1_on_1_Industry_Day_Written_Questions_--15_Jun_15.docx

Industry Day & Market Research Questions & Answers

1. What is the likelihood the acquisition strategy will be approved? We have a high level of confidence that the strategy will be approved. We will know after 9 Jul 15.

2. Will the workload data be updated with the release of the final RFP? Yes Government will provide all available workload data before release of final RFP

3. Will price realism be considered during the evaluation? Yes, The Government will perform price realism analysis in order to determine whether the proposed price elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the contract requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in an offeror's technical proposal. Additionally, the Government will perform cost realism analysis and/or require certified cost or pricing data should the Contracting Officer determine that information submitted/available is insufficient in determining a fair and reasonable price.

4. Will AMIC conduct an independent cost estimate? Yes, Government has completed an IGCE

5. Will obsolescence and/or DMS be incorporated into new contract? Government will consider incorporation of obsolescence and/or DMCS approaches from offerors

6. Slide 19 and PWS D—no mention or details regarding night flying turn/mix requirements, and periodic frequency (weekly/monthly/quarterly/semi annually). What are the requirements? Night flying requirements are at the Whiteman locations and comprise of approximately 3% of total annual flying hours for Whiteman.

7. Maint concept slides 20-21 and PWS—the CRF provides I-level mx and AOG/hard broke efforts. Will there be any Depot level requirements on the new contract? The AETC T-38 contractors provide D-level support now—ejection seats, engine thrust mod, other structural mods, or engine upgrade mods. The T-38 AMP contractor will perform a level of depot repairs at the CRF as identified in Appendix K. However, certain depot level work and modifications will be accomplished by OO-ALC organic depot level facility at Randolph AFB, TX. The organic depot level work is also identified in Appendix K.

8. PWS Overview slide 23—Supply and PWS—is the AF supply system supporting this contract, vice COMBS concept? Does the current contractor/future contractor need to buy/maintain their own parts inventory? Mr. Brannen underscored the scarcity of parts for a/c and AGE. The T-38 AMP contractor must utilize AF supply system as first source of supply. The contractor does not need to buy/maintain parts inventory.

9. Contract incentives, slides 40-42 and Award Fee slide 43—are there any punitive disincentives or damages directed at the contractor on this effort/ To date, there is no Section E/H/I to look at. What is anticipated under FTO scenario and what is anticipated under LPTA solicitation? The performance incentive /award fee is a pool of money available for the contractor to earn for superior performance above the PWS identified service summary metrics and other PWS requirements. Within the performance incentive/award fee there are areas where the where CARs or substandard performance reduce the amount of fee the contractor can earn. The Government intends to utilize the performance incentive/award fee in both FTO and LPTA solicitation.

10. How accurate is the WLD in App K? if the answer is “it’s accurate”, then the next question is, does ACC AMIC expect all bidders—or the winning bidder to actually bid to the WLD? Note: the comment on slide 58, SS Methodology (Tech Eval Process), was the customer is willing to pay more for higher technical ratings offered—under PPT, but not LPTA. The Government will provide most current and accurate workload data. However, there is no current AF system to capture 100% accountability of all expended man hours in aircraft maintenance and aircraft maintenance management. The data provides a reasonable estimate of current workload; however, offerors are expected to analyze the data, the number of aircraft, total flying hours, flying window, and other requirements to develop their proposed manning and technical approach to meet PWS requirements.

Within a FTO acquisition the Government identifies which evaluations factors are most important and will select the best technical approach. Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors: (1) Technical Capability, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. Technical Capability is the most important factor. Past Performance is less important than Technical. Technical Capability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than cost or price; however, cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The greater the equality of proposals for factors other than price, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government.

11. The final open Q+A sessions referenced CBA holiday vice Gov holiday. Is there a CBA effecting all sites? Will a copy be provided to offerors? CBA will be uploaded to FBO.gov.

12. PWS 2.29 Holiday—day after Thanksgiving is usually not a federal holiday. Is this a contract directed Holiday? CBA requires the day after Thanksgiving as a holiday.

13. PWS 4.4.1.22 references FSAT storage. Please clarify. Error will be corrected in next version of the PWS.

14. General: there are no flying hours at Holloman. What is allocated for FCF/proficiency at Holloman and related launch and recovery support. Two hundred hours will be allocated to Holloman. This will be published in a draft PWS and placed on FBO.

15. PWS 1.12 states FCF workload is in App K. We didn’t see where that is reflected. FCF WLD will be uploaded to FBO.gov.

16. AS9110 compliant per our other contract requirements. AS9110 registration requirement is costly. Would the Government consider changing the requirement compliant? To submit a proposal for this contract the offeror must be registered AS9100/9110 but compliant throughout the life of this contract. Government will not pay for AS9100/9110 registration.

· Request reconsideration of the Code 1 ≥ 85%, and resultant impact on aircraft availability. In many instances a code 2 (PMC) aircraft may be flown next sortie, it is safe for flight and meet basic system requirements for the mission, and then can be configured and generated to available status. For example, if a discrepancy affects the rear cockpit only and the second flight is flying with a solo pilot, then the aircraft meets availability. However, if the contractor utilizes the aircraft they risk a major non-conformance on an aircraft capable of producing a successful mission. The definition of the measurement aircraft availability is the percentage of a fleet not in a Depot possessed status or Non-Mission Capable (NMC) aircraft (OL or CRF possessed). A PMC aircraft counts as an available aircraft. The Government is confident the 85% aircraft availability metric is an effective measurement of reliability.

Last Updated: 15 Jun 15