Revised_RFP_Questions_and_Answers_28_Oct_19_Amendment_05.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Final RFP 552 ACW E3 CAT CWD 752 OSS CRC Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA489019RA020
About this file
This document provides details for a federal contract solicitation and opportunity. The solicitation seeks proposals for E-3 Contract Aircrew Training and Courseware Development support at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma. The contractor shall provide aircrew training, courseware development, and simulator support services in accordance with Air Force approved standards. The opportunity is set aside 100% for small businesses with a size standard of $30 million. Proposals are due by November 12, 2019 and award is expected on or about April 1, 2020. The solicitation will utilize the Internet and email as the primary means of communication. A pre-proposal conference is planned and interested offerors must register in the System for Award Management to be eligible.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 36
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question | Reference | Question | Answer | |
| 1 | Section 6, Page 6, Paragraph 6.4C | Lists Executive Summary as part of Volume II. All other references in Section 6 show Executive Summary in Volume I, as do Q&As #7, 10, 85, & 86. | ||
| Question: Should Paragraph 6.4C become Paragraph 6.2C associated with Volume I? | Yes, this will be corrected and post on FBO. | |||
| 2 | Section 7, Page 2, PREREQUISITES Requirement I, Item d. | Calls for inclusion of spreadsheet showing Phase-in actions with start and stop dates. | ||
| Question: Could this spreadsheet be excluded from Volume I page count limit of 40 pages? | Yes, spreadsheet can be excluded from the page count limit. | |||
| 3 | PWS, Page 20, Section 3.4.1 Custodial Service and Running Copy of Questions & Answers | On Q&A, the Government states that contractors are responsible to maintain the government facilities they are assigned to in a neat orderly manner. Question: Could you please provide details of what this includes? Does this mean ensuring there is no trash laying around and that furniture is placed back where it belongs? Or does this entail a full sweep and mop of the entire facility? Comment: Cleaning a large building each week is very difficult without a cleaning contract in place or personnel to clean without a security clearance. | The government expectation is stated in the PWS and the understanding of neat and orderly does not include heavy janitorial maintenance. There is currently a government contracted cleaning service that takes care of the buildings. | |
| 4 | PWS Page 68 Appendix J.2 Routine Deliverables | Listed deliverables do not match the referenced Style Guide attachments, also Style Guide stops at A17 but PWS references A18 and A19 | PWS page 67 Para J.2 has been udated to reflect deliverables. | |
| 5 | PWS Page 68 Appendix J.2 Item 4 and 9 Routine Deliverables | Instructional Media Package and Training Evaluation Document are not in the Style Guide. Will these be required deliverables? | PWS page 67 Para J.2 has been udated to reflect deliverables. | |
| 6 | PWS Page 61 Appendix F1.5 E-3 Flight Training Labor Requirements | Only states ABM instructor, but there are 5 different ABM crew positions. Will the government provide estimated workload by crew position as they did for the Academic and Training Device workloads? | The Flight Training is 40/45 training and as the new equipment has combined some crew positons we are unable to provide workload by specific ABM specialty at this time. | |
| 7 | PWS Page 61 Appendix F1.5 E-3 Flight Training Labor Requirements | Will the government specify which aircraft block (30/35 or 40/45) the Flight Instructors need to be qualified to instruct? | The flight training is for 40/45 Block aircraft instructors. | |
| 8 | PWS Page 61 Appendix F1.6 E-3 Flight Training Labor Requirements | Are there incumbents currently performing the Flight Training Labor requirements? If not, how long will the incoming contractor have to fill this requirement with qualified Flight Instructors? If not, how long will the incoming contractor have to fill this requirement with qualified Flight Instructors? | No, the incumbent is not providing any flight training. The govt will be providing the requisite re-qualification training for the contract flight instructors we would like these positions filled as soon as the contractor is able to get them in the training pipeline. The govt is aware that it will take the contractor time to advertise and then hire these individuals. | |
| 9 | PWS Page 61 Appendix F1.3(1)(a) and 1.4(1(€ CABM/CFE Flight Instructor Qualifications | Is it the USG's intent for offerors to exceed FAA requirements for Class III physicals? Position qualifications require annual Class III physicals but according to the FAA, a third-class medical certificate is valid for the remainder of the month of issue; plus 24 calendar months for operations requiring a third class medical certificate, if the airman is age 40 or over on or before the date of the examination, or 60 calendar months for operations requiring a third class medical certificate if the airman has not reached age 40 on or before the date of examination. | No, the government will defer to current FAA guidelines/requirments for a Class III certificate. | |
| 10 | PWS MSTP Estimated Workload | This paragraph references PWS paragraph 4.9.1, this paragraph does not exist. Please confirm the government meant 4.8.1? | Yes, 4.8.1 is correct as it references the TWMP. We will correct this reference in PWS. | |
| 11 | PWS Pages 50-51 Tables 1.4.2 & 1.5.2 40/45 Academic and Training Device Workloads | Will the government please clarify the ASO/SST training workloads provided? Should these hours be split evenly between ASO and SST instructors? Or is this supposed to be hours for both crew positions? For example, in table A1.4.2 should there be 658.2 hours split evenly between ASO and SST instructors? Or should there be 658.2 hours for each instructor position? (1,316.4 total hours) | The ASO/SST triaining for 40/45 is a combined positional training class for both positions. It is not broken up. | |
| 12 | PWS Page 59 Para 1.16.1 Continuation and Proficiency Training | Does the quarterly "in the seat" training device event apply to the Flight Instructors as well? (i.e. Do the instructors have to fly a non-instructional mission once per quarter?) | No, it will be assummed that the fight instructors will be utilized on occasion on flights where they maybe required to be utilized as a crew member. | |
| 13 | CBA Pages 27-28 Para 15.8(a-b) Multi-Qualification Pay | Will the government provide the number of instructors currently being paid MQP and what type of MQP? If not, will the government allow an REA post award for any MQP that was not bid, but the employees currently earn, due to government not releasing this information? | The PWS does not specify MQPs. Offerors are expected to meet the requirments of the PWS. This solicitation is for a FFP contract. | |
| 14 | CBA Pages 27-28 Para 15.8(a-b) Multi-Qualification Pay | How does the government plan on evaluating price reasonableness and realism when number of instructors receiving MQP has not been disclosed? This poses an unfair advantage to incumbent contractor. Will the government consider making MQP cost reimbursable post award? | The government will evaluate price reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404. Price realism will be conducted to determine the offeror's understanding of the PWS requirements. This acquisiton is a firm fixed priced contract with no cost reimburseable CLINs. | |
| 15 | CBA Pages 27-28 Para 15.8(a-b) Multi-Qualification Pay | Will bidders price be deemed unacceptable if it is found that MQP was not priced for every combination of dual qualified personnel? How will the government evaluate bidders to ensure this MQP was included? | The CBA is governed by the local union. The government will evaluate offeror's proposal based on how it meets the requirmeents in the PWS. | |
| 16 | PWS Page 48 Appendix A Estimated Workload | Will the government provide a planned PFT schedule for the first year of the contract and notional schedules for future years? | The govt is unable to provide specific schedules of when the classes occur however druing the phase in period a class schedule will be available | |
| 17 | PWS Pages 50-52 Appendix A Estimated Workload | Will Block 30/35 and Block 40/45 classes be taught simultaneously or will they be de-conflicted? | Both classes will have their own specifc schedules. There maybe some class overlap or stagger during the year. | |
| 18 | PWS Pages 55-56 Appendix A MQT Estimated Workload | Will this instruction be for Block 30/35, Block 40/45 or both? If both, will the government provide the estimated workload for each variant? | The MQT instruction is 40/45 as it will be the new Block of aircraft being delivered. | |
| 19 | PWS Page 20 Para 3.3.2 Existing Courseware materials | "The existing courseware shall be delivered to the contractor in the existing condition and format." What is the current existing format for courseware materials…all in editable/digital format or hardcopy/.pdf format? | The existing courseware will be delivered to the next contractor in digital format. | |
| 20 | EFFA Page 3 Requirement IV (and PWS 3.5) Contractor Furnished Equipment | This requirement appears to establish an unfair advantage for the incumbent contractor both in pricing and technical merit. They have detailed insight into Tinker (and USAF) IT requirements for this equipment and they have already absorbed any costs of procuring and maintaining this equipment. How does the USG plan to provide for fair and reasonable pricing of these items during both the technical and pricing evaluations? | See Answer in Question #14. Also see Section 7, Factor Price. | |
| 21 | PWS Appendix B, Table B.5.1 E-3G Flight Deck Academic Instruction | The 3% is added to Column F and again to G. Should the final number be 467.2 for the Pilot and FE instead of 542.8? | Column F is a 3% increase in the event of reteach. Column G is Column E and F combined as column E takes inot account any instructor prep that maybe required. So 542.8 is correct for both. | |
| 22 | PWS Appendix B, Table B.5.1 E-3G Flight Deck Academic Instruction; B.5.2 Fixed Training Device Tables | Column F and I add 3% for Reteach, however, there is no contingency for the Ctr Prof Trng. | ||
| Should the Ctr Prof Trng rows also include a 3% factor to cover for weather, maintenance, etc. issues? | There is no reteach for contractor proficiency and it is design for the contractor to improve their skills in any academic requirment or the desktop simulator. | |||
| 23 | PWS 1.16.6.1 DRAGON Contractor Proficiency Requirements | The PWS states “Contract instructor personnel will maintain E-3 ATD Ready Aircrew Program (RAP) Combat Mission Ready (CMR)/Inexperienced individual events and currencies to maintain proficiency.” | ||
| Will the Government accept CMR levels that are consistent with the current experienced Government Instructor aircrew? | Yes, we will accept CMR levels. | |||
| 24 | PWS Appendix C E-3 Mission Qualification Training (MQT) Workload Estimated Workload | Tables C3.1, C3.2 and C3.3 have requirements for “Flight Deck” but do not indicate the amount of workload required for each flight deck position. |
Who is the instructor for each Flight Deck task?
o The PWS does not specify the work required to accomplish this task.
Will this effort be USAF Instructors supporting MQT or Contract Instructors? If it is Contract Instructors, request the qualification level, level of effort, and position (Legacy, DRAGON and crew position (Pilot, FE, or both)?
| o Will the Government provide the MQT Syllabi to accompany Appendix C? | The MQT workloads are for contractor support to supplement the MQT program which is primarily Blue Suit. The Flight Deck requirment is primarly aircraft servicing training so it is more weighted towards a Flight Engineer however pilots also recieve this training. In most cases any pilot specific MQT will be perfromed by the unit. | ||||
| 25 | SF30 | Amendment 2 and 3 did not include an SF30 for the contractor to sign with their proposal. It appears Amendment 1 covers 2 and 3. | |||
| - Can the Government confirm there should only be two Amendments, 1 and 4 or issue the SF30 for 2 and 3? | Yes, there were 2 amendments that contain SF30s. This amendment 05 contains the third SF30. | ||||
| 26 | RFP | The RFP states the proposal is due NLT 1300EST 12 November. | |||
| -November the 11th is a holiday meaning proposals will need to be submitted by Thursday or Friday worse case the week prior to ensure arrival by the due date. -Will the Government consider changing the proposal due date to 14 November? | Yes, we will extend the proporsal due date to 14 Novemeber 2019 NLT 1300EST. | ||||
| 27 | SF 1449, Block 8 - Offer Due Date | The NLT date/time immediately following a federal holiday presents challenges and risk. Can you consider slipping a day or two later in the week? | See Answer in Question #26. | ||
| 28 | Multiple CLINs - ‘MCT’ | Within the PWS, the acronym MCT is not defined and only mentioned in part with the ‘MCT Scheduler’. Presumably, MCT refers to Mission Crew Training and encompasses the CAT activities for the MCTS, MTC, legacy simulator, and TYQ-23A CRC MTC (PWS 1.5.2). | MCT refers to "Mission Crew Training". This is in reference to the crewmember specialties other that the Pilots and Flight Engineers. This concerns the IQT and MQT training in PWS App A and C where the speciatlies are seperated in the workload tables. | ||
| Can you please define the acronym and clarify the impact on pricing the CLINs that address ‘MCT’? | |||||
| 29 | CLIN x101, E-3 MCT CAT; PWS Appendices A and C | Is CLIN x101 to include the accumulated costs of fulfilling the requirements within PWS Appendices A and C? | Yes CLIN x 101 refers to the requirments for training in Appendix A and C. | ||
| 30 | CLIN x104, E-3 Admin Support; and PWS Appendices A through H. | Administrative activities and responsibilities permeate the CAT, CWD and General Tasks. PWS Appendices A-H do not describe ‘Admin Support’ or offer workload estimates. Can you delineate and specify the ‘Admin Support’ to be priced in this CLIN? | The administrative support CLIN refers to the requirments in PWS Para 1.12.1, 1.12.2 and 1.12.4 for the Scheduler, Registrar and Site Manager and any other administrative support the offeror feels that might need to be included. | ||
| 31 | CLIN x109; Appendix F. | CLIN x109 specifies Air Weapons Officer (AWO) and leaves out other specialties (e.g. SD, MCC, ECO, ASO). Suggest the CLIN should align with PWS Appendix F.1.1 and state ‘CABM’. Can you please clarify that CLIN x109 is to provide ABM (related specialties) flight instructor services? | CLIN 1009 and all other associated CLIN descrptions for the ABM Flight Requirments will be revised to read Contract ABM Flight Inst | NOTE: CLIN 1009 and 1010 and all other associated CLIN descrptions for the Flight Requirements need to be revised to read CABM (Contract ABM Flight Inst) and also suggest that CLIN 1010 should also be changed to read Contract Flight Engineer Fllt Inst. | |
| 32 | RFP, List of Attachments; Page 47. | Attachment 3 is titled ‘Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and DOL Wage Determinations’. However, the solicitation only provided the CBA. Can you please provide the applicable prevailing area wage determination? | The applicable prevailing area wage determination was an attachment to the original RFP. | ||
| 33 | RFP Section 7, Evaluation Factors; Aspect I, Para c). | Aspect I, Para c) references PWS A1.6 which does not seem to exist; can you please clarify? | The administrative support refers to the requirments in PWS Para 1.12.1, 1.12.2 and 1.12.4 for the Scheduler, Registrar and Site Manager and any other administrative support the offeror feels that might need to be included. This reference will be corrected in the next amendment. | Need to fix the RFP to correct the reference to read Para 1.12.1, 1.12.2 and 1.12.4 | |
| 34 | E-3 CBA, Section 19.1 Group Insurance, Para 5; and Section 19.4 Standard Contract Language, Paras 2a. Medical; 2b. Dental; and 2c. Vision | CBA Section 19.1, Para 5 lists amounts per hour employees who purchase coverage are to receive. Section 19.4, Paras 2a - 2c specify monthly employer contributions to the National IAM Benefit Trust Fund with the amount depending on the employee-elected coverage. It is not completely clear how much the employer pays to those who elect to participate in the IAM Benefit Trust Plan. Are employers only required to provide payment per hour in accordance with Section 19.1? Are the contribution amounts specified in Section 19.4, Paras 2a - 2c, equal the total of the employer plus the employee contributions? | The government has no control over the CBA. It is written by the local union and is provided for offerors to use for their proposal. | ||
| 35 | RFP, Required Insurance (Page 40); and the Conference Q&As posted 11 Oct 2019 | The answer to conference question #3 concerning aviation insurance stated: "The RFP includes FAR clauses 28.306 and 28.307-2. Please follow guidance per these FAR requirements as applicable to your company." The RFP only addresses Worker’s Compensation, General Liability and Automobile Liability and does not presently include FAR 28.307-2 or address aviation insurance requirements. Will the Government: | Comprehensive General Liability: $500,000 per person and $500,000 per accident for bodily injury. Automobile Insurance: $200,000 per person and $500,000 per accident for bodily injury and |
$500,000 per accident for property damage. Standard Workman’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance (or, where maritime employment is involved, Longshoremen’s and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Insurance) in the minimum amount of $100,000. Aircraft public and passenger liability: $500,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, other than passenger liability; $1,000,000 per occurrence for property damage. Passenger bodily injury liability limits of $500,000 per passenger, multiplied by the number of seats or number of passengers, whichever is greater.
| NOTE: These are better answered by AMIC. | ||
| 36 | Include FAR Clause 28.307-2 (d) covering aviation liability insurances? | See answer #35 |
| 37 | Require amounts greater than the minimums for insurance IAW FAR Clause 28.307-2 (d)? | See answer #35 |
| 38 | Include DFARS 252.228-7001 Ground & Flight Risk? | See answer #35 |
| 39 | Require amounts greater than the minimums for insurance IAW DFARS 252.228-7001? We suggest $10 million with $1M negligent instruction. | See answer #35 |
| 40 | If DFARS 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk is not included, please explain the rationale for the exclusion. | See answer #35 |
| 41 | ||
| 42 | ||
| 43 | ||
| 44 | ||
| 45 | ||
| 46 | ||
| 47 | ||
| 48 | ||
| 49 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .