Consolidated_Q&As_CAF_Contracted_Air_Support_11_May_2018.pdf

CAF ADAIR

Solicitation No. FA4890-17-R-0007

Questions & Answers

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

No

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1. Section H

Did the Government intentionally remove Section H from the

DRFP in its entirety including OCI, Cross Teaming and Ramp-on

Ramp-off?

Yes, Section H was removed and the information was inserted in the PWS.

2. CDRL A06

Box 1 of CDRL A06 list the Data Item Number as A08. Will the government please deconflict?

Corrected 12 Apr 2018

3. Section B CLIN 0005 references both Capability E and D. Can the government please deconflict?

This was a typo, corrected.

4. L-7.6

The referenced Section L, Attachment X was not provided with the draft documents. Depending on the number of intended enhancements, this could add up to a significant number of pages.

Are the Engineering Feasibility Assessments included in the page count?

Reference L-5.3.6 – Engineering Feasibility Assessments are counted as pages. Government has accounted for the expected volume in the overall page count.

NOTE: Published to FBO 16 Apr 2018

5. L-7.7

Documentation substantiating proof of ownership/inventory can be extremely voluminous and may not be unsearchable due to the nature of the signed agreement.

a) Can offerors provide this information as an attachment with a reference to it in the body of the document?

b) Is it permissible for this information to be provided as a non-searchable PDF?

Entire document is not required, a cover letter, executive summary, or portion showing applicable facts is sufficient.

Updated M-3.2.1 to state:

In order to be eligible for award, each Offeror must provide information on all aircraft being proposed, which includes the numbers, types, and the source of aircraft being proposed.

For aircraft not currently in an Offeror’s possession, the following information must be provided:

(1) An approved (signed) aircraft purchase or lease agreement, with an Interim or Final Third Party Transfer

(TPT) from the Department of State (DoS); or Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) approval;

and

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

(2) An airworthiness certificate, or equivalent, from any US

Federal agency or partner nation recognized by the USAF

TAA indicating prior success in executing an airworthiness certification process. This is in addition to the plan for USAF airworthiness certification that must be obtained by the successful Offeror for this solicitation per Subfactor C.

6.

L-7.9.3 and

Appendix C

L-7.9.3 states “Provide an approach to ensure sufficient aircraft availability, with required Aircraft Certification, and detail the aircraft capabilities to meet TO PWS requirements.” Based on

Appendix C, it appears that TO specific information will be provided in the FOPR package and offerors will not have access to this information during the IDIQ proposal development period.

a) Can the government please clarify if a TO specific approach should be provided within the Technical

Volume?

b) If so, should offerors anticipate receiving a TO or sample

TO to respond to with the final RFP?

Multiple part answer.

1. TO specific data was moved/included in the task order ordering guide, which was provided. Additional TO specific data is present in Appendix I.

2. Updated section L to delete “TO” throughout the document

3. Will be a DISCUSSION POINT during the Pre-RFP conference to ensure clarity.

7.

L-7.2, L-7.8, and L-7.9.3

L-7.2 states “A single Technical Volume shall be submitted for all aircraft Categories (and resulting mission sets) per the PWS and Appendix I.” L-7.8 states “…offerors must provide a technical approach to meeting all PWS requirements by aircraft type…” L-7.9.3 states “Provide an approach to ensure sufficient aircraft availability, with required Aircraft Certification, and detail the aircraft capabilities to meet TO PWS requirements.”

Can the Government please deconflict?

The government does not fully understand this question. The vendor can propose any of the category types, and are not required to propose on ALL categories. Initial performance must meet the required turn-patterns requested, but the technology level for initial performance is vendor proposed

(example: Early model mech scan radar early in performance while vendor upgrades fleet to something better that “best meets” the desired end-state requirements per Appendix I).

The milestone to achieve this end-state, while initially targeted by the government as the Required Objective milestone, is ultimately vendor proposed). Section L&M updated as follows:

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Subfactor C, L-7.10.3 pertains directly to the ability to meet the front line requirement against only those categories the vendor intends to propose, as indicated by the updated language below:

L-7.2 A single Technical Volume shall be submitted for all aircraft Categories (and resulting mission sets) per the PWS and Appendix I, the contractor intends to propose.

7.8 Requirements. Provide a technical approach addressing

all Technical Subfactors at L-7.10. A single Technical

Volume will be submitted and evaluated which includes all aircraft Categories (and resulting mission set) per the PWS and Appendix I, being proposed upon.

Will be a DISCUSSION POINT during the Pre-RFP

8.

B, L-7.8, Draft

Pricing, Appendix I

Appendix I lists Nellis attributes separate from all of the other category attributes (Categories A-E and Nellis are identified each with unique desired attributes and capabilities exchanges). Table

L-1 (page 64) does NOT list Nellis as a separate category, Section B does NOT list Nellis as a separately priced CLIN, and the draft pricing does NOT identify Nellis attributes as a separate

CLIN. How does the government want to offerors to address

It is not a factor for the IDIQ portion of the acquisition and that will be a DISCUSSION POINT during the Pre-RFP conference to ensure clarity. IDIQ proposals against L&M

Table L-1 OL workloads was discussed in the Telecom.

Nellis is a mixture of “Cat C and Cat B” with more stringent content and capabilities exchanges in these Categories than other TOs. At the task order stage, they will need to be priced

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

providing and pricing aircraft that meet the Nellis aircraft attributes?

in backup data as Cat C and Cat B capabilities. This was discussed in the telecom.

9. L-7.9.4

L-7.9.4 states “Provide a comprehensive plan that details any planned aircraft avionics enhancements required to meet

Category TO PWS requirements identified in Appendix I…”

a) Can the government please identify which category of aircraft should be addressed?

b) Can the government please clarify if ALL category of aircraft should be addressed?

c) Can the government please clarify if a TO specific approach to aircraft enhancements should be provided?

d) If so, should offerors anticipate receiving a TO or sample

TO to respond to with the final RFP?

The vendor can propose any of the category types, and are not required to propose on ALL categories. Initial performance must meet the required turn-patterns requested, but the technology level for initial performance is vendor proposed

(example: Early model mech scan radar early in performance while vendor upgrades fleet to something better that “best meets” the desired end-state requirements per Appendix I).

The milestone to achieve this end-state, while initially targeted by the government as the Required Objective milestone, is ultimately vendor proposed). Section L&M updated as follows:

Subfactor C, L-7.10.3 pertains directly to the ability to meet the front line requirement against only those categories the vendor intends to propose, as indicated by the updated language below:

L-7.2 A single Technical Volume shall be submitted for all

7.8 Requirements. Provide a technical approach addressing

all Technical Subfactors at L-7.10. A single Technical

Volume will be submitted and evaluated which includes all aircraft Categories (and resulting mission set) per the PWS and Appendix I, being proposed upon.

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

For the IDIQ, the vendor is proposing ONLY against the OL workloads identified in Section L, table L-1. A task order specific approach is not desired by the government at this time. The task order PWS will be identical to this IDIQ PWS, with the only exception being that Section F contains workload data and local integration data for the individual task order. OL workload data is already presented in both the

Appendix I and in the Task Ordering Guide.

conference to ensure clarity

10.

L Clauses

Incorporated by Full Text, L-8.2.2

252.227-7017 has fill-ins. L-8.2.2 states that offerors should provide fill-ins, certifications and other information requested in

RFP Sections C-K.

a) Does the government want this filled in?

b) If so, in which proposal volume should it be provided?

Yes, it will need to be filled if not already in SAM. If in

SAM, then still must provide a copy

11. Attachment I Table D-1 – Category A Attributes and Exchanges is missing.

Can the government please provide this table?

This was deleted when converted from word to PDF.

Republished to FBO 16 Apr 2018

12.

Attachment I and L-7.2

Throughout Attachment I Category specific proposals are referenced (pages 1-11 and 1-12 reference “Category A proposals”; pages 1-18 and 1-19 reference “Category B proposals”; pages 1-23 and 1-24 reference “Category C proposals”; pages 1-28 and 1-29 reference “Nellis proposals”;

and page 2-4 references “Category D and E proposals. L-7.2

Vendor is only required to propose on those categories it intends to perform. Updated:

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

states “A single Technical Volume shall be submitted for all aircraft Categories (and resulting mission sets) per the PWS and

Appendix I.” Can the government please clarify that information addressing each of these Categories should be included in the single Technical Volume identified in L-7.2?

L-7.2 A single Technical Volume shall be submitted for all

Will also be a DISCUSSION POINT during the Pre-RFP

13. CDRL A02

Block 16 does not identify the date of initial submission only the timelines for review and revision. Can the government please identify the date of initial submission?

Corrected. Updated in CDRL and QASP

14.

CDRL A03

and PWS 3.3

CDRL A03 states “Core FOPs and GOPs must be submitted NLT

60 days after award of an initial OL Task Order…” and PWS 3.3 states “Contractor FOPs (CDRL A03) must be submitted no later than 60 calendar days after transition start.” Can the government please deconflict?

Reference in PWS para 3.3 deleted

15. CDRL A14

Block 12 indicates that the date of first submission is 30 DAC, but Block 16 4) and 8) indicate that the date of first submission is

45 days after installment of contracted technology.

a) Can the government please deconflict?

b) If the date of first submission is 45 days after installment of contracted technology, can the government please identify whether this is 45 working days (IAW Block 16, item 4) or if it is 45 calendar days (IAW Block 16, item

8)?

Block 12 updated to read “Block 16.” Block 16 updated to read “calendar days.”

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

16.

CDRL A09

and PWS

Section D

CDRL A09 references PWS, Section D Para 3.1, however CDRL

A09 is not referenced anywhere in the PWS. Can the government please deconflict?

The data is too large to include on the CDRL so it references

PWS Section D, 3.1 which IS the CDRL.

DISCUSSION POINT – Added as a talking point to the Pre-

RFP conference

17.

CDRL A10

and PWS

Section D

CDRL A10 references PWS, Section D Para 3.5.5, however

PWS, Section D does not contain a Para 3.5.5. Can the government please deconflict?

Reference was incorrect. Updated to Section D, para 3.5.4.

DISCUSSION POINT – Added as a talking point to the Pre-

RFP conference

L-1.6

We noticed that the Government added this test to L-1.6 “Funds are not presently available for this effort.”

a) Do you have any insight into when funds will be available?

b) Do you anticipate this pushing the FRFP release further to the right?

This is standard language in government acquisitions that are longer than the current fiscal year. Funds required for performance are future years funds for CAF CAS operations so, as this is being released in FY18, FY19 funds which is what will be required for performance are not currently available. FY19 funds are not available at this time.

18.

Table C-1

Category D and E

Attributes

In Table C-1 under Speed (2) the Required is 250 KIAS and 300

KIAS for D and E aircraft respectively.

a) Does the government intend to maintain these speed requirements, understanding that it eliminates many possible airframes from the competition?

CAT D updated as 175 required and 250 desired. CAT E updated as 250 required and 300 desired. However, this is government best value #’s. Just like in ADAIR, it doesn’t prevent a contractor from presenting other options and justifying the “best value” of the proposal.

19. App I table C.1

The lowest speed aircraft is 250. In our experience CCAS trips often include a persistent ISR to gain Pattern of Life and simulate a high level UAV (MQ-9)

These are slow moving, long duration, low cost assets. This type of platform is also used during initial training or remedial training. The platform can stay overhead for 5-6 hours and work

This type of platform and/or training is not required under the contract

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

through multiple calls again at a low cost. Recommend adding a

Cat F

20.

App I table C.1 and D.2.2.2.2

Speed for CAT E is 300 KIAS at IAW D 2.2.2.2 at

30,000MSLstandard day, 1G, air to ground conf, 75% fuel Load with minimum required BDU-33 load. It would be difficult for the government to evaluate this criteria, suggest using

Manufacturers speed limitations (This is a verifiable standardized number)

The government will not “evaluate the validity of the number proposed by the vendor.” It’s up to the contractor to propose a number based on this datapoint, and vendors should validate claimed performance using OEM data. Failure of the vendor to adequately support their claims to meet the requirement may be grounds for being found not technically acceptable.

The government is only evaluating the ability of the contractor to meet the baseline indicated. This is the only way the government can level the playing field for evaluating between contractors.

21.

3 categories D- Not to exceed speed of 250, E Not to exceed speed of 300, and F Not to exceed 200 (ISR type)

ISR type not needed by government. The speeds listed are a

“minimum” not a “not to exceed” number.

22.

RFP overall

CLIN structure

The RFP does not include either a fixed performance CLIN (to cover non-variable costs of operations) or a minimum number of flight hours/sorties per year. The absence of these types of minimum guarantees raise contractor risk and elevate price to the

Government. Other US Military customers have learned over the past 20 years that the fundamental success of commercial adversary air contracts is based on the Government establishing a fixed performance CLIN to reduce their costs and provide stability, reduce risks and motivate greater investment by contractors. Will the Government consider establishing either a fixed performance CLIN (preferred) or set a minimum number of flight hours/sorties per year (for the IDIQ and each Task Order) in order to reduce Government costs and reduce contractor risk?

This was discussed in the Telecom. The IDIQ is not at the task order level in reference to # of hours/sorties. The IDIQ is in reference to the total # of OLs. As such, there is no minimum guaranteed work on the IDIQ MAC, except as it pertains to preparing airworthiness needed to perform at the task order level. Guaranteed work is at the task order level.

The government views the structure of the task orders establishes a fixed volume of sorties/performance CLIN. The successful offeror will receive the full fixed awarded amount

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

regardless of actual sorties completed so view the risk has been reduced for the contractors.

23.

RFP CLINs

0001-0005

The RFP CLINs 0001-0005 and CLINs 0006-0007 describe price per ‘sortie.’ Although the draft solicitation documents reference an expected average sortie duration for each task order location it is not possible to always fly that length of sortie due to mission requirements, weather conditions, ATC influences, etc. To price these CLINs by ‘sortie’ suggests that contractors must inflate the expected sortie duration to account for variability and risk. This will increase cost to the Government. Industry standard has been to price flying operations either by the minute or by the hour.

Will the Government change these CLINs to reflect price per minute or price per hour?

While price per sortie is how the government wants to see the backup data and should be the basis of the contractor’s price development, the actual CLIN will be priced as a monthly fixed price amount to cover that variability. Due to the volume of work anticipated on this contract vehicle, the administrative burden of pricing/invoicing these CLINs at anything other than monthly is not feasible.

24.

RFP CLINs

0001-0005

The RFP CLINs 0001-0005 indicate that the contractor is expected to adjust price to reflect weather attrition. Will the

Government provide historical weather attrition data associated with each of the Task Order locations?

Yes

25.

RFP Section L, L-8.1.2

The Government states that the contractor must price incidental costs for weather attrition. This approach may lead to higher costs to the Government due to pricing uncontrollable risk into the program. Will the Government consider an alternate approach to weather attrition where a fixed performance CLIN is established to account for contractor fixed costs (across all categories of flying) and variable performance CLINs based solely of sorties flown? This approach would provide reduced stable pricing to the Government while also reducing contractor risk for uncontrollable events (such as weather).

The government views the structure of the task orders establishes a fixed volume of sorties/performance CLIN. The successful offeror will receive the full fixed awarded amount regardless of actual sorties completed. Thisprovides the government maximum flexibility to schedule the contractors in a manner similar to an active duty unit.

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

26.

RFP CLINs

0001-0005

The RFP CLINs 0001-0005 state they are ‘price per sortie’ and priced for the IDIQ and Task Order. Within the same category of aircraft types, each Task Order location has unique mission and support considerations that may affect price. Some examples include variations in ASD, aircraft capabilities and different force mixtures based on TO performance requirements. If the purpose of the IDIQ price is for evaluation purposes only (leading to initial IDIQ award) it would seem there is no standard upon which to evaluate uniform pricing. Can the Government explain their expectations for how vendors shall make assumptions appropriate to provide standardized IDIQ CLIN pricing?

There is no pricing for the Task Order in the IDIQ

RFPPricing is only for the IDIQ OL Notional Loads identified in L&M Table L-1. For the IDIQ acquisition, there is standardization within the categories as it is only being priced to the notional load provided in the RFP. The vendors must include their assumptions as part of their proposal and include these as pricing narrative data. Since invoicing is by

“month,” the measure used to develop the price as “sortie” or

“hours” is irrelevant. Pricing worksheet establishes “sortie” as the standard, and backup data is required to support established price.

27.

RFP CLINs

0006, 0007

CLINs 0006 and 0007 are described as COST reimbursable which is different than the FFP pricing expected of CLINs 0001-

0005. All Government-sponsored flight activity under this solicitation would seem to be similar in terms of pricing so it is not clear why some flying CLINs are COST and some are FFP.

Can the Government explain their intended distinction between the FFP flying rates associated with CLINs 0001-0005 and the

COST flying rates associated with Ferry Flights and Deployment

Flights?

CLINs 0006 and 0007 are Cost Reimbursable not because the flights themselves are different from those in CLINs 0001-

0005, but because the quantity of flights have not been established to make these FFP. The government expects the

Cost per sortie to be relatively the same, with whatever differences between OL and TDY sortie costs explained in the cost narrative. Vendors will provide back-up data only on the

CLINS at the IDIQ, and will not price these CLINs, IAW the instructions tab on the pricing worksheet (updated).

28.

RFP CLIN

CLIN 0011 describes the Phase-In price as ‘program management price associated with stand-up or transition of an OL.’ Can the

Government clarify the types of activities to be considered

‘program management’ in this context?

Essentially everything in PWS Section C and D needed to support the beddown of contractor operations at an OL, as well as those portions of all CDRLs that apply prior to performance start. Additionally language will be provided in

PWS Section E, 1.1 to clarify.

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

29.

RFP Section L, L-1.6 Section L-1.6 states that funds are not presently available for this effort. Can the Government clarify when it expects funds to be made available for this effort?

This is standard language in government acquisitions that are longer than the current fiscal year. Funds required for performance are future years funds for CAF CAS operations so, as this is being released in FY18, FY19 funds which is what will be required for performance are not available at this time.

30.

RFP Section L, L-7.9.3

Section L-7.9.3 describes a requirement to provide ‘sufficient aircraft availability’ to meet TO PWS requirements but does not clarify whether these ‘TO PWS requirements’ imply full operational capabilities (identified in PWS Appendix I as

Required Objective capabilities) or whether this reference to availability is solely initial aircraft (un-enhanced) available to fly the TO PWS rate of effort (flying schedule). Will the

Government clarify the meaning of the term ‘sufficient aircraft availability?’

Section L-7.9.3 also refers to vendors providing an “approach that permits performance start on initial OLs using existing airframes after the prescribed transition period”, however, the term

“transition period” is not defined in PWS Appendix Section M

Definitions. Will the government clarify and define the term

“transition period” and include specifications for required capabilities to be delivered during this period?

PWS Appendix I language updated to define IOC and FOC as they pertain to Threshold and Required Objective Milestones

(see language in Item 31 below). Additionally, L&M

Language updated:

-7.9.3. Subfactor C: Aircraft Availability. Provide an approach to ensure sufficient aircraft availability to support required turn-patterns, with required Airworthiness

Certification, and detail the aircraft capabilities to meet PWS requirements.

M-3.2.4.3. Subfactor C: Aircraft Availability. The

Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

Demonstrates an approach that ensures sufficient aircraft availability with required Airworthiness Certification to support required turn-patterns (at initial performance and once fully operational) and details the aircraft capabilities to meet flying hour requirements in the PWS and Appendix I.

Transition is fully defined in PWS Section E, paragraph 1.

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

Section L-7.9.3 also gives an option to provide an approach that

“permits performance start on initial OLs using airframes following an importation or enhancement period not to exceed 12 months from IDIQ award” however this statement indicates that vendors have only 12 months from award to provide enhancements rather than the PWS Appendix I Threshold and

Required Objective periods which imply enhancements may be delivered over a period of many years. Will the Government clarify the relationship between the 12 month period referenced in

Section L, L-7.9.3 and the Transition Period and Required

Objective period concepts found in PWS Appendix I?

“Importation or enhancement” does not imply “completion” of enhancements IAW Appendix I, but provides the latitude for contractor to rapidly enhance existing airframes to start performance in first 12 months, or import in first 12 months while upgrading to meet Appendix I.

31.

RFP Section L, L-7.9.4

Section L-7.9.4 describes a concept of reaching “…full operational capability no later than targeted milestones indicated in Appendix I” however the reference to Appendix I defining an

FOC state is not consistently reflected in all draft documents.

Will the Government clarify and define the capabilities and timelines required for Full Operating Capability for each task order operating location?

Appendix I language updated:

B.1.1. Threshold (2019-2021) – This defines the period acceptable for mobilization, importation, and modification of aircraft to meet required performance attributes. Vendors in this period are “initial operational capable” when meeting the required turn patterns regardless of aircraft configuration.

B.1.2. Required Objective (2022-2025) – This defines the period in which aircraft must be fully capable of meeting all objective capabilities for each OL. This period is also available for contractors to import and/or modify aircraft intended to meet “required objective” requirements. Aircraft categories identified in this column are considered the terminal baseline requirements of the identified OLs on the entire contract. Vendors reach “full operational capability” at this point.

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

32.

PWS Section E

(page 46, 1.1)

Section E 1.1 describes a Phase-In period of 3 calendar months prior to TO performance start as the period during which the contractor will complete “…deliverables required to begin operation on the performance start date” but no definition of what constitutes acceptable conditions or requirements for beginning operations. Will the Government define what minimum contractor capabilities need to be delivered at the end of the

Phase-In period?

There is no minimum technological conditions required under

“IOC” conditions to support Performance Start. The only condition indicated for performance start is the ability to fill the full front-line capacity.

Performance start was identified in PWS Section E, para 1.2.

Language further updated to reflect:

1.2 Performance Start. Base Year Performance Start is

defined as the commencement of aviation operations at the full contracted turn-pattern at the OL. Timelines for flying contracted sorties in support of each OL TO is finalized per each TO award.

This will be a DISCUSSION POINT in the Pre-RFP

Conference.

33.

PWS Section E

(page 46, 1.2)

Section E 1.2 discusses a Performance Start concept as the start of ‘aviation operations’ but does not describe what this means

(i.e., is this any aviation operations (a 1T0 schedule for example) or full schedule capability or full schedule capability with full mission capabilities). This section also allows the contractor to propose a delayed performance start date (DPSD) to accommodate importing or enhancing aircraft to meet TO requirements but this doesn’t necessarily imply relationship of this DPSD to compliance with the Appendix I Threshold Period timelines.

Performance start is aviation operations at full contracted front line capacity. See updated para 1.2 above.

The government is unable to dictate milestones, to include a firm performance start date, for contractor owned aircraft as the government has no insight into what each platform needs wrt technology or time. As such, these timelines are all

CONTRACTOR driven. Appendix I and the L&M are the government’s estimate at those timelines, and what the government finds acceptable. The ultimate determination of

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The level of ambiguity associated with these statements puts at risk vendor investments intended to meet a targeted requirements timeline. Will the Government restructure and clarify their intent for delivery of requirements into a straightforward threshold and objective roadmap to simplify the understanding of when capabilities (including minimum aircraft availability (in an unmodified state if necessary) and full mission capabilities) are required?

timelines required is CONTRACTOR driven and factors into the government’s best value determination.

34.

RFP Section L, L-8.1.1

Section L-8.1.1 indicates that pricing shall reflect up to a 10 year timeline to meet TO PWS requirements. In some cases a vendor who has been awarded a TO may wish to invest in ongoing internal research and development activities to seek out and make available to the Government enhanced or emerging threat capabilities many years into the 10 year timeline. These opportunities are not known at this time and cannot be priced into an initial TO proposal. Can the Government explain how it intends to motivate vendors to provide such emerging or enhanced capabilities when pricing is expected to be fixed from

Year 1?

Pricing should be fixed in year one based upon the vendor’s expected technology enhancement(s) plan. Pricing should be commensurate with those timelines and should be explained in the offeror’s pricing narrative.

Unknown tech should not, and the government does not expect to be priced. Offeror attempts to price unknown and/or theoretical technology will likely generate lengthy, confusing discussions and would most likely result in a finding of “not technically acceptable” due to lack of viability of the proposal. During contract performance, however, the government anticipates ongoing discussions (market engagement and research) that could lead to further requests for proposals as companies have the opportunity to continue to enhance capabilities beyond FOC.

35.

PWS pg 4, 1.10, CDRL

A013

PWS page 4, 1.10 describes a technology validation concept for

ADAIR but does not define what constitutes a “technology enhancement”. CRDL A13 (Remark 5.d) further describes testing requirement for such technology enhancements as

“…thorough enough to permit integration of data with OFP on

USAF owned MDS.” Additionally, CDRL A14, (Remark 5.b)

Technology enhancement generally is any piece of technology not currently installed at IDIQ award. In general, concerns of the government pertain mostly to those equipment not specifically designed by the aircraft OEM as part of it’s original production capabilities, but moreso with aftermarket technologies adapted to existing airframes. However, this

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

states that the Third Party Validation Report must “Describe all operating engineering parameters of installed technology sufficient to assist government software integration on USAF owned assets.” It is unclear what connection the Government intends to make between contractor-owned aircraft modifications and future integration into “USAF owned MDS” or “USAF owned assets.” Can the Government explain their intent between validating vendor performance claims and incorporation of contractor intellectual property into operational flight programs of

USAF owned MDS or other USAF owned assets? Will the

Government define ‘technology enhancement’?

exact requirement must be determined on a case by case basis with the GPO to determine what would and would not require the third party validation. The Third Party Validation requirement exists to reduce risk to the government, as these technologies will no undergo testing similar to those in a

USAF material acquisition. The connection to US government MDS pertains to management of US owned

OFP’s, and how detection of contractor technologies ultimately get shown in USAF cockpits.

This was discussed in the telecom

36.

PWS Section

A, 1.10

Technology Validation (ADAIR only). Will the Government specify fly-off data collection methods, test environment parameters (to include target aircraft types), key performance measurements and data reduction strategies to enable contractors to validate performance using similar standards during initial design, development and integration of these capabilities? What are the consequences if the contractor aircraft does not meet the specifications submitted in its bid during the OL Government

Fly-Off?

This is not a material acquisition. The fly-off in CAF CAS is not, and should not be viewed as a fly-off commensurate with a material acquisition. The fly-off exists to verify the results of the third party validation report and to enable the government to manage OFP’s on it’s own MDSs.

This was a DISCUSSION POINT during the telecom to ensure clarity

37.

PWS pg 4, 1.10.2.5

PWS page 4, 1.10.2.5 states that Government Fly Off flights “will normally be conducted in support of a line CAF ADAIR support sortie but may be tasked as a dedicated effort when needed.”

Will the Government clarify which party is funding these fly off sorties when tasked by the Government as a dedicated effort?

Funded as part of the core contract, they are not “stand-alone.”

PWS language updated and the “fly-off” is renamed to

“Contractor/Government Avionics Validation Flight

Evaluation (CAVFE)” to eliminate any confusion with a “fly-off” associated with a material acquisition.

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

This was a DISCUSSION POINT during the telecom to ensure clarity

38.

PWS pg 11, 3.1.2; PWS pg

45, 5.2;

Appendix I

B6.6

PWS page 11, 3.1.2, states that ADAIR contractor shall “provide sufficient P5CTS pods to support scheduled front lines at each

OL” however this is not consistent with PWS page 45, 5.2, or

Appendix I page 1-5, B6.6 (Basic Aircraft Attributes) that states

GFE P5 pods may be provided and contractor aircraft must have the capability to carry GFE or CFE P5CTS pods. Can the

Government clarify whether contractors must provide P5CTS (or equivalent) pods or whether contractor aircraft are simply required to carry GFE P5CTS pods?

PWS Language updated:

3.1.2 Provide sufficient Air Combat Maneuvering

Instrumentation (ACMI) pods to support scheduled front lines at each OL, where GFE P5CTS pods are not provided. ACMI pods must:

3.1.2.1 Integrate and be realtime interoperable with existing

USAF P5CTS pods carried on government and coalition platforms.

3.1.2.2 Integrate and be realtime interoperable with USAF

P5CTS ground system (AN/GSQ-T105) to ensure realtime Range Training Officer (RTO) monitoring where currently fielded. Where no existing USAF

AN/GSQ-T105 system is utilized, there is no requirement for the contractor to provide a ground

RTO system capability.

5.0 ACMI POD MANAGEMENT

5.1 Contractor provided ACMIP5 Pods:

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

5.1.1 Ensure Contractor owned pods are visually

distinct from Government owned P5CTS systems.

5.1.2 Removable data cartridges on Contractor owned

pods must also be visually distinct from Government systems to ensure these cartridges are not inserted into

Government P5CTS systems. These cartridges may also require visually distinct markings to identify differing security levels, as applicable.

5.1.3 The Contractor is responsible for all

upload/download operations; and data download support requirements on these systems. Data will be transferred to Government debriefing systems by non-returnable disposable media provided by the

Contractor.

5.2 Government provided P5CTS pods: Where

Government provided P5CTS pods exist, the

Contractor will be processed IAW standard USAF guidelines for coalition P5CTS pod integration.

Support for upload/download and data transfer on these pods will be managed via existing USAF contracts, in coordination with ACC/A3A.

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

This was discussed in the telecom: Still PENDING ACC/A3

DETERMINATION as a core requirements on the contract.

39.

PWS Table

A3.1a

Table A3.1a on page 18 implies NVG qualifications (and systems) are required for ADAIR task orders. Will the

Government clarify whether NVG capabilities are a basic aircraft attribute for ADAIR task orders?

“NVG” is not required, just “night operations.”

PWS table A3.1a and A3.1b notes updated: “N/A” if NVG’s are not used.

40.

PWS Table

B1.1

Table B1.1 Service Summary lists a ≥ 95% mission effectiveness rate measured against Blue 1 or TACP Lead feedback questionnaires. Although the questionnaires are open to subjective determination, a 95% mission effectiveness rate may be costly to ensure sufficient spare aircraft, spare parts and flexibility are built into the program to achieve this rate. Will the

Government consider changing the mission effectiveness standard to 85% (the same standard used by other DoD components for commercial adversary air services) to enable lower cost solutions to the Government?

No, “mission effectiveness” is nebulous since by RAP and syllabus requirements, the government has flexibility to

“make it happen” airborne. Keeping 95% ensures a balance between the contractor and government’s responsibility to ensure mission success. This is why there is specific commentary. Government reserves the right to adjust this after program start and we see how well it’s implemented.

This should not be confused with “UTE” or

“configurations”…this is literally, “did Blue 1 get a RAP counter?”

41.

PWS, pg 34, 1.1

For on-base OLs the Government will provide Maintenance work space and Hangar Space as available (non-interference). For the majority of maintenance activities, ‘work space’ implies a range of locations including back shops, ramp space and hangar space.

Will the Government clarify the difference between

“Maintenance work space” and “Hangar Space”?

Maintenance space is primarily flight line maintenance and hangar space is for heavy maintenance (non-interference hangar usage may be approved by local leadership on a case by case basis in unusual circumstances only). This excludes back shops. Contractor’s operations should be “flight-line” maintenance with no access to the back shops anticipated.

42.

PWS, pg 38, 1.2.1

The Government prohibits foreign national support for “installed or uninstalled avionics capabilities.” This prohibition does not seem consistent with the Government’s desire to field non-US

PWS updated to include:

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

threat representative solutions for the CAF CAS program. The term ‘avionics capabilities’ includes potential items such as

INS/GPS, navigation systems, IFF, radios, OEM RWR systems, EA systems, radar systems etc. Some level of non-US field service representation or other technical support (not necessarily on-base at US Government installations) should be expected.

Will the Government re-address the prohibition against non-US support of avionics capabilities to better reflect the concern the

Government has with this topic?

1.2.1 Maintenance support (both hardware and software) for

all contracted aircraft components and avionics capabilities will physically reside in the CONUS, Hawaii, or Alaska. No direct foreign national support is permitted on installed or uninstalled avionics capabilities. Foreign national technical support may be approved by the correct security agency(ies), provided foreign national direct access to systems is monitored and/or restricted IAW DoD 5220.22-M, “National

Industrial Security Program Operating Manual,” as supplemented, and AFI 16-406.

This was discussed in the telecom.

43.

PWS, pg 38, 1.2.2

The Government lists a prohibition against “…returning to foreign countries, or foreign entities…for maintenance support” contractor owned or leased avionics components and test/diagnostic equipment with information collection. This policy appears to be more restrictive than SAF/AQL policies related to the same areas of concern. There are technical procedures that could be followed prior to shipping such components out of the country that could eliminate the

Government’s assumed risks. Standing up US-based repair facilities for many of the capabilities being asked of the CAF

CAS program or requiring component replacement (instead of repair) will add significant cost to the Government. Rather than simply prohibiting such activity, will the Government coordinate with appropriate Departmental agencies to establish a sufficient

This language was specifically provided by the security community to support this PWS development. Security language is currently under review by the appropriate agencies.

Security was discussed in the telecom.

However, language currently updated to read:

1.2.2 Technologies supported by foreign entities may include

support from these entities in the form of training and education of US contractor personnel, and resupply of hardware components. Contractor owned or leased avionics components and test/diagnostic equipment with information

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

technical process to address these concerns while enabling contractors to have an avenue to provide necessary non-US integrated logistics support to minimize costs and eliminate security risks to the Government?

collection and/or storage capabilities are generally prohibited from returning to foreign countries, or foreign entities, for maintenance support, regardless of the status of the components’ volatile and non-volatile memory. Some depot level support in foreign countries may be permitted on some systems, on a case by case basis, by the Government contracting agency under direction of the appropriate security agency(ies).

44.

PWS

Appendix I, pg

1-5, B6.6

The Government states that contractors may provide CFE EA pods with “capabilities greater than or equal to the ALQ-188 version 4 pod”. Will the Government provide specifications sufficient to define the capabilities of the ALQ-188 version 4 pod so that contractors may assess other system capabilities to determine compliance with this requirement?

No, it’s assumed the vendor is knowledgeable of these capabilities if they are to be “technically capable.”

45.

PWS

Appendix I, pg

1-5, B6.6

The Government states that contractors may provide CFE IR

CATMs “equivalent to or greater than the AIM—9M/9X”. Will the Government provide specifications sufficient to define the capabilities of the AIM-9M/9X upon which a contractor may compare other CATM solutions? Will the Government consider removing this comparison of IR CATMs in order to enable contractors to provide non-US IR CATMs even in cases where they may not be equivalent to or greater than AIM-9M/9X?

Government will not provide technical specifications on

AIM-9M/X. The vendor should be knowledgeable of these capabilities if they are to be “technically capable.” As a best value trade-off, the vendor may propose alternative solutions to GFE provided AIM-9X (for example AA-11 or Python 5) as part of their proposals.

PWS Appendix I updated:

“Have the capability of carrying government electronic countermeasures pods with capabilities greater than or equal to the ALQ-188 Version 4 pod, P5 Combat Training System

(PCTS) pods (or equivalent/current Air Combat Maneuvering

Instrumentation (ACMI) pods), and Infrared (IR) Captive Air

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

REFERENCE

(PWS, RFP,

etc.)

COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Training Missiles (CATMs) equivalent to or greater than the

AIM-9M/-9X; where provided as identified in each OL task order. When contractors provide similar systems of comparable capabilities to those listed above, carriage of the equivalent government provided system is not required.”

46.

Appendix I, pg

1-9, Legend

Rows 12-15 and notes for

Tables D.1, E.1 and F.1

Force mixture concept. The description of acceptable force mixture considerations is not clearly articulated. For example, consider the following scenario: A contractor has an aircraft with maximum speed of .85M that meets all Category B Minimum

Performance and Minimum Capabilities specifications except for

Speed (column 2). The Contractor will add desired RWR capabilities as an exchange (AE-1) against the Speed deficiency.

Does this aircraft now qualify as an unambiguous Category B aircraft for all columns of Table B.1 and Table B.2 that specify

Category B aircraft performance (columns “B”)? Or, instead, is this aircraft only able to occupy Tables B.1 and B.2 columns labeled “A” which are color-coded green? The Appendix I, Table

[E.1] descriptions related to Force Mixture options do not clearly explain how these rows (10-20) of options align with the scenario described above.