Section A, 5.4 |
| The PWS provides ambiguous, incomplete information on FTX support requirements. While the cited paragraph mentions “up to six US/Joint and up to seven Coalition FTXs annually,” there is no indication what should be proposed and priced in the proposal. Likewise, no information is provided on the numbers of vehicles involved, duration of the FTX, and sustainment requirements. Request the final RFP include specific information on the FTX support requirements that Offerors must price in their proposals. |
| Exercise support consists of all WRM commodities and ranges from support of ATOC operations to complete BEAR base operations. |
| 90 |
| PWS Section A, 5.5 |
| PWS lacks any information on Mobile Equipment Team (MET) personnel requirements, which traditionally have all been U.S. Nationals. in view of locations of MET requirements and Country sensitivity, except for Saudi Arabia where Omani personnel are acceptable. Request Government confirm personnel eligibility prerequisites for staffing METs in the final RFP. |
| The contractor shall comply with host nation and/or local laws. Composition of MET teams for a given requirement will be based on location, functional requirements (e.g. BEAR, FSE, etc.) and host nation restrictions. |
| 91 |
| PWS Section A, 6.1.3.1 |
| “The primary CMMS shall be maintained within the CONUS. The government representative shall have full access to the MIS with a 5 seat read-only limitation.” Do you mean Hosted or Maintained? Hosting in CONUS could have serious mission impact. Cloud computing today is not geographically relevant. Recommend removing the CONUS requirement to allow bidders maximum flexibility for most effective solution. |
| Concur. Para 6.1.3.1. has been updated to delete the sentence requiring maintenance of the CMMS in CONUS. |
| 92 |
| PWS Section A, 6.1.7 |
| The Draft PWS for WRM-III allows each bidder to decide what facility standards to select, which in the context of LPTA implies the lowest conceivable standard. Will the Government reconsider and specify minimum acceptable facility maintenance standard to protect the longevity and sustainability of WRM facilities? |
| The Government has the right to reject any standards that do not meet the OEM requirements/ recommendations, maximize the life of the item, best cover the operational use of the facility or equipment and takes into account the environmental conditions of the facility. Proposing the lowest conceivable standard that does not pass this set of criteria will not be acceptable and this set of criteria should protect the longevity and sustainability of the facilities. The “should’ in this paragraph will be changed to a “shall.” |
| 93 |
| PWS Section A, 6.2.1.4 and 6.1.8..3 |
| In order to estimate workload for RPIE PMI and corrective maintenance, detailed information on actual RPIE is required but lacking in the draft RFP. Presumably, complete RPIE data is available in BUILDER but Offerors have no access to BUILDER during proposal development. Will the final RFP provide data on the RPIE associated with each facility by location? |
| A RPIE list will be provided along with some workload data. |
| 94 |
| PWS Section A. 6.2.1.9.6 |
| The PWS lacks information on warm base support requirements. Request final RFP provide information on the warm base facilities and infrastructure that must be contractor maintained. |
| The only warm base facilities left in the program are the three buildings at Masirah identified as warm base. These facilities are to be maintained to prevent degradation and are to be able to support both personnel and sortie generation of aircraft within 14 day notice. |
| 95 |
| PWS Section D, 2.0 Contractor Personnel |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.