Q_and_A_posted_17_Mar_17.pdf

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT (RPA)

SOLICITATION FA4890-16-R-0032

POSTED: 17 MAR 2017

1. Reference: Attachment 1 – RPA Performance Work Statement March 2017, Section 2.7.1 Program Management Information System (PMIS), Page 10.

Section 2.7.1 states “The Contractor shall populate the system with all open work orders and requisitions no later than 30 days after contract start. The Government will provide this data at transition and update this data at contract start.” The PWS refers to “work orders” in Section 5.1 Facility Management and Section 5.5.3 Government Furnished Vehicle Requirements. The PWS refers to “requisitions” in Section 4.17 Logistics Management (4.17.3 Mission Capable and

4.17.4 Requisitions) and Section D Transition Section 2.0 Backorder Parts.

Question: Would the Government clarify the intent of the words “all open work orders and requisitions”. Does the Government expect the Contractor to populate PMIS with any additional work orders and requisitions other than as specified in the above PWS references? For example, does the Government expect the Contractor to populate PMIS with internal work orders generated from the Contractor’s Work Management System to manage performance of MQ-1/9 and RQ-4 maintenance?

Response: The Gov’t does not expect the contractor to populate PMIS with company internal workorders.

2. Reference: Reference: Attachment 1 – RPA Performance Work Statement March 2017, Section 2.22.7 Surge Capability and Section B RFP CLIN 0010, 0011 and 0012

Section 2.22.7 states “Maintain capability to support 3 additional combat lines for 120 days at existing MQ-1 and MQ-9 deployed sites supported by this contract. Personnel are to be on site supporting the additional combat lines NLT 30 days after notification by the CO. The Government may exercise this capability up to 2 times during each contract year.” Section B of the RFP provides item numbers for CLIN 0010 DP-14 Surge Capability, CLIN 0011 DP-31 Surge Capability, and CLIN 0012 DP-32 Surge Capability.

Discussion: This Offeror initially interpreted Section 2.22.7 to mean maintain capability to support 3 additional combat lines for 120 days at all three existing MQ-1 and MQ-9 deployed sites for a total requirement of six (6) surges per contract year (1 surge x 3 sites x 2 times per year). Discussion during the Pre-Proposal Conference implied the total requirement per contract year was two (2) surges {Page 24 RPA Pre-proposal Conference Site Visit Briefing Slides}.

Question: Request the Government clarify the requirement in PWS 2.22.7 and CLINs 0010, 0011 and 0012 to state “Maintain capability to support three (3) additional combat lines for 120 days at existing MQ-1 and MQ-9 deployed sites supported by this contract for a total maximum of two (2) surges during each contract year.” Is this interpretation of the requirement correct?

Response: Your interpretation is correct. The Government may exercise this capability up to two times across all deployed sites during any task order period of performance. The Government reworded PWS Paragraph 2.22.7 for clarity.

3. Reference: Attachment 1 – RPA Performance Work Statement March 2017, Section 4.18.1, Page 32.

In Section. 4.18.1, the Government directs contractors to submit a Property Control Plan IAW PWS Appendix B. In PWS Appendix B, the plan (reads as CDRL item, although no CDRLs are called out in RFP), it states that this plan is due “15 days after contract start; annually after initial delivery,” which we read as 15 Days After Contract Award (DACA). Inasmuch as that all other data items/plans/CDRLs stipulate day or months after Contract Full Performance Start Date, which is identified as the day after the 120-day transition period that immediately follows contract award (Referencing RPA Pre-proposal Conference Site Visit Briefing Slide 68 of 70 that shows Contract Award in Dec 2017, with Transition occurring Jan-Apr 2018 and Performance Start occurring May 2018).

Question: Referencing the Property Control Plan requirement in PWS Section 4.18.1, and guidance in PWS Appendix B, can the government clarify that the Property Control Plan is to be submitted 15 days after contract start (i.e. during transition) or 15 days after contract full performance start date?”

Response: The Property Control Plan is to be submitted within 15 days of the contract full performance start date. Appendix B will be revised with Amendment 0001.

4. Reference: Task Order FA48901XF00T, Attachment 1, Technical Task Order Requirements Andersen AFB, Guam and : Task Order FA48901XF00U, Attachment 1, Technical Task Order Requirements NAS Sigonella.

The Anderson Unique requirements of Task Order FA48901XF00T, Attachment 1, Technical Task Order Requirements Andersen AFB, Guam identified a maximum of 5 aircraft at any one PACAF location. In Task Order FA48901XF00U, Attachment 1, Technical Task Order Requirements NAS Sigonella however the Adjustments to Appendix N (Operational Requirements) table did not identify the maximum number of aircraft at NAS Sigonella.

Question: Please clarify in Task Order FA48901XF00U, Attachment 1, Technical Task Order Requirements NAS Sigonella regarding the maximum number of aircraft at NAS Sigonella at one time.

Response: At this time, there is the possibility of 4 aircraft at NAS Sigonella at one time.

5. Reference: Task Order FA48901XF00T, Attachment 1, Technical Task Order Requirements Andersen AFB, Guam

Question: Please clarify what the maximum number of combined block 30 and block 40 sorties will be flown from Anderson per month.

Response: The average sorties per month at Andersen is currently 38. However, the actual operational requirements may vary up or down from the projections. Worst case scenario using information available at this time, that number may increase to 45 sorties, but this is a best estimate.

6. Reference: Task Order FA48901XF00U, Attachment 1, Technical Task Order Requirements NAS Sigonella

Question: Please clarify what the maximum number of combined block 30 and block 40 sorties will be flown from Sigonella per month.

Response: The average sorties per month at Sigonella is currently 48, with 18 of those hours attributed to Block 40 aircraft (currently none on station). As stated previously, the actual operational requirements may vary up or down from the projections. There is no “worst case scenario” information available at this time.

7. Reference: Task Order FA48901XF00U, Attachment 1, Technical Task Order

Requirements NAS Sigonella

Question: Please clarify if the 18 Block 40 sorties per month at Sigonella will be a surge capability or an enduring operations tempo. If surge, how often and for what duration will the ops tempo increase to 48 total sorties per month?

Response: The Block 40 requirements at Sigonella are dictated in the specific task order requirement and are not identified as a surge capability. If a Block 40 is transferred to Sigonella, it will come from another location. There is no projected need for this scenario at this time and the government cannot predict the duration should this occur.

8. Reference: L-7.5.iii “Font Size for charts, tables, graphs, and figures shall be no smaller than Microsoft Office Word, Times New Roman, 10-point font.”

Question: Will the Government consider allowing Microsoft Office Word, Arial font for charts, graphs, and figures? Will the Government consider allowing Microsoft Office Word, 8-point font for charts, graphs, and figures?

Response: No, the Government will not consider using Arial font or 8-point font for charts, graphs, and figures.

9. Reference: Attachment 3 Pricing Tables, March 7, 2017 xls File.

The offeror conducted a review the RFP Attachment 3 Pricing Tables xls file to check for cost/price modeling errors originating from the Government provided file that would result in inaccurate representation of price proposed if not corrected by the Offeror. While the RFP provides that an offeror is expected to ensure the submitted pricing is accurate, other offerors who fail to identify and correct original pricing template errors could gain a measure of price competitiveness due to the under-represented and incorrect costs proposed.

Below is a list of errors identified during this review, organized by the pricing template’s architectural sections, with a brief explanation of impact if not corrected.

Question: Will the Government correct the Attachment 3 Pricing Tables to reflect the following comments?

a. ANG Detail Labor Rates – In the FFP CONUS pricing table for the Extension, the Prior Year Rate column’s formula incorrectly points at Year 4 instead of Year 7. This means that the labor rate represented in the Extension would be an escalation of Year 4 rates, bypassing the proper rates built up from Years 5-7. This will cause the proposed labor price for the Extension to be understated by approximately 5%.

b. Guam DETAIL - Labor Rate – In the pricing tables for years 5, 6 and 7, the escalation formula points to the incorrect years from the Escalation tab. This error may cause problems if those years have escalation factors different from the years the formulas currently point to.

c. Guam DETAIL - Labor Rate - In the pricing tables for years 5 and 7, the Prior Year Rate column incorrectly points to the prior year’s Prior Year Rate column instead of prior year’s escalated rates. This means Year 5’s labor rates are an escalation of Year 3’s rates (instead of Year 4), and Year 7’s rates are an escalation of Year 5 (instead of Year 6). This causes labor cost to be understated due to missing/skipping 2 years of escalation.

d. Sigonella DETAIL - Labor Rate – In the pricing tables for years 5, 6 and 7, the escalation formula points to the incorrect years from the Escalation tab. This error may cause problems if those years have escalation factors different from the years the formulas currently point to.

e. Sigonella DETAIL - Labor Rate - In the pricing tables for years 5 and 7, the Prior Year Rate column incorrectly points to the prior year’s Prior Year Rate column instead of prior year’s escalated rates. This means Year 5’s labor rates are an escalation of Year 3’s rates (instead of Year 4), and Year 7’s rates are an escalation of Year 5 (instead of Year 6). This causes labor cost to be understated due to missing/skipping 2 years of escalation.

f. Deployed DETAIL - Labor Rate - In the pricing table for years 4, the escalation formula points to the incorrect years from the Escalation tab. This error may cause problems if Year 4 has an escalation factor different from the year the formula currently points to.

g. Deployed DETAIL - Labor Rate - - In the pricing table for year 7, the Prior Year Rate escalated rates. This means Year 7’s rates are an escalation of Year 5 (instead of Year 6).

This causes labor cost to be understated due to missing/skipping 1 year of escalation.

h. LRE DETAIL - Labor Rate - In the pricing table for years 4, the escalation formula points to the incorrect years from the Escalation tab. This error may cause problems if Year 4 has an escalation factor different from the year the formula currently points to.

i. Deployed DETAIL - Labor Rate - - In the pricing table for year 7, the Prior Year Rate escalated rates. This means Year 7’s rates are an escalation of Year 5 (instead of Year 6).

This causes labor cost to be understated due to missing/skipping 1 year of escalation.

j. Task Order 2 H - N ANG – Across all years, the MI ANG tables pick up FTE count for TN ANG instead of MI ANG from the CONUS MANNING tab. This will cause a significant problem if manning for TN ANG is different from MI ANG.

k. Task Order 2 H - N ANG – In the tables for MI ANG, from Year 3 on through the Extension, the labor rate columns incorrectly looks up TN ANG’s rates. This may cause significant inaccuracies in price, as TN and MI may have different labor costs factors by locality.

Response: The government will correct the RFP Attachment 3 Pricing Tables, however, the pricing spreadsheet is a template provided for offerors to use, tailored as needed, to ensure we have a standardized document for all offerors. It is ultimately the responsibility of each offeror to ensure all data inputted into the spreadsheet is correct; i.e.: formulas, functions, cells tracing back to correct data/worksheet, cells linking to other cells, references etc.