FA4890-17-R-0007_QA.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR COMBAT COMMAND

JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS VA

Agile Combat Power

25 September 2018

SOLICITATION QUESTION AND ANSWER

SUBJECT: CAF CAS (FA4890-17-R-0007)

1. Section L-7.2 states “the Technical Volume shall be structured so that each sub-factor is addressed for each category being proposed.” Since much of the information provided in Subfactors A and B is identical across Aircraft Categories, may offerors provide one overarching write-up for Subfactors A and B that covers all Aircraft Categories and break out Subfactors C and D by Aircraft Category as show in the Table of Contents Sample?

ANSWER: Yes.

2. Section L-9.2 states The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall comply with FAR Part 19, Small Business Programs, and its supplements, and ensures that the MQR of 5% of the total annual awarded contract value is subcontracted to Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB). This inclusion of DFAR 219.705-4(d)(i) is a significant change from the draft which required 5% of the total annual awarded contract value is subcontracted to small businesses. Changing the requirement from Small Business to Small Disadvantaged Business will be difficult to achieve considering the specificity of the skills and work required on this program. Would the Government consider changing the requirement back to Small Business vice Small Disadvantaged Business?

ANSWER: Section L has been updated.

3. Section L-9.2 states The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall comply with FAR Part 19, Small Business Programs, and its supplements, and ensures that the MQR of 5% of the total annual awarded contract value is subcontracted to Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB). Is the Government considering Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZone) Small Businesses, and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) Disadvantaged for inclusion in the Minimum Quantitative requirement (MQR?). If yes, is the Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) category included as and SDB?

ANSWER: For information on the classification of a Small Disadvantaged Business see 13

CFR 124.1002.

4. Section L-9.1 defines the Government’s Small Business Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) is “5% of total Task Order dollars to Small Disadvantaged Businesses for this acquisition”.

ANSWER: Section L has been updated. The Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) is 5% of Total Task Order dollars to Small Businesses.

5. Section l-9.2 defines the MQR “5% of the total annual awarded contract value is subcontracted to Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB).” Would the Government please clarify the MQR definition?

ANSWER: The Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) is 5% of Total Task Order dollars to Small Businesses.

6. Section M-5.2 has been removed from the FRFP. The current numbering is M-5.1, M-5.3.

Was it the Government’s intention to remove M-5.2 in it’s entirety?

ANSWER: Section M has been updated.

7. Section L-8.1.4 and Section M 4.1.3. The government added “realistic” to section L-8.1.4 however “realistic” was removed from Section M 4.1.3. Does the Government want Offerors to address price realism in the proposal Narrative? Will the Government please deconflict these requirements?

ANSWER: Section M has been updated.

8. SF 33 Page 1 lists proposals due on October 8, 2018 which is the Columbus Day holiday. Will the government have a representative on-site to receive offerors proposals on Columbus Day Monday, October 8, 2018?

ANSWER: Proposal due date has been changed.

9. In accordance with RFP Section L-2.4, questions are due 30 days prior to the close of solicitation which is 8 September. 8 September is a Saturday. Does the Government want questions submitted on a Saturday?

ANSWER: Yes.

10. Section 1 Attachment 1 Technical Factor Cross Reference Matrix includes a reference to PWS Section A, 3.3.1.0 ADAIR Profiles but not a reference to PWS Section A, 3.3.1.1 CCAS profiles, was this intentional?

ANSWER: The references intended per the question were for PWS Section A, paragraph 3.3.10 and 3.3.11 (as indicated, 3.3.1.0. and 3.3.1.1. do not exist). Section L has been updated to include 3.3.11.

11. RFP SF33 box 9 Current due date is 08 Oct 2018. The OPM.gov web site lists this as a federal holiday, Columbus Day. Will AMIC be receiving proposals on this day or will it change the due date to a non-federal holiday?

ANSWER: Proposal due date has been changed.

12. RFP Sec L-7.8, Appendix D-GFE, Appendix D lists all the GFE provided but in the RFP section L it directs that industry price for “off-base civil fields, assuming no government provided support.” Will the GFE listed in Appendix D be provided for off-base locations?

ANSWER: No. Any GFE by OL will be identified in the FOPR according to Section C of the PWS for the Task Order.

13. The Pricing Worksheet for BACKUP DATA Column Descriptions and Instructions states:

“Fully Burdened Cost. This is the total cost, by aircraft type, to support the annual operation, identified in columns F through K. This column auto-calculates and will be the total sum of all identified costs. Fully Burdened Rate. This is the fully burdened cost per sortie against required annual workload (sortie rates) required per capability. This column auto-populates against sortie rates identified on the associated CLINs.” It appears that the formula in the price worksheet for Fully Burdened Rate is incorrect and mislabeled as Fully Burdened Cost. Suggest that you swap titles, and for Fully Burdened Rate, the resulting value formula should be cost/hr multiplied by the annual sortie count, instead of being divided by the annual sortie count.

ANSWER: Backup data requested by category is the annual cost by cost type to support the annual quantity (sortie for ADAIR), cost per sortie is calculated in column L (fully burdened rate). Pricing instructions tab updated for clarification.

14. Q&A, The RFP states in section M1-3 that: “In making award decisions by aircraft Categories, the Government will consider technical capability and risk, as well as the price for the capability.” M-3.1 also lists Evaluation Factors (1) Technical (Combined Technical Capability & Risk) and (2) Price.

When airframe selections and purchasing decisions were made and solicitation conditions released, it wasn’t indicated that U.S. built airplanes have a natural advantage in both risk and cost reduction where it comes to the Government considering furnishing multimillion-dollar OFP support, GFE such as parts from scrap airplanes, and anything else that would be existing in the USAF inventory. It is an equivalent of putting a finger on a scale when trying to evaluate IDIQ proposals, and especially subsequent task orders, fairly. Showing openness to such government assistance in the answers to questions from 08/16/18 (see question 9) to the Draft RFP raises a concern that the Government may indeed consider these types of Government assistance as part of risk and cost, which would constitute an unfair evaluation advantage.

ANSWER: Per para L-7.2, “The Offeror shall declare internal and external dependencies by identifying all assumptions required to support performance.” This will be a multiple award, competitive best value source selection conducted using a Subjective Tradeoff source selection process (Ref M-1).

15. Would it be possible to level the playing field by eliminating these special considerations from trade-off analysis explicitly through RFP language that flows down to task order evaluations (or offering an equitable adjustment during price and risk analysis for those who have already invested in equivalent technology), and ensuring that these considerations are not artificially changing cost and risk evaluation?

ANSWER: Per para L-7.2, “The Offeror shall declare internal and external dependencies by identifying all assumptions required to support performance.” This will be a multiple award, competitive best value source selection conducted using a Subjective Tradeoff source selection process (Ref M-1).

16. Appendix I, D.2, E.2, F.2, Can you confirm and clarify that each of the Minimum Aircraft Performance Attributes (1-4) are standalone and not simultaneous and are individual evaluation elements (e.g. aircraft doesn’t have to make speed and altitude ceiling requirements in the tanked configuration if tanks are required for ASD in accordance with Appendix I, Section H.4)? There appears to be a conflict with RFP, Appendix I BE-2 (option 2) and CE-2 (option 2) that state that external tanks may be used to meet ASD provided that aircraft attributes 1-2 [altitude, speed] are maintained. Degradation in attribute 3 [instantaneous turn rate] is expected. The way we read it, ASD attribute is independent of attributes 1, 2, and 3, because ASD profile is specifically described in the H4 Definitions and Details.

ANSWER: Yes. It’s the responsibility of the offeror to support in the proposal how the configuration and performance “best meets” the Appendix I requirements.

17. PWS SECTION E: 1.1, 1.2, Are there any CDRLs that need to be included with the IDIQ proposal submission?

ANSWER: All CDRLS are post IDIQ award actions.

18. Appendix I, Chapter 2 (CAF CCAS Services), Section D.14 Can the Government provide additional clarification of JTAC DaCAS learning objectives for the overall acquisition and/or individual operating locations?

ANSWER: D.14.2.1. and D14.2.2. define the requirements for DACAS.

19. Appendix I, Chapter 2 (CAF CCAS Services), Section D.14 Can the Government provide additional clarification on desired DaCAS waveform and JTAC kit software requirements at the operating locations, to include required or desired aircraft emulations?

ANSWER: D.14.2.1. and D14.2.2. define the requirements for DACAS.

20. Upon review of the USAF CAF CAS final RFP we note the mandatory compliance references found in Appendix C. In order to ensure a fully compliant proposal we are asking for an urgent introduction from AMIC to connect us with the USAF Technical Airworthiness Authority responsible for the contractor airworthiness process at Air Force Materiel Command / Air Force Lifecycle Management Center.

Understanding the degree to which USAF requires compliance (scope, applicable sections, discrete work products, etc.) of the following mandatory references and the methods USAF will use to certify compliance are essential to be able to submit a compliant CAF CAS proposal:

- AFI 62-601, USAF Airworthiness

- AFI 62-601, AFMC Sup 1, USAF Airworthiness

- AWB-001, USAF Airworthiness Bulletin – Procedures for Documenting and Implementing USAF Airworthiness Bulletins

- AWB-1012, USAF Airworthiness (AW) Requirements for Contractor-Owned and Contractor-Operated (COCO) Aircraft

- DoDD 5030.61, DoD Airworthiness Policy

- MIL-HDBK-516C, Airworthiness Certification Criteria

Please advise as soon as possible with an agency contact name, phone number and email so that we may understand the USAF airworthiness requirements specific to the CAF CAS program.

ANSWER: AFLCMC will not engage on airworthiness issues until the IDIQ contracts are awarded.

21. Appendix D, D.1, Discussion: Fuel cell maintenance is available on a non-interference basis in the fuel barn or the dedicated outdoor fuel maintenance area. In many cases, 10 hours of fuels maintenance can occur on a single aircraft in a single shift. In situations where fuel systems maintenance will take longer than the available 10 hours per month, where are our open fuel cell maintenance options? Recommendation: Allow use of dedicated fuels mx areas on a non-interference basis without a set cap limit for the outdoor fuel maintenance area.

ANSWER: If more than 10 hours are required, the Contractor’s access to the OL’s fuel cell facilities or areas shall remain on a non-interference basis as coordinated through the GGR. The CAF CAS program requires the Contractor to minimize its footprint/burden at their awarded OL.

22. Appendix D, D.17, Discussion: Aircraft fuel will be made available to flying organizations.

Can Hydrazine (H70), used as Emergency Power System fuel, also be made available from any USAF base where it is commonly used and accessed? Recommendation: Create a service-level agreement by where cleared, trained contractors can gain access to Hydrazine fuel, so long as the travel/logistics costs are covered by the contractor.

ANSWER: The USAF will not provide Hydrazine to support Contractor operations.

23. Appendix D, D.20, Discussion: P5 CTS Pods may or may not be available at specific OLs, understanding the USAF’s plan on P5 CTS pods being furnished as GFE can provide fidelity on whether the requirement is a truly needed pre-MAC IDIQ award. Does industry wait until the OL award before determining P5 CTS pod requirements? At what point are these pods clarified as GFE/CFE? Recommendation: Release OL-specific P5 requirements.

ANSWER: Per PWS Section A, para 3.1.2.1 and Section D, para 6, contractors are required to provide CFE ACMI capability. Appendix D refers to GFE P5CTS, this is limited to support of named exercises.

24. L-8.2.5, Discussion: The last sentence of this section states “Offerors shall provide evidence of indirect rates and factors used in the price schedule have been audited/approved by DCAA”. If an Offeror does not currently hold a government contract and therefore has not been audited by the DCAA, how would you direct them to comply with this requirement?

ANSWER: See www.dcaa.mil for details. Per para L-8.2.5 “If an Offeror has never dealt with DCAA, Offerors shall review the website at www.dcaa.mil and identify the cognizant DCAA office.”

25. Section F – Deliveries or Performance, Discussion: In the prior draft RFP a 10 year Period of Performance (POP) was in place. The final RFP reflects a 5 years base POP plus a 5 year option POP. A five year period will provide a very short time frame over which to amortize highly specialized investments and any internal or external funding for the program. This is further compounded by the milestones for future capability insertions. Although we believe the capability growth objectives are achievable, the amount of risk placed on the contractor to develop these capabilities without a guarantee that a contract will exist (beyond the base period) once these capabilities are fully developed provides little incentive or ability to develop these capabilities. The types of assets being invested in for the program are generally specialized and long lived assets with lives in excess of 10 yrs. Typically the amortization of the assets and internal and external funding would be matched to the lives of the assets. Given the specialized nature and usage of the assets, without a contract and associated cash flows guaranteed longer than five years (even if the contractor is performing satisfactorily) it will be difficult to amortize assets and funding over the expected lives of the assets. As a result of the lack of surety of revenue past a 5 year period:

The increased risk will drive increased fee to the government to incent contractors to invest internal funds in the program and be able to cover increased cost and shorter amortization of external funds;

Force contractors to amortize assets and investments over a shorter time period increasing the overall fee to the government;

May make it impossible for some contractors to fund the program, significantly reducing competition in a market of limited competitors

Recommendation: We request that the government amend the solicitation to provide a 10 year base ordering period. This will ensure that assets and investments can reasonably be amortized over a longer period and those lenders and investors have a reasonable timeframe over which to recoup their investments. In turn this means lower prices, increased competition and increased investment in new capabilities.

ANSWER: The ordering period was written IAW DFARS 217.204(e)(i).

26. RFP L-7.8, Discussion: “L-7.8 Requirements. Provide a technical approach addressing all Technical Subfactors at L-7.9. Offers may propose on multiple aircraft Categories and mission sets, but all data must be in a single proposal and volume. For the IDIQ selection, Offerors must provide a technical approach to meet all PWS requirements by Category, to meet specific flying hours identified in the table below. For the purposes of the IDIQ, offerors will assume each notional workload in Table L-1 supports operations from contractor managed off-base civil fields, assuming no government provided support (emphasis added)”

Due to the wide variety of possible off-base facilities in support to OL operations, creating a fair and equal assessment across all bidders will be difficult. Without a known location and associated off-base potential sites the wide variety of costs (trim pad, engine facilities, barriers, TSA security, etc.) is unknown until such time analysis and site visits can be conducted. It is believed that all bidders currently are adept at and have operations from a main commercial maintenance facility and support deployed operations from that facility. It is our opinion that additional information would not be relevant to any evaluation criteria and would in fact create an unbalanced financial cost that is irrelevant to any FOPR OL. Recommendation: For the MAC IDIQ evaluation, it is recommended that all bidders consider on-base facilities IAW the provided Appendix D and PWS.

ANSWER: In order to standardize pricing for the IDIQ, each offeror shall base their pricing for operations conducted from their Centralized Repair Facility (CRF), but wage rates will be IAW Wage Determination 2015-5253 per question 100 below.

27. RFP L-9.1, Discussion: In the draft version of the RFP (June, 2018) in section L_9.2, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, the goal of 5% was allocated to small businesses i.e. “….ensures a minimum of 5% of the total annual awarded contract value is subcontracted to small businesses.”

In the final version of the RFP, the 5% goal was allocated to small disadvantaged businesses i.e.

section L-9.1 – “The Government’s Small Business Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) is 5% of total Task Order dollars to Small Disadvantaged Businesses for this acquisition” and section L-9.2 – “…ensure that the MQR of 5% is subcontracted to Small Disadvantaged Business.”

As Small Disadvantaged Business is a sub category of Small Business, and other sub categories do not have an MQR, this is inconsistent and an unusually high goal for a Small Business subcategory. The Attachment 2 Checklist also is inconsistent.

Is the Government’s intent to specify an MQR of 5% to all Small Businesses or just the subcategory of Small Disadvantaged Businesses?

Recommendation: Amend section L-9.1 wording to simply reflect “The Government’s Small Business Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) is 5% of total Task Order dollars to Small Businesses for this acquisition” with reporting of sub-categories.

ANSWER: Section L has been updated.

28. Follow-on Operating Location (OL) timing and contract awards. Discussion: The April 2018 draft SF 33 noted a Period of Performance (POP) starting on 12 Jul 2019 while a subsequent 5 June 2018 document “OL fielding Release for Industry” noted OL contract awards starting in July 2019. In addition the OL Fielding Memo included the verbiage of “AMIC expects funding applied initially (FY19 and FY20) to be somewhere between 5 and 12 total OLs.” The current RFP establishes a POP starting on 8 Oct 2019 – a change from the draft document of approximately 3 months. While we understand and respect the previous caveat of “The above fielding is all developmental and estimated based on constraints on the program known as of 1 Jun 2018. Actual fielding is subject to change at any time, including after the IDIQ is awarded.”

the ability for the contractor to understand and estimate Follow-on Operating Location contract awards is critical to developing transition plans that approximate the program flow thereby ensuring deliverable performance when needed and to control pre-CA costs. Does AMIC still expect FY19/20 funding to support the stand-up of between 5 and 12 total OLs? Does AMIC still consider OL awards starting in July 2019 to be a sound estimate? Recommendation: AMIC update Industry with their “best estimate” of MAC CA and OL Fielding Laydown.

ANSWER: The contract cannot be awarded until authorized by Congress in the FY20 NDAA.

There is no further data available on OL fielding.

29. Maximum Price Per Flying Hour. Discussion: Reference AMIC 2 April 2018 industry memorandum “SUBJECT: CAF ADAIR (Solicitation No. FA4890-17-R-0007) – Maximum Price Per Flying Hour” in which the USG “established maximum PPFH associated with ADAIR services under the larger CAF CAS acquisition: $30,000 per flight hour” In that same memorandum it was noted that the “Government reserves the right to increase the maximum PPFH based on projected funding streams and associated decisions regarding total number of filled OL’s, given the offeror’s capabilities proposed, may impact the CAF CAS best value determination for the USAF.” With the contract period of performance changing from 10 years to 5 years (with a 5 year option) and recognizing the types of aircraft and capabilities being invested in for the program are highly specialized and long lived assets with lives in excess of 10 yrs, will AMIC consider increasing the maximum PPFH given the shorter contract length and investor risk?

ANSWER: The IDIQ ordering period has a base of 5 years with one 5 year option. Task Orders can be as long as 10 years if all options are exercised.

30. Will the Government provide as GFE any surplus parts, software, “mothballed” hardware, or support equipment for platforms that are in the DOD inventory?

ANSWER: No.

31. IAW Appendix I, Table C-1. There appears to be a simple administrative error for CAT E aircraft. The table lists 30,000 and 35,000 in Column 1 however the performance text in Chapter 2, D.3 says 25,000. The verbiage at D.3.3.2. "CAT E: states “starting at 25,000 ft, ingress from an 15 nm initial point (IP), diving delivery down to below 15,000 feet, recovery back to 25,000 feet, and egress back to the IP." After 20 years of flying the A-10 I can attest it normally only goes above 30,000 on FCF profiles, even in Combat. Should Table C-1 be corrected to reflect the textual attributes of 15,000 and 25,000 feet?

ANSWER: Appendix I, Chapter 2, Table C-1 be updated to reflect 25,000 feet required and 35,000 desired for Category E.

32. IAW Appendix D.12.1 The Government details everything from 5 desk phones and computers to MX hangar support and backshop. However, it does not outline the Operations and Mission Briefing office space and Maintenance or Logistics shop size that on-base Contractors should expect to be provided. Driving on and off based for mission briefings, maintenance and logistics does not allow contractors the ability to respond quickly to Red Ball maintenance or Government schedule changes. Can you please describe what Contractors should expect for physical space in which to support the Air Force’s mission?

ANSWER: Current NEPA studies underway utilize AFMAN 32-1084 guidance for size of facilities, that meet OSHA requirements for expected # of aircraft and personnel needed to support the front lines.

33. IAW PWS Chapter 3, ADAIR Contractors, having no live ordnance, are slated to be supported and based on DoD airfields to facilitate briefings and debriefings. CCAS Contractors are required to store, build, load, employ, and possibly recover with unexpended and occasionally HUNG live munitions to a civil field. Accommodating the relatively small number of CCAS provider aircraft at a military installation convenient to JTAC ranges is the safest option with the most Government oversight for a contract element which is No-Fail. Also, CCAS debriefings are highly valuable just like ADAIR since your CCAS provider is actually employing LIVE weapons on the same ranges USAF JTACs are actually occupying. Why wouldn’t the Air Force want CCAS providers on DoD Airfields?

ANSWER: The requirement is for off-base performance at civil fields.

34. IAW Appendix G, Quality, the Contractor is required to be compliant with the most current version of either ISO 9001:2015, AS9100, or AS9110 Quality Management System standard.

These are all civil standards. Contractors operating COCO PAO status as required in this RFP must already comply with DoD 5200 and AFI 10-220. This redundant civil compliance requirement is both costly and does not offer the USAF any additional level of safety nor compliance. What is the justification for this additional civil requirement?

ANSWER: DoD 5200 series pertains to security and AFI 10-220 pertains to government oversight and contractor operations. These documents do not collectively make up a contractor quality management system. The prescribed ISO/ASO standards are acceptable to the aerospace industry and therefore reduces government risk in areas not covered under DoD 5200 or AFI 10- 220 (for example – logistics supply management). The requirement per Appendix G stands.

35. IAW PWS 1.7 Airworthiness Certificates, the aircraft to support this contract are currently required to have US FAA Airworthiness Certificates. This is completely appropriate for all US owned aircraft. However, if the aircraft are leased from a source granted a Foreign Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA) recognition by the USAF Airworthiness Branch then they should be acceptable to AMIC. This would dramatically accelerate the movement to the desired objective specifications. Why wouldn’t AMIC accept an already approved USAF MAA aircraft source provided all other security requirements for personnel and avionics were adhered to?

ANSWER: The requirement per PWS para 1.7 stands.

36. IAW Section B, 2.2, The test reads as if the Contractor is responsible for paying the TDY funds for the GFR to travel to inspect our operations. This has never been the case with any GFR in the industry nor the USAF Airworthiness Branch and does not seem appropriate. Can you please confirm that the cost of the GFR is not borne by the Contractor?

ANSWER: There is no para 2.2 in Section B. There is no requirement for the contractor to pay TDY costs for the GFR or any government entity.

37. TO Ordering Guide, 3.10.1.3 this section mentions Video Downlink Encryption, please clarify whether VDL encryption is required.

ANSWER: TO Ordering Guide is for task orders and provided for reference. Aircraft requirements are detailed in Appendix I. VDL is per CCAS Attribute #12 (desired on Cat D and required on Cat E). Technical solution, to include exact quantities and on which aircraft, is contractor proposed.

38. Appendix I, 2-6, D.2.2.3 This section covers minimum speeds and altitudes for CAT D and CAT E, however the air-to-ground configuration does not annotate the required gun and sensor.

Recommend adding "gun and sensor" to the air-to-ground configuration when calculating speed and altitude requirements.

ANSWER: The requirement stands as written.

39. FA 4890-17-R-0007 Will the Government permit Offerors to propose different Category solutions for future Task Order proposals when new technologies, different aircraft or more affordable solutions become available on the market if they demonstrate a benefit to the Government?

ANSWER: Yes, reference PWS Section E, para 8.1 for Unsolicited On-Ramps.

40. Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices, CLIN 0001-0005 Each CLIN references DFARS 252.211-7003 (Item Identification and Valuation). At the IDIQ level, does the Government require contractors to identify each specific aircraft serial number/tail number proposed for a specific Category or is it sufficient for contractors to simply identify the aircraft model type being proposed? What other Identifier does the Government require to meet DFARS 252.211- 7003?

ANSWER: For IDIQ, aircraft model type is sufficient. Also, DFARS 252.211-7003 is required on the government contract per DFARS 211.274-6(a)(1), however, per the DFARS 252.211- 7003, the marking does not apply to Contractor owned equipment.

41. Section F, Delivery Information The solicitation identifies an IDIQ base contract term of 5 years with a 5-year Option period. Please clarify the Task Orders terms for base and option years.

ANSWER: Each Operating Location Task Order will be a 1-year base with 1-year options until the end of the 10-year MAC IDIQ ordering period.

42. Section L, L-1.6 When will funds for this effort be available and through which appropriations account?

ANSWER: Funds will be available at IDIQ award.

43. Section L, L-7.6 L-7.6 states that an engineering feasibility assessment (Section L, Attachment 3) is required "…for each proposed enhancement on each aircraft proposed by the offeror." Please define the term "enhancement" in the context of this requirement.

ANSWER: Enhancement for the purpose of this effort pertains to any tactical avionics systems that will create tactical effects on the battlefield.

44. Section L, L-7.8 The Government states, "For the purposes of the IDIQ, offerors will assume each notional workload in Table L-1 supports operations from contractor managed off-base civil fields, assuming no government provided support." Please specify the extent of the term "no government provided support"? Are contractors directed to price all elements of the program, even those items for which there is a reasonable expectation that the Government will provide GFE such as ALQ-188 pods, CATM-9M/X, chaff/flares, and BDU-33's?

ANSWER: Offerors should provide IDIQ proposals as if supporting an OL from their CRF location with no GFE.

45. Section L, L-7.8, 2) and Table L-1 the Government states that sortie numbers are based on projected 1.0 hours for Cat E at the indicated turn pattern; however, Table L-1 indicates sortie numbers based on 1.5 hours for Cat E. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Section L, Table L-1, Note 2 references to Cat D and E deleted, and 1.5 range hours applied universally to CCAS.

46. Section L, L-7.8, 2) The Government states "Offerors may propose increased sorties and turns to cover the required on-range hours, but will remain consistent over a 2-go/3-go day and 20 operational day work-month." Please clarify this statement.

ANSWER: If the aircraft provided can’t cover the required range hours, the offeror may propose filling the time with more aircraft provided they cover the intended range windows supported by the pre-established turn patterns.

47. Section L, L-7.9.3 The Government states, "…or, provide an approach that permits performance start on initial OLs using aircraft following an importation or enhancement period not to exceed 12 months from IDIQ award." The concept of an 'enhancement period not to exceed 12 months from IDIQ award' is not consistent with Appendix I definition of Threshold Period (Appendix I, Section B, B1.1) that permits modifications/upgrades to occur during the period 2019-2021. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Aircraft availability per L-7.9.3 pertains to aircraft flying (performance start date per PWS Section E) and does not pertain directly to aircraft enhancement milestones. Appendix I milestones are government’s “target” for enhancements and are contractor proposed and not limited to 12 months per L-7.9.3.

Examples:

A. F-16s imported to begin flying 10 months after IDIQ, then are enhanced w/ increased technology between performance start and CY21.

B. F-5’s current in US delay performance to enhance “initial operational capability” to enable AESA radars 12 months after IDIQ, then continue to upgrade with HMCS/Python-5 between performance start and CY21 (Appendix I threshold period).

C. Initial performance with OEM F-5’s 3 months after IDIQ award (pre-established transition period) while importing and fully upgrading F-16’s for “fully operational capability” in CY 21.

48. Section M, M-1.3 and M-2.1. M-1.3 states "In making award decisions by aircraft Categories, the Government will consider technical capability and risk, as well as price for the capability." M-2.1 states, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint." The nature of the IDIQ solicitation incorporates notional operational requirements and related notional pricing; for example, the Government instructs technical proposals to assume 'no government support available' (L-7.8) and actual technical solutions will be based on future (unknown) task order requirements. How will the Government perform price evaluation as an evaluation factor in making the decision to eliminate some technical solutions from the IDIQ outcome? What price evaluation techniques will the Government use to evaluate price for a notional IDIQ technical solution?

ANSWER: Per M-4.1.1., “Price analysis will be conducted using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, realistic, and balanced price.”

This evaluation will be made against the notional workloads for the purpose of entry into the

IDIQ.

49. Section M, M-3.2.1 (2) Please provide a list of all partner nations "recognized by the USAF Technical Airworthiness Authority (TAA)".

ANSWER: Any ICAO participating nation meets the requirement.

50. Section M, M-3.2.4.4 The specifications of many of the ADAIR enhancements listed will be classified. How does the Government intend to evaluate unclassified technical proposals when the performance evidence of some enhancements requires a classified setting?

ANSWER: Government will not evaluate classified data for the IDIQ. Offerors are required to answer the proposals as best as possible using only unclassified data.

51. Master PWS, Section A, 1.10.1 Will the Government consider approving a Contractor's aircraft integration subcontractor as the "third party" regarding development of a Third-Party Validation Plan?

ANSWER: Government will consider this on a case-by-case basis provided the validation plan can ensure the testing is conducted as a stand-alone validation of installed technology performance, such that the performance of the test is not hampered by OCI issues. Awarded companies should have an initial discussion with the GPO prior to pursuing this option to ensure intent is met.

52. Master PWS, Section A, 1.10.1 Please define the scope of "technology enhancements" that would trigger a requirement for a Third Party Validation Plan? For example replacing radios, etc.…

ANSWER: Enhancement for the purpose of this effort pertains to any tactical avionics systems that will create tactical effects on the battlefield.

53. Master PWS, Section A, 1.10.2 Against what metrics is the CAVFE going to be measured?

Does the outcome have contractual performance implications (i.e., is it assessed for contractual compliance)?

ANSWER: There are no government pre-established metrics for a CAVFE, other than contractor proposed performance per Third Party Validation; which may have performance implications.

54. Master PWS, Section A, 1.10.2 1.10.2 states, "The Contractor shall conduct a flight evaluation against Government assets for each Contractor owned aircraft and technological advancement…" Please clarify whether this flight evaluation is required for each and every Contractor aircraft or just once to represent the modification on the general type of aircraft?

Please also clarify if this requirement is solely for aircraft the Contractor "owns" or does it apply to leased aircraft as well?

ANSWER: The CAVFE is by aircraft type (owned or leased) and technological upgrade (configuration) per PWS Section A, para 1.10.2.5 “Shall include a minimum of one engagement by Contractor aircraft per installed technology ensuring accuracy of scan, track and target capabilities against 4th Gen and 5th Gen assets as applicable.”

55. Master PWS, Section A, 1.10.2.5 How does the Government intend to evaluate the Contractor's radar system performance (detection range) when the Appendix I H.5 definition measures radar performance against an ambiguous "fighter size" target without regard to a defined RCS?

ANSWER: Appendix I evaluation for radar detection range is a qualitative assessment.

56. Master PWS, Section A, 1.10.2.7 Please clarify the scope of flight evaluation work the Contractor is expected to perform relative to the open-ended requirement to "…include any item of interest from any DoD SPO?"

ANSWER: There is no scope of work for a CAVFE beyond the existing FHP built for contract performance. A CAVFE exists concurrent to an existing contract line. Para 1.10.2.7 pertains to management of government aircraft, not contractor aircraft.

57. Master PWS, Section A, 1.11 states, "If any military SDS equipment is used by the Contractor, the Contractor is responsible for ensuring the SDS equipment has been spectrum certified through the NTIA and radio licenses shall be obtained prior to operation." Does this mean that the Contractor must seek NTIA licensing for the Government's ALQ-188 pods?

Presumably the Government has previously been granted spectrum certification and approval through the Air Force Spectrum Management Office and if the Contractor's aircraft are operated as PAO why can't the same USAF approval originally granted be transferrable to the Contractor?

Won't seeking approval through NTIA simply add additional program cost without benefit? Is the contractor required to obtain licensing for GFE?

ANSWER: This does not apply to government owned systems provided as GFE. Para 1.11 applies only to contractor owned systems that are of military origin. Even though the system may have been cleared to operate by the government from a spectrum management perspective, the offeror is still required to acquire the FCC or NTIA licensing to permit use by the contractor.

For GFE pods, spectrum clearance and licensing is provided by the government.

58. Master PWS, Section A, 1.11 states, "The Contractor is required to obtain appropriate national level authorization prior to conducting any electronic attack tests, training, or operational exercise activities." Please clarify what National Level Authorization means, and does this apply even when the Contractor is using GFE?

ANSWER: The offeror is responsible to contact the local electronic warfare officer (EWO) post OL task order award, to determine if an EA clearance exists for the required training area. If no clearance is available, the EWO/CSO/Spectrum Manager would submit an EA clearance IAW CJCSM 3212.02D to the appropriate DOD Area Frequency Coordinator. The offeror must provide the RF transmitter parameters to the EWO to assist with creating the EA request. If a clearance exists, the offeror must operate within the EA parameters.

59. Master PWS, Section A, 2.2.5 This section refers to aircraft attributes and performance characteristics detailed in Appendix I and J. PWS Appendix J is listed as "Proposal Incorporations". Please clarify what this document is.

ANSWER: Appendix J is the accepted contractor’s proposal (technical solution to meet Appendix I) incorporated at time of award.

60. Master PWS, Section A, 2.2.24.1 To understand the concept of "improper disclosure of any proprietary data" stated in 2.2.24.2, please explain the types of contracting functions expected to be synchronized through ACA and the degree to which the Offeror must share "information, data, technical knowledge, expertise and/or resources" with these associate contractors.

Specifically, does the Government expect an Offeror to share intellectual property with potential competitor contractors within the same industry?

ANSWER: Example is Nellis Backshop Maintenance Contract. Where overlap of potential backshop services exists with the current Nellis Mx contract, the offeror is expected to enter into an ACA with the Nellis Mx contract provider to integrate support, if required. Sharing of potential intellectual property is not considered part of this ACA unless it’s needed for the third party to provide support to the prime.

61. Master PWS, Section A, 3.1.2 Are ACMI pods a Day-1 IOC requirement? If so, does the Government require ACMI to be provided in all cases as CFE? If so, how many ACMI pods will the Contractor have to purchase in advance? ACMI pods are a long lead time item and without knowing specifically which future TO a Contractor will service, and the status of available ACMI pods at that location, it is not possible for a Contractor to know how to meet the Government's ACMI requirement.

ANSWER: Contractors are required to provide CFE ACMI pods per PWS Section A para 3.1.2.

The ACMI fielding is not mandated on Day 1 and timelines are contractor proposed. Total number required by any offeror is defined by the offeror to meet PWS requirements.

62. Master PWS, Section A, 3.3.20 Please consider changing the time requirement for submission of completed DCMA Forms 644 from within 60 minutes of landing to within 12 hours of landing. Requiring flight results (with continuation pages) and alibis for "trouble encountered during flight" and "conditions preventing completion of flight" in a rushed timeframe could either lead to incomplete/inaccurate data collection or mis-prioritization of tasks as the Contractor should be preparing for mission/flight debriefs during that time.

ANSWER: Government views the DCMA Form 644 as a natural post-flight action to be completed just prior to or concurrent to the debrief. The form need not take 12 hours to complete and is viewed as a counterpart to PWS Appendix N. Extenuating issues will be handled by the GFR. No changes to current PWS.

63. Master PWS, Section A, 3.3.21.12 Will the Government accept a portion of required flight hours experience in type and model aircraft to be gained through the use of appropriate flight simulators?

ANSWER: No.

64. Master PWS, Section A, 3.3.26.4 What is the maximum additional tasking the Government expects the Contractor to accept when the Government assigns such additional tasking after the Weekly Schedule is approved? Recommend the Government add the following sentence to the end of this section: "The Contractor will use reasonable endeavors to achieve the Government's additional tasking requirements and if unable will state in writing to the GFR why performing the additional tasking is not possible."

ANSWER: The government considers the weekly schedule “firm” when signed (one week out).

The 24 hours advance notice are at the contractor’s discretion to fill. The government will not ask for changes to taskings inside of 24 hours. PWS updated for clarification.

65. Master PWS, Section D, 1.3.1; and 1.3.2 Please state the names and contact information for the "correct security agency(ies)" referenced.

ANSWER: All deliverables on the contract funnel through the GPO for handoff to appropriate agencies.

66. Master PWS, Section D, 1.3.1 Please define the meaning of 'aircraft components’. The current wording does not allow non-avionics components to be shipped to foreign OEMs.

Applying the existing language to altimeters, HSI’s, and radios for example is cost prohibitive.

Request the Government define avionics component as “any system or subsystem with the ability to record any data”.

ANSWER: All parts of the aircraft and support equipment. All support from foreign sources must be examined and cleared by appropriate security agencies post contract award IAW NISPOM. Para 1.3.1. updated for clarification.

67. Master PWS, Section D, 1.3.3 When the Government describes 'foreign technology advisors' does the restriction for their support apply only to place of performance on a DoD facility or does it also apply to off-base company locations?

ANSWER: All support from foreign nationals must be cleared by appropriate security agencies post contract award IAW NISPOM, at any location, on or off base.

68. Master PWS, Section E, 1.2 Recommend the Government change the Delayed Performance Start Date (DPSD) timeline from "anytime within the 12 calendar months following IDIQ award" to "anytime within the 12 calendar months following Task Order award" to remain consistent with this language as described in the Task Order Process Handbook, page 7, 3.7.

ANSWER: PWS Section E, para 1.2 updated as “OL Task Order.”

69. PWS, Task Order 1, Section A, 1.3.1.2 This section's summary of four CRDL's required to fulfill IDIQ task order compliance is not the same list on page B-4 of the CDRL document in Table B-1 (the IDIQ Level columns lists five CDRLs in this location). Please explain this discrepancy.

ANSWER: Applicability in Table B-1 is not the same as the delivery dates required in the CDRL. CDRL 1, Block 12 updated to reference Item 12 in Block 16 for delivery at task order.

70. CDRL 2 Block 12 (date of first submission) refers to Block 16. However, Block 16 does not list a date of first submission. Please clarify this inconsistency.

ANSWER: CDRL 2 updated to include block 12 completion in block 16.

71. Appendix D, D.7 D.7 states that "The Government shall provide 1 hangar spot to be used by the Contractor only for unscheduled major aircraft maintenance…." Contractors generally have several aircraft inspections (scheduled maintenance) that require only 1-3 days to complete.

Generally accepted maintenance principles would recommend that this work should be performed in a hangar to ensure parts and tool control and security during the work. It would ultimately not be in the Government's best interest to expect Contractors to fly their aircraft to a private company location to perform these short inspections; the overall costs for such non-value-added ferry flights will drive higher costs that ultimately are passed back to the Government as higher SG&A rates. Recommend the Government change this section to state "The Government shall provide 1 hangar spot to be used by the Contractor for scheduled maintenance servicing (not to exceed 5 days) or for unscheduled maintenance in instances where the aircraft is hard-broke and cannot be flown to the Contractor's facility.”

ANSWER: PWS Section A, para 1.12 applies. No changes to current PWS.

72. Appendix I, A.1 and A.2 Please clarify and amplify the concept of "Force Mixtures" in the preamble section of Appendix I. There appears to be inconsistent treatment of the concept between Appendix I narrative sections and Attribute Tables C.1, D.1, E.1 and F.1.

ANSWER: The concept of force mixture as applied in this effort is multiple aircraft types with various configurations presented to create a total effect on the battlefield. Each category of aircraft may present multiple aircraft types to meet the total requirements in each category. The tables help clarify the total effect by individual configurations. Appendix I Chapters 1 and 2, para A.2. updated to define force mixtures.

73. Appendix I, B.1.2 Please clarify the difference between the reference to "objective capabilities" in the first sentence and "required objective requirements" in the second sentence?

ANSWER: Appendix I, chapter 1, B.1.1. and B.1.2. have been updated for clarification.

74. Appendix I, B.1.2 Please define the term "terminal baseline requirements".

ANSWER: Appendix I, Chapter 1, para B.1.2. was updated to clarify.

75. Appendix I, B.1.1 through B.1.3 What is the relationship of the fixed timelines for Threshold, Required Objective and Desired Objective periods and the variable timeline for awarding task orders? For example, if a task order is first awarded in Oct 2021 does that mean the "Threshold Period" for that TO ends 3 months later? Recommend the Government align Threshold, Required Objectives, and Desired Objective periods to Task Order awards instead of fixed dates.

ANSWER: There is no relationship between Appendix I Threshold, Required Objective, and Desired Objective periods and the task orders. Appendix I periods apply only to the IDIQ.

76. Appendix I, E.1, Note 3) Please explain the "(15-20)" at the end of the last sentence.

ANSWER: Appendix I, Chapter 1, Note 3 updated for both E.1 and F.1.

77. Appendix I, pg. 2-4, C.1 Note 8) Note 8 states "It is desired the contractor can strafe…."

However, Master PWS, pg. 7, 2.2.8 states, "Live CAS shall execute multiple delivery profiles to include high and low angle strafe…." Recommend the Government change the Appendix I, pg.

2-4, C.1 Note 8) to read "It is required the contractor can strafe..."

ANSWER: The overall requirement in PWS is to support both Dry and Live deliveries.

Appendix I covers ‘fleet’ of aircraft to meet PWS requirement, not technical requirements on individual aircraft (Appendix I Chapters 1 and 2 paras A.1. updated with “fleet” language). The technical solution is contractor proposed and therefore not 100% of aircraft necessarily require live strafe capabilities. Note 8 did not change.

78. Appendix I, pg. 2-5, C.1, Note 11) Note 11 states, "Contract aircraft must provide targeting pod capabilities listed for a minimum of 75% of total sorties produced." However, Table C.1 on

pg. 2-3 only requires target pod sensor capabilities on CAT E aircraft and Table B.1 on page 2-2 states that CAT E projected sorties/hours represent only 25% of total CCAS capability.

Recommend that CAT D also require sensor capability to ensure 75% requirement is met.

ANSWER: No changes to Appendix I.

79. Appendix I, pg. 2-7, D.9 Section D.9.2.2 states "Capability to carry and employ 2.75" rockets…." but Table C.1, pg. 2-5, says rockets are only a 'desired' capability for CATs D and E.

Please clarify the requirement.

ANSWER: D.9.2.2. applies to the definition of “ordnance.” Table C.1 is the requirement. No changes to Appendix I.

80. Appendix I, pg. 2-7, D.9 Section D.9.2.2 states "For night missions, overt…and covert illumination….rockets are preferred." However, on pg. 2-4, C.1, Note 7) it says that night employment will not entail live or inert weapons; all "dry" deliveries. Recommend clarifying the requirement to state no live night deliveries.

ANSWER: Appendix I Chapter 2, Section D, para D.9.2.2.2 updated to remove night mission 2.75” rocket live employment.

81. Appendix I Will the Government provide technical information to clarify the CFE EA…