QAs_in_Response_to_FBO_Posting_16_Aug_18.pdf

CAF ADAIR

Solicitation No. FA4890-17-R-0007

Questions & Answers

No. REFERENCE (PWS, RFP, etc.) COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1. RFP

Can you comment on whether AMIC still intends to release the RFP on 27 July 2018 as briefed on 7 June during Industry

Day?

FBO was updated on 6 Aug 2018 with new timelines. Release of the RFP is pending SECAF notification to Congress. RFP anticipated for release on or about 24 Aug 2018.

2. L&M Para L-1.9

Is it correct that a foreign company is prohibited from bidding as a prime contractor?

Yes.

3. L&M Para L-1.9 Is a US company that is owned by a foreign company be considered as a prime?

Yes, but only if the FOCI factors have been favorably resolved IAW NISPOM paragraph 2-300c sufficient to acquire the required SECRET FCL for task order performance.

4. L&M

Given the SAP requirements, would it be favorable for a FOCI company to bid under a Proxy Agreement or is an SSA equally acceptable?

There is no SAP performance requirement currently listed on the contract requiring a SAP FCL. Much work for security will be required post IDIQ prior to full technological solutions and performance at the task order level that may eventually require SAP

FCL in certain places.

5. L&M

Would a subcontractor with an existing

SAP FCL be a credible prime to technically execute the contract with a partner that doesn’t have a SAP FCL?

NISPOM Chapter 2, Section 1, 2-100 “The FCL requirement for a prime contractor includes those instances in which all classified access will be limited to subcontractors.

Contractors are eligible for custody (possession) of classified material if they have an FCL and storage capability approved by the CSA.

NISPOM Chapter 7, Section 1, 7-101a.(1) “The subcontractor must possess an appropriate FCL and safeguarding capability if possession of classified information will be required.”

6. L&M

Will an IDIQ Prime awardee be permitted to collaborate as a subcontractor to another

IDIQ Prime awardee on task orders? This case may be advantageous to the

Government in conditions where a specific

Yes. Teaming arrangements may be provided for task order performance to maximize fleet utilization.

blending of aircraft types between two

Primes may best suit an Operating Location or in other cases where a Prime may not be able to service an entire OL with remaining aircraft inventory.

7.

L&M Could the Government consider the possibility of allowing contractors to submit a limited number of proposals for each

FOPR?

This may be addressed later via the FOPR.

8.

Will the government provide as GFE the

OFP’s required to support AIM-9X or Link-

16 on platforms that are in the USAF inventory?

The government is not able to provide any software support of any kind to industry prior to IDIQ MAC.

The government is exploring feasibility of providing limited OFP support, post-contract award.

9.

Will the government provide government support to OFP’s on common USAF systems to CFE provided systems?

The government is not able to provide any software support of any kind to industry prior to IDIQ MAC.

The government is exploring feasibility of providing limited OFP support, post-contract award.

10.

Pricing Worksheet Could you please explain how you would like industry to price aircraft upgrades that impact cost per flying hour? Do you only want that in the Task Orders and will it be with a different pricing sheet?

Pricing Worksheet Language was updated to better correlate pricing Backup Data, the Pricing

Narrative, and the Technical Proposals. Pricing

Worksheet now read:

1. Backup data proposed must correlate to the technical proposal and be supported in the pricing narrative for all cost elements.

2. Aircraft Type. This is the specific aircraft type proposed to fill the capability. Multiple aircraft types may be proposed and must be broken out individually.

3. Direct Aircraft Costs. These are the direct aircraft costs associated with the acquisition of the aircraft and itemized advanced technologies, apportioned and amortized by indicated units across the ordering period. Installation labor associated with aircraft modifications may be included in these costs, but may not be duplicated as a maintenance cost. Support equipment needed to generate aircraft will not be included here.

Technical solution presented at the IDIQ should represents the offer’s best technical proposal by category. The pricing worksheet at the Task Order level will have the identical language for direct aircraft costs.

11.

1) With the slip to the FY20 NDAA, will the award date for the IDIQ and/or Task

Order start dates also slip?

2) Are you anticipating the inclusion of

Navy ADAIR requirements into the RFP? If not, is there a desired timeline for merging both services ADAIR programs into a joint effort?

1) Government can’t award task orders until the

IDIQs are awarded. Task Orders will begin immediately following IDIQ awards.

2) AMIC is in conversations with the US Navy currently for inclusion under CAF CAS. No changes to the IDIQ language is required to absorb the navy requirements. Navy task orders will be let under stand-alone Navy task orders using the CAF

CAS construct for Categories of aircraft.

12.

With the news that the CAF CAS may now be included in the FY20 NDAA, and is not part of the FY19 NDAA, will this affect the schedule for IDIQ contract and Task Order

1 awards?

Award will be dependent on the inclusion of CAF

CAS in the FY20 NDAA. It is still the Govt.

intention to award the MAC as soon as possible.

13.

In the June 8 Industry Day the government was not shy about conveying their urgency and intents for getting the IDIQ contract and perhaps the first 5 OL Task Orders in motion between Christmas and July 2019.

Are you still working on a similar timeline, or does it look like everything is going to shift a year?

Award will be dependent on the inclusion of CAF

CAS in the FY20 NDAA. It is still the Govt.

intention to award the MAC as soon as possible. If

FY20 NDAA is signed early, as was FY19’s, any slip will be minimal.

14.

L&M Para M3.2.1. Is it possible for the Government to include within M3.2.1 requirements the option to use a signed “Teaming

Agreement” in this case to show evidence of aircraft resourcing?

If an offeror’s teaming partner OWNS the aircraft then a leasing agreement isn’t necessary. If there is no teaming arrangement with the owner of the aircraft then a leasing agreement is necessary.

IAW FAR 9.601, “Contractor team arrangement,” as used in this subpart, means an arrangement in which

(1) Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor;

or

(2) A potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program.

Language in Section M updated as follows:

M-3.2.1 Prerequisites. 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 (to include teaming partners), the following information must be provided:

15.

6 Aug FBO Posting Does the Government intend to maintain previously briefed from Industry Day IDIQ contract award date of 10 July 2019 or is a slip to CA of the IDIQ anticipated as well?

Award will be dependent on the inclusion of CAF

CAS in the FY20 NDAA. It is still the Govt.

intention to award the MAC as soon as possible. If

FY20 NDAA is signed early, as was FY19’s, any slip will be minimal.

16.

6 Aug FBO Posting With the slip to the FY20 NDAA, will the award date for the IDIQ and/or Task Order start dates also slip?

Award will be dependent on the inclusion of CAF

CAS in the FY20 NDAA. It is still the

Government’s intention to award the MAC as soon as possible. If FY20 NDAA is signed early, as was

FY19’s, any slip will be minimal. Task orders will begin fielding immediately following IDIQ MAC, with the release of the initial task order HUMs close to IDIQ award.

17.

Are you anticipating the inclusion of Navy

ADAIR requirements into the RFP? If not, is there a desired timeline for merging both services ADAIR programs into a joint effort?

The Air Force anticipated Navy participation at the outset of CAF CAS based on Congressional interest in doing so. CAF CAS was structured to accommodate this expansion. Discussions with US

Navy and PMA-226 are in progress. If US Navy decides to join the efforts, which is currently assessed as “likely,” Navy task orders will most likely field concurrent to USAF task orders.

Discussions with Navy indicate no changes to current Appendix I are needed and Navy requirements will most likely be predominantly Cat

B and C.

18.

Can you tell me if all government communication from your team with

Industry has been turned off at this time for

CAF CAS?

Communications are still open pending RFP release, provided they are formally directed at Contracting officer, though the government’s ability to engage on issues is limited due to proximity of the RFP release.

19.

RFP Regarding the Subject RFP, it was previously stated the anticipated release of the RFP for CAF Air Support was 27 July

(Pre-RFP Conference, 7 June 2018). Upon review of the FBO.gov website, it does not appear the RFP has been released. Does the government have a new, anticipated date?

When will there be a public update or information made available on a new release date?

FBO was updated on 6 Aug 2018 with new timelines. Release of the RFP is pending SECAF notification to Congress. RFP anticipated for release on or about 24 Aug 2018.

20.

Can you comment on whether AMIC still intends to release the RFP on 27 July 2018 as briefed on 7 June during Industry Day?

FBO was updated on 6 Aug 2018 with new timelines. Release of the RFP is pending SECAF notification to Congress. RFP anticipated for release on or about 24 Aug 2018.

21.

Was it the intent of the Government to release Solicitation # FA4890-17-R-0007 by COB 27 July 2018 or at a later date?

FBO was updated on 6 Aug 2018 with new timelines. Release of the RFP is pending SECAF notification to Congress. RFP anticipated for release on or about 24 Aug 2018.

22.

It was the expectation of Industry as notified by the Government that the AMIC

CAF CAS RFP was to be released on 27

July 2018?

FBO was updated on 6 Aug 2018 with new timelines. Release of the RFP is pending SECAF notification to Congress. RFP anticipated for release on or about 24 Aug 2018.

23.

Can the Government provide us an update as to the expectation of this release date for planning considerations?

FBO was updated on 6 Aug 2018 with new timelines. Release of the RFP is pending SECAF notification to Congress. RFP anticipated for release on or about 24 Aug 2018.

24. Appendix I

IAW the RFP ... a helicopter may be used, but these assets are different in pricing and logistics, and therefore we recommend they be identified and addressed separately within the RFP and pricing matrix. Will the

ACC CCAS contract also have a CLIN for

Rotary Wing Live Weapons Controls?

No. Helicopter performance was never stated in the

RFP, nor any government forum or discussion, nor intended as a requirement and is not needed by the

CAF.

Appendix I language updated:

Chapter 1 (ADAIR)

B.2.2. Qualifying Aircraft Types. Turbojet and turbofan fixed wing aircraft and unmanned platforms may be considered for ADAIR categories.

Chapter 2 (CCAS):

B.2.1.Qualifying Aircraft Types: Propeller, turboprop, turbojet, and turbofan fixed wing aircraft may be considered for CCAS categories.

Unmanned and rotary wing aircraft do not meet government requirements.

25.

RFP How long are the task orders expected to be when awarded… 12 months per base with options if required?

Task Orders are one year base with up to 9 option years. It’s the government’s intent to maintain each task order for the life of the ordering period unless requirements significantly change or contractors fail to perform.

26.

RFP Does a contractor have to bid all or a portion of the locations now, will it be staggered build up or is there an onboarding process for separate locations?

Per RFP paragraph L-7.8, “offerors must provide a technical approach to meet all PWS requirements by

Category, to meet specific flying hours identified in the table below” (Table L-1). Offeror’s are not proposing at actual operating locations, only the notional workload data in Table L-1, by Category requirements per Appendix I.

27.

RFP IAW the RFP, the ADAIR portion of this contract is executing a Fly Off to confirm

Contractors have the capability they claim.

Comparably, the CCAS portion of the contract does not have that requirement.

However, employing live weapons from a civilian owned aircraft with USAF personnel on range is a very highly technical requirement which allows no room for error. Therefore, to minimize such risk to the Air Force, short of a "CCAS Fly

Off', the preponderance of the evaluation criteria should be Past Performance with the employment of LIVE weapons to include

CEA's (Circular Area Average) and an explanation of how that CEA was calculated for each weapon proposed.

There is no “fly off” to verify validity of the proposals. There is a Contractor/Government

Avionics Verification Flight Evaluation (CAVFE) that is designed specifically to support technology advancement and integration required to management of government OFPs, which is not required in CCAS.

28.

RFP Will ACC require a PPQ to be completed by each GFR related to each Past

Performance Citing of which the GFR PPQ shall have not only a confirmation of

Past Performance is not being evaluated.

overall quality but must specifically confirm the LIVE Weapons Delivery claims made by the Contractor?

29.

PWS Para 2.4.1. There is currently a prohibition on foreign pilots performing on this contract.

However, ACC holds Red Flag as well as other exercises monthly that involve properly vetted pilots who are members of

Partner Nation's forces. Additionally, the

USAF is currently fighting an ongoing pilot shortage of which by permitting a US

Company to team with a Partner Nation to provide aircraft, maintenance personnel and pilots can minimize these stresses, provided these personnel are active in their nation's air force and their exposure to the same guidelines that permit them to participate in multinational exercises such as Red Flag. If

ACC is still concerned about a specific

MDS such as F-35 flying against Partner

Nation Air Forces, the PWS should be edited to permit Partner Nation Support for

ADAIR locations that do not have F-35's, as an example.

US only companies and individual contractors are required to support intended enterprise performance.

Foreign maintenance and logistical support is permitted on a limited basis IAW L&M para L-1.9 and Section D of the PWS, after appropriate review of CDRL 15 and approval via correct security agency(ies) post contract award to ensure NISPOM requirements are met.

30.

Will this prohibition towards foreign pilots be eliminated with use of appropriate guidelines and mitigation factors to include stated security requirements IAW this RFP?

No. Prohibition relief on foreign participation is limited to maintenance and ground personnel. Pilot performance requirements SECRET//NO FORN access.

31.

Is there any update on the release of the upcoming RFP for CAS CAF ADAIR

Phase III? Can we expect release as discussed at the last Industry Day in June, 27 June, or should we expect delays?

FBO was updated on 6 Aug 2018 with new timelines. Release of the RFP is pending SECAF

For clarification, CAF CAS is not “Phase III” of

Nellis or associated directly with any Nellis contractual requirements.

32.

Do you have any updates to timeline you can share today?

FBO was updated on 6 Aug 2018 with new timelines. Release of the RFP is pending SECAF

33.

Do you have any update you can share with us at this time?

Primary updates are:

a) Potential of US Navy joining the effort for

Adversary Support.

b) Updated language in L&M simplifying

Small Business participation and

Subcontracting Plans.

c) Minor changes to Appendix I already indicated in the Q&A set.

d) Minor language changes to pricing “realism”

Minor language changes to pricing worksheet to better correlate pricing data/pricing narrative to the technical proposal.

34.

Do you still expect to be on time next week with the release?

FBO was updated on 6 Aug 2018 with new timelines. Release of the RFP is pending SECAF notification to Congress. RFP anticipated for release on or about 24 Aug 2018.

e)

35.

Reference the CCAS portion of the CAF

ADAIR draft solicitation. Would you be able to provide a response to some questions concerning whether the government would consider a Category 4 aircraft that only performed dry CAS profiles?

Category 4 does not exist. Assuming you are referencing Category D, the requirement for live weapons is considered essential for CCAS performance. However, it is not indicated that the requirement exists on every aircraft proposed by the vendor. The government will consider all proposals, even those that may not meet every indicated attribute. It is the responsibility of the vendor to support in their proposal why accepting performance that doesn’t meet the minimum indicated in the attributes for Appendix I represents a “best value” the government.

36.

L&M para 8.2.7 If a company does not have past financial statements or the operations were of a magnitude and composition that is not relevant to assessing the company with respect to the CAF Contracted Air Support

(CAS) procurement, what can a company provide to meet the requirements of L-

8.2.7?

This statement applies to companies who have been in business more than three years. For companies that have not been in business more than three years, must provide whatever financials they deem appropriate to provide evidence of financial responsibility.

37.

Appendix I (Section H, H.5 – Active Detection

Range) You may wish to consider amplifying the active detection range definition with a threshold detection (using a specific RCS value you believe represents fighter-sized) and an objective detection (using 1m2) requirement in the final RFP.

Alternatively, if the Government could permit more than one proposal during the

OL task order responses, industry could offer an additional bid for the USAF to consider a higher end solution.

Government is still reviewing a legal methodology to enable vendors to provide multiple proposals, or some variation thereof, at the task order level.

Unfortunately this is not feasible at the IDIQ level, which is also why the only performance requirement associated with IDIQ entry is to “make ready 12

ADAIR or 8 CCAS airplanes for competition at the

TO level.”

With respect to RCS, government is not able to further refinement of the RCS value at the unclassified level without risk of significant security breaches. Need to keep IDIQ RFP at the unclassified level is required to grow the industry as strategically intended. Further fidelity will be possible at the task order level via classified effects, post IDIQ MAC establishment.

Government maintains that although 1m2 requirement was removed due to security concerns, underlying intent is still to push industry to a forward looking, “near-peer or peer” level of capability to adequately replicate effects to enable the best possible best training environment for

USAF forces. While price is always a valid concerned and should not be overlooked, radar capabilities operating at a “peer” level do represent value to the government.

38.

L&M If a company is bidding only ADAIR or

CCAS, do they need to respond to all items required or can they identify that the company is bidding for just ADAIR or

CCAS? How would you prefer this to be indicated? As I am reading I do not find an exclusion of one or the other based on industry’s desired mission to bid.

Per the draft RFP Section L, para L-7.2:

“The vendor must clearly identify what mission they are proposing by clearly delineating aircraft

Category types. When utilizing a single aircraft type to fill both mission sets, the offers must reference these as separate Categories.”

This language has not changed in the RFP expected to release 24 Aug.