T-38_AMP_Pre-Proposal_Conference_Official_Questions.pdf

AIR COMBAT COMMAND ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION CENTER

SOLICITATION NO. FA4890-15-R-0007

T-38 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

9 December 2015 Hilton Garden Inn

OFFICIAL QUESTIONS

Question No. 1 There is a current RFP for the AF-Wide Transient Maintenance contract. How will that affect the current TA workload at Whiteman and Holloman?

Response No. 1 The Government anticipates no effect to the current TA workload at Whiteman and Holloman.

To date, there have been no indications that the Whiteman and Holloman TA efforts will be included in the AF-wide Transient Maintenance contract.

Question No. 2 Will Section L be updated to reflect Thomas Brannen, and not Capt Champion, as the Contracting Officer?

Response No. 2 Yes, it will be update in the near future.

Question No. 3 TDME – Government is currently using TAS for tool control. PWS requires TCMAX to track.

Please confirm TCMAX.

Response No. 3 The Government intends to utilize TCMAX in the new contract. All TCMAX software and hardware requirements will be purchased by the Government. When TCMAX becomes available for use in the T-38 AMP contract, the Government will negotiate the timeline to transition from the TAS to TCMAX.

Question No. 4 Will Government allow dual qual pilots for FCF/Ferry of T-38C and T-38A/AT-38B?

Response No. 4 ACC does not consider them separate MDS. Dual qualification is not required.

Question No. 5 Will Government allow FCF pilots to document currency and training, flying hours, etc. in a government system or will contractor be required to input into a contractor system?

Response No. 5 The Squadron Aviation Resource Management office will keep a copy of the contract on file.

ARM offices may enter Government contractors in the ARMS for the purpose of tracking aircrew training and physical/physiological qualifications when the member will perform flying duties on a frequent basis. Updating and tracking flying time in ARMS is not authorized.

Question No. 6 Will there be any more workload data for additional years uploaded?

Response No. 6 The Government will provide summary FY15 data in addition to the FY12-FY14 data already aavailable.

Question No. 7 Date in the document footer of Appendix G says 9 March 2015, but the date listed in Section J.

list of Attachments is Nov 2015. Will there be an updated Appendix G?

Response No. 7 All documents will be reviewed, corrected, and reloaded to FBO.

Question No. 8 Code 1, 85% metric. In checking with ACC-A4MM, office responsible for aircraft maintenance metric, they have no definition for said metric and said ACC does not have any such metric and was unable to provide a definition or explain the metric. Can the government please provide the definition, the intent of the metric and its intended purpose? Many career maintainers feel this has the potential to in fact hurt the program as it could easily lead to the cause of the loss of a second and third go sortie as a perfectly capable code 2 aircraft is held down for repair as opposed to producing a critical training sortie.

Response No. 8 AFI 21-101 defines Code 1 as aircraft is mission capable with no additional discrepancy. The intent of the metric is to encourage high quality maintenance. Although this metric is not a service summary metric used in the current contract, it is tracked and reported and has been used to highlight the maintenance reliability of the ACC T-38 aircraft. The AMIC T-38 Program Manager has tracked this data for several years and has found the 85% metric achievable. The Government recognizes your concern but we assure you the Government will be sensitive to this issue, will surveil and watch for its occurrence, and if necessary, will make note of this during the performance incentive award fee board evaluation process.

Question No. 9 Follow up to Langley Site Visit. Can the government please do a complete scrub of all services that will be government provided and those that will be contractor provided? As an example the PWS para 3.2.8 states the contractor will provide Egress at Langley. However during the visit we were told that any work requiring more than one egress qualified person will be augmented by the Air Force. A second example is para 3.2.11 LOX cart maintenance. The PWS states the contractor shall provide maintenance but we were told that is not the case that is provided by the government.

Response No. 9 During the referenced site visit, contractors were advised that any oral answers are unofficial.

The Langley COR answered a question concerning Egress based on the current contract. In PWS Section C, paragraph 2.1.4 reads, “At the CRF, Langley and Tyndall all Egress is contractor provided.” Also during this visit the COR reminded the Program Manager that the LOX cart maintenance was no longer contractor provided. The PWS was updated to reflect this change. All offerors are reminded to prepare proposals IAW the RFP, PWS, and Sections L & M requirements.

Question No. 10 Follow up to Holloman visit. It was stated at the event that AS 9110 certification will be a requirement to bid. AS 9110 programs are very costly to set-up and maintain for a specific program. Will the government be provided a separate CLIN to reimburse the contractor?

Response No. 10 No, the Government will not reimburse the contractor. The Government requires offerors to be registered/certified to provide a responsive proposal.

Question No. 11 Para 1.12 FCF and Ferry Flights. Has a final decision been made regarding this being included in the RFP?

Response No. 11 Yes, the final decision is to include this as an option.

Question No. 12 PWS 3.2.10 – The Langley site visit revealed that the contractor AGE maintenance is also performed at the USAF AGE facility. Is there a Memorandum of Agreement in place to ensure continued use of that facility?

Response No. 12 The MOA has expired; however, the T-38 mission is an inherent part of the 1 FW mission.

Additionally, where required and cost effective the ACC staff will ensure any support required is provided by the 1 FW.

Question No. 13 PWS 3.2.11 – The Langley site visit revealed that the Liquid Oxygen (LOX) Cart Maintenance is no longer a requirement at Langley. Will the PWS be updated to reflect the change?

Response No. 13 Yes, the PWS has been updated.

Question No. 14 PWS 3.2.8 – Egress at Langley. The site visit revealed that the USAF base Egress facility provides manning assist to contractor egress. Is there a memorandum of agreement to ensure continued support?

Response No. 14 During the referenced site visit, contractors were advised that any oral answers are unofficial.

The Langley COR answered a question concerning Egress based on the current contract. In PWS Section C, paragraph 2.1.4 reads, “At the CRF, Langley and Tyndall all Egress is contractor provided.” The MOA has expired; however, the T-38 mission is an inherent part of the 1 FW mission. Additionally, where required and cost effective the ACC staff will ensure any support required is provided by the 1 FW.

Question No. 15

3.2.13 – Bomb Rack Maintenance. The Langley site visit revealed that OL Langley does not provide scheduled and unscheduled maintenance to the bomb racks and that it is performed at Holloman. Will the PWS be updated to reflect the change?

Response No. 15 Yes, the PWS has been updated.

Question No. 16 Can we get conformation on all PWS requirements, manning assists, shared facilities, memorandum of agreements for Holloman and the four operation locations at Beale, Langely, Tyndall, and Whiteman? As an example we feel it is an unfair advantage for the incumbent contractor to know that they are getting Egress manning assists where a competitor contractor would staff Egress at a level to account for proper workload requirements as they pertain to the published PWS.

Response No. 16

All requirements, manning assists, shared facilities for Holloman and the four operation locations at Beale, Langley, Tyndall, and Whiteman are outlined in the PWS. In PWS Section C, paragraph 2.1.4 reads, “At the CRF, Langley and Tyndall all Egress is contractor provided.” The T-38 mission at each location is an inherent part of that wing’s mission; therefore, the support outlined in the PWS is accurate.

Question No. 17 Are there any minimum manning requirements for any of the operating locations? If so, specifically what sections, shifts, and locations.

Response No. 17 The Government has provided workload data to include the average flying windows for each location. It is up to offerors to determine their own approach and what sections, shifts, and manning requirements will best satisfy workload requirements.

Question No. 18 L-9.5.1.3 Quality Management System – Has the government taken into consideration the restrictions to the government and increase in contract costs that will incur to properly perform the contract under AS9110? As an example solicitation FA8106-E9-A-CLSS, E9A Contractor Logistic Support, removed the AS9110 requirement. At industry day the government program manager stated that AS9110 was an encumbering process that distracted and stymied innovation and most importantly it conflicted with AFI 21-101. Will the government remove the AS9110 as a requirement from the RFP?

Response No. 18 The Government requirement for AS9100/AS9110 remains the same. There is no conflict between AS9100/AS9110 and AFI 21-101.

Question No. 19 Section L & M require demonstrated performance (minimum of 12 months) during the last three years preceding the T-38 AMP final solicitation issuance date. Would the Government consider revising to read “demonstrated performance (minimum of 12 months) during the last three years preceding the T-38 AMP final proposal due date”?

Response No. 19 The government will continue with the standard language that requires demonstrated performance (minimum of 12 months) during the last three years preceding the T-38 AMP final solicitation issuance date.

Question No. 20 What is the due date? SF33 shows February 4, 2016, Section L shows January 6, 2016

Response No. 20 Draft RFP was inadvertantly released to fbo.gov. The government will release the Final RFP and all supporting documentation on or before December 18, 2015.

Question No. 21 Is the successful bidder required to have AS9100 certification/registration at contract start date?

Response No. 21 No, the requirement is for the offeror to be registered/certified to bid and compliant at contract start.

Question No. 22 Can a sub-contractor team mates AS9100 certification/registration be used by the prime contractor to meet the contract requirements?

Response No. 22 No, the prime offeror has to be registered/certified to provide a responsive proposal.

UNOFFICIAL QUESTIONS (VERBAL)

Unofficial Question No. 1 Have the service summary Metrics changed from the current contract?

Response No. 1 Yes, new service summary has been posted.