9 Dec 24 Industry Day Compiled Questions and Government Responses.pdf

# Issue Question Government Response

The SOW states, “The contractor shall provide personnel, vehicles, equipment, … ” The SOW does not provide any metrics or parameters that places restrictions on the Contractor -Owned, Contractor- Operated (COCO) vehicles as to age, miles, hours, carrying capacity, or other characteristics/parameters.

Will there be any limiting metrics or parameters placed on COCO vehicles as on the Contract Start Date (CSD) or when they are placed in service during contract execution? If so, what are these restrictions or minimum parameters?

A: At this time there are no limiting parameters. As the Request For Proposal (RFP) will be Best Value the contractor should provide their best proposal. Unreliable vehicles will add additional risk to the contractor.

SOW 1.3 states, “The contractor shall support the hours of operations as listed in Table 1-2, based upon the weekly flying schedule , typically published NLT the last workday of the previous week .”

Will weekly flying schedules be provided to ALL PTR sites?

A:The government will provide the local operating hours for each site.

Some locations in Table 1-3 state “full crew ”, while others do not.

Will the Government please incorporate the term “full crew” to all locations to eliminate misinterpretation by any bidders? However, if some other level of staffing is required, please specify. A: The term has been incorporated into the SOW

“(Optional)” is listed after the Belle Fourche EWS range, but it is not defined or explained.

Please clarify what is meant by “(optional)” regarding the Belle Fourche EWS. A: Optional has been deleted in the Table

The AOH are not clearly defined. It is possible one bidder may interpret a full crew as four personnel, while another bidder may interpret a full crew as seven for the same range. This is especially true during fire-season.

To avoid understaffing due to lack of knowledge or purposefully cost gaming to reduce costs artificially, will the Government specifically list the number of personnel making up a “full crew” for each individual range?

A: The government will be reviewing the manpower matrix and contract pricing. Full Crew will not be further defined.

SOW 1.7 states “The program management plan as a minimum shall consist of a management plan, funds expenditure report, heavy/agricultural equipment plan, vehicle plan , labor relations plan, manpower plan, and quality control plan .” Yet in the sub paragraphs of 1.7 (1.7.1-1.7.5) the heavy/agricultural equipment plan and vehicle plan are not specifically addressed as the other plans are and nothing is described for what is expected to be in these two plans.

Will the Government please provide requirements for the heavy/agricultural equipment and vehicle plans as sub paragraphs to SOW 1.7, similar to those already provided for other plans?

A: The requirement for the vehicle plan is addressed in the last bullet of para 1.7.1, but additional language will be forthcoming.

SOW 1.7.3 states, “The plan should include factual data used in negotiating CBA labor rates and fringe benefits with union(s) .” Factual data is undefined.

Please define what the Government considers acceptable “factual data” and provide an example. A. The government is considering revamping the SOW paragraph.

Questions and Government Responses from the 9 Dec 24 Primary Training Ranges Industry Day

SOW 1.9, Key Contractor Personnel, states, “The contractor shall provide a list of PTR range key personnel (Site Manager, Alternate Site Manager, and Chief Range Control Officer (RCO)… ” However, there is a discrepancy with the Key Personnel listed under SOW 1.9.3.4, Program Manager, Quality Control Manager, Site Managers and Chief RCOs (at each site).

Please clarify what positions are considered Key Personnel. A: We will review the paragraphs to provide clarity.

The requirement of “Range Control Officer expertise” under the Bombing and Gunnery Range Site manager is vague.

Will the Government please provide further information/quantification on the required RCO expertise for EWR and B&G Site Managers?

A: AFMAN 13-212V1 defines requirements for Range Control Officers. The government believes the qualifications listed for EWR and B&G Site Managers is sufficient.

Considering how few aircraft training ranges DoD has, we believe the PM’s requirement of “DoD aircraft training range within the last 5 years ” is overly restrictive.

In an effort to increase the pool of qualified candidates, will the Government please expand the requirement to “DoD aircraft test or training ranges” or “DoD live-fire ranges” and remove the specific training restrictions?

A: The government has changed SOW to DoD aircraft test or training ranges”

Considering how few aircraft training ranges DoD has, we believe the Electronic Warfare Range / Warfare Site Manager’s requirement of “DoD aircraft training range within the last 5 years ” is overly restrictive - especially since Test ranges usually have more electronic instrumentation on them than training ranges.

In an effort to increase the pool of qualified candidates, will the Government please expand the requirement to “DoD instrumented aircraft test or training ranges” or just “DoD instrumented live-fire ranges”?

A: The government does not believe the current language excludes instrument ranges.

It is unclear why the Funds Expenditure Report, Labor Relations Plan and Manpower Plans are broken down in Table 1-4 when they are part of the Management Plan as stated in SOW 1.7.1.

Will the Government please include all of the plans that make up the greater Management Plan in Table 1-4?

A: The government is looking into restructuring the table and associated 1.7 paragraphs.

Safety Plan, SOW 1.13.1, is missing from Table 1-4 Deliverables.

Will the Government please add Safety Plan to Table 1- 4?

A: The Safety Plan is not a deliverable, but is identified as being required. Only the Safety Points of Contact are required to be sent to the CO/COR.

a) Please confirm this is a Federal DOT requirement for a File Management Program plus the annual inspection and registrations.

b) Please provide more details on these DOT and CDL requirements so bidders can properly include the cost for FFP pricing.

c) Are CDLs required to operate GFE? If so, please specify.

d) Please clarify if these DOT annual registrations, annual inspections and related CDL program costs are or are not cost reimbursable.

SOW 2.9.1 states, “Tech Exhibit 4 contains items that will not be replaced by the government when it is no longer economically feasible to repair them .” But nowhere in the SOW is the definition of “no longer economically feasible to repair ”.

Please provide a concrete definition or set of metrics that defines “no longer economically feasible to repair .”

A: TO 00-20-3 Economical repair of Air Force property is 75 percent of the current stock list price unless otherwise specified in TOs or other published directives. Major failures will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

a) What is the contingency plan for GFE that reaches end of life prior to the “estimated ” end of life date?

b) Must the contractor turn the item into DRMO, or can they still keep it?

c) Once the end-of-life date is reached, will the Government still reimburse the contactor for repairs or to those vehicles?

It is unclear if the end-of-life date is 1/1 or 12/31 of the year stated or another date in between.

If there is a significance to the end-of-life date such as the Government will not pay for repairs after end-of-life date is reached, then the date should be more specific, such as

MM/DD/YYYY.

A: The date is estimated, not firm. A: The government intends to provide funds for minor operating expenses until the GFE is no longer economically feasible to repair.

It is unclear if it is mandatory that the contactor replace an item of equipment when the end-of-life date is reached. This is also why the end-of-life date needs to have a specific month and day assigned.

Please clarify if it is mandatory that the contractor replace an item when its end-of-life date is reached. Recommend that it be mandatory--this reduces the price gaming that some contractors may play and provides a more realistic price comparison of bids.

A: The government is only stating that the SOW requirements will have to be met. The expectation is the contractor will provide the equipment. The contractor equipment plan will be thoroughly scrutinized in the evaluation process. The end life date of a year is the best estimate the government can make.

A: The paragraph reference is only to deal with Smokey SAMS.

Which are a Class 1.3G munition. The government will provide no further information on licensing, the contractor needs to understand range operations and maintenance requirements of the contract to provide a proper proposal.

a) A: The contractor will still be responsible for SOW requirements. The government is exploring appropriate courses of action for these scenarios.

b) A: Unserviceable GFE will either be turned into DLA or become target materials.

c) A: The government intends to provide funds for minor operating expenses until the GFE is no longer economically feasible to repair.16

SOW 2.8 states, “The items listed in Tech Exhibit 4 will not be replaced by the government as GFE when they are no longer economical to repair. An estimated end of life date for the is provided, the contractor shall be prepared to continue performance should failure occur prior to the estimated date .”

SOW 2.7.1 states, “Personnel and vehicles shall meet all Federal, USAF, and state requirements, licensing, and signage, if required. If required to transport off of Federal property, vehicle operators shall acquire the appropriate licensing . ” It is understood that the incumbent and the two prior incumbents were required to participate in a DOT CDL file management program for the MVGs at EW ranges along with the movement of heavy construction equipment on public highways at Holloman that required special DOT monthly reporting.

It is also understood that there were registration and inspections costs for this DOT program that were not reimbursable. These specific requirements and costs are not well defined in the PWS or RFP.

It is unclear and not stated what the parameters or requirements are for replacing an item of equipment listed in TE-4.

Will the Government please provide parameters in the SOW establishing the minimum requirements for TE-4 replacement vehicles as to age, milage, hours, carrying capacity, and other physical attributes to ensure a like capacity piece of equipment/vehicle is provided?

A: This will be contractor equipment that they will have the risk

on. The contractor has to meet the SOW operations and maintenance requirements.

It is unclear what happens if a contractor chooses to not replace a vehicle or piece of equipment when it has reached its end-of-life date and is no longer economically feasible to repair.

We believe the option to “try to do it without” is an extremely high and unacceptable risk to the range operations and sustainability. Will the Government please include this information in the SOW?

A: The contractor also assumes the risk of contract termination for failure to perform. We are asking for a plan and evaluating risk as part of the evaluation of the contractors proposal.

It is unclear how “no longer economically feasible to repair ” relates to the “end-of-life date ” or if there is any relationship between the two terms.

Please clarify how “no longer economically feasible to repair ” relates to the “end-of-life date .”

A: No longer economically feasible to repair could occur prior to the ESTIMATED End of Life Date. The government is exploring appropriate courses of action for these scenarios.

SOW 2.9.2 states “All costs associated with contractor furnished vehicles and heavy/ agricultural equipment shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor. ” One significant cost that is independent of the age of a vehicle/ vehicle fleet is tire repair/tire replacement costs.

These kinds of costs are not encountered in Base Operations and Support Services or Facility Maintenance contracts. Only live-fire range Operations and Maintenance contracts encounter these vehicle costs due to tire damage from Target Area Residue (TAR), Target Area Scrap (TAS), and Target Area Debris (TAD) encountered in down-range driving. TAR, TAS and TAD cause flat tires and side-wall punctures requiring whole tire replacement.

Will the Government please add historical tire repair and tire replacement costs to TE-2 for each of the ranges, especially the B&G ranges, so they can be included in the FFP or making it a plug figure so bidders cannot ignore these critical vehicle maintenance costs?

A: The government does not have this specific data for contractor furnished vehicles.

The SOW paragraphs listed have specific workload estimates in hours per year that are missing from TE-2 Workload Estimates, Avon Park section.

Will the Government please include these hours in TE-2 Workload Estimate since they are in fact specific workload estimates for Avon Park?

A: The hours listed in paragraphs 3.3.1.7 and 3.3.1.8 were provided when the government added requirements at Avon Park and were to give the contractor information needed to properly man the new requirements. They remain to provide that information.

SOW 3.6 states, “Contractor personnel providing fire services shall meet the certification requirements stated in AFI 32-7064 .”

Will the Government provide the fire certification training for contract personnel? A: The government will not provide training.

SOW 3.6.1.1.1 states, “During fire season, contractor shall have sufficiently trained personnel available to employ two firefighting attack vehicles simultaneously.

Contractor shall ensure following assets are available:

Two firefighting vehicles with minimum 250-gallon slip on tanks, pumper truck with minimum 1,000-gallon capacity and tractor with a disk” Since these four vehicles are not listed in TE-2 MH para 5, are the vehicles listed in TE-4 or are they COCO vehicles.

Please confirm these four vehicles listed in SOW

3.6.1.1.1 are in TE-4. A: COCO vehicles.

SOW 4.1 states, “The Electronic Warfare Ranges (EWR) and Electronic Warfare Site (EWS) OM&S effort includes maintenance on the following types of systems VPQ-1 (TRTG), MST-T1A (MUTES), MST- T1(V) (Mini MUTES), Multi-Source Correlator Tracker (MSCT), Low-Cost Threat Emitter (LCTE)Variants.”

Will the Government please clarify what the LCTEs are and if these will replace legacy equipment?

A: They are government manufactured low power threats with minimal maintenance requirements. They are considered to be disposable if minor maintenance cannot easily correct issues with operations. At this time it is not known how many A/C MDSs will benefit from the system, therefore a decision has not been made on replacement of legacy systems.

SOW 4.1 lists Low-Cost Threat Emitter (LCTE) Variants, but nowhere in the SOW is there any information provided on the LCTEs or if the contractor is required to use COCO vehicles to mount/transport the systems.

Will the Government please include a paragraph within Section 4 discussing the LCTEs and what the contractor’s responsibilities are for the mounting and use of these systems?

A: The LCTE will have similar towing requirements to the TRTG though the system is much smaller. A review of TE-2 will show they are listed as an alternative to the TRTG at this time with similar operations requirements. Work is in progress to configure the systems for remote operations.

SOW 4.2.1.1 states, “The contractor shall use the Government’s Equipment Status Reporting (ESR) Microsoft Access based software program and Government furnished computer to input all reportable maintenance actions .”

MS Access database is an older program and does not work well with cloud-based portals. Will the Government consider providing a newer software program that is IA/IT accredited?

A: This language is being changed for the RFP to where Equipment Status Reporting will be done using the Contractor’s

MIS.

It appears that if a vehicle is listed in TE-2 “Government Provided Vehicles ”, it should not be in TE-4. Is this a correct assumption?

A: No. These were placed here as a quick reference. If necessary will delete for RFP.

It appears that if a vehicle is listed in TE-2 “Government Provided Vehicles ”, it will be replaced by the Government when it becomes no longer economically feasible to repair. Is this a correct assumption?

A: No. These were placed here as a quick reference. If necessary will delete for RFP.

a) Will annual tower inspections be required at the other PTR Sites? If so, how many towers must be inspected annually?

b) Are there any historical 3rd-party tower inspection costs that could be put in TE-2 (incumbent can provide the data for Belle Fourche)?

A: Belle Fourche and Holloman are the only sites with these requirements. Specific language is in draft. The government will check on cost data, but expects the contractor will have to do research.31

These sections require annual tower inspections for Belle Fourche MV towers and Holloman’s free-standing towers. The SOW does not include any tower maintenance annual inspections at other PTR sites.

There is no SOW paragraph describing these tower inspections, the criteria for qualifying as a severe weather event requiring additional inspections, nor what the criteria is for a certified inspector.

Will the Government please include specific requirements for the tower inspections in the SOW? A: The language is being drafted.

TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 2 - Workload Estimates for Poinsett EW. There are several areas in TE-2 where Georgetown Maintenance Facility was added, however no other mention of Georgetown in the SOW.

Please clarify if Georgetown maintenance is a new, additional requirement for Poinsett? If so, please also include Georgetown Maintenance requirements in the SOW discussion of Poinsett.

A: The Georgetown Maintenance Facility is an extension of the current Poinsett Site and allows for forward deployment of systems such as the AN/VPQ-1 (TRTG). There is currently no permanently stationed equipment at the facility.

The seventh column in TE-4 is titled Condition and contains a two-letter code (FC, VG, PC, and GC);

however, there is no legend or footnote explaining what the codes mean.

Please provide a definition of the condition codes used in

TE-4.

A: Very Good (VG) - This term describes an item of equipment in excellent condition capable of being used to its fully specified utilization for its designated purpose, without being modified and not requiring any repairs or abnormal maintenance at the time of inspection or within the foreseeable future.

Good Condition (GC) - This term describes those items of equipment which have been modified or repaired and are being used at or near their fully specified utilization, but the effects of age and/or utilization indicate that some minor repairs may have to be made or that the item may have to be used to some slightly lesser degree than its fully specified utilization in the foreseeable future.

Fair Condition (FC) - This term describes those items of equipment which are being used at some point below their fully specified utilization because of the effects of age and/or application and which require general repairs and some replacement of minor elements in the foreseeable future to raise their level of utilization to or near their original specifications.

Poor Condition (PC) - This term is used to describe those items of equipment, which can only be used at some point well below their fully specified utilization, and it is not possible to realize full capability in their current condition without extensive repairs and/or replacement of major elements in the very near future.

SOW Para 1.7.7 EXTENDED MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT. States "The contract line item number (CLIN) will be funded with a “not to exceed” amount".

Please clarify if the NTE is based on straight time or at an overtime rate.

A: Extended maintenance and support is by government request and priced at the time of the request.

SOW 1.9.1.1 AVAILABILITY. States the "The contractor program manager, alternate and/or contractor program management staff (as required) shall be available within 24 hours to meet with Government personnel at Langley AFB, VA when mission dictates a face-to-face meeting. Please provide an estimated average number of events requiring a member of the management team to be available within 24 hours to meet with Government officials at Langley AFB? A: The government has not made a request in the last 10 years.

Is there a PTR web site that contains operational information?

If yes, is it Government or incumbent contractor owned?

A: The contract requires a contractor web based Management Information System.

The previous basis for Contract award was Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DOD) Source Selection Procedures and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP)

5315.3 for Source Selection using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process.

Will the Government be using the same Basis for Contract Award?

A: No, the government will be using Best Value Tradeoff Source Selection process.

Will the Government be using the Two Step evaluation process that was used in the previous acquisition process:

a.Step 1: Rank by Initially Proposed Total Price.

b.Step 2: Factor Evaluations

A: The government will be using Best Value Tradeoff Source Selection process. steps provided in Section M.

Why has the Government excluded the Guam range from the SOW? A: The requirement was terminated.

Will the incoming contractor have access to the current MIS system Database? A: No, it is proprietary.

Can the Government provide access to any current Associate Contract Agreements (ACA) that may be in place on the ranges? A: There are no current ACAs.

Once Government Furnished Vehicles/Heavy Equipment reach their end of life/usefulness and they are replaced, who owns them?

A: Once replaced, the equipment becomes Contractor Furnished Equipment.

Can the replacement Contractor Furnished Equipment be leased or used?

A: Yes it can be, keeping in mind the Contractor is responsible for mission accomplishment.

Is it possible to see the list of current Contractor Furnished Equipment?

A: The contractor owned equipment listing is proprietary and will not be released with the RFP.

What's the rationale for not providing a Draft Request for Proposal (RFP)?

A: At this time, the Government feels there has bee enough information provided and a Draft RFP may not be necessary, but we are considering it.

Does the requirement have many surges of effort causing increased pricing?

A: No. The contract is fairly stable with occasional negotiated changes.

What happened if a Government Furnished Vehicles/Heavy Equipment blows an engine before the projected EOL?

A: The contractor will still be responsible for SOW requirements.

The government is exploring appropriate courses of action for these scenarios.

Will Shaw AFB (Poinsett Range) be the only Site Visit location?

A: The Government considering adding either Mountain Home AFB or Holloman AFB to the Site Visit schedule.

Will Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable source selection process be used?

A: The government will be using Best Value Tradeoff Source Selection process. steps provided in Section M.

Without seeing all sites and all equipment, what vehicles are most needed?

A: The government is considering adding either Mountain Home AFB or Holloman AFB to the Site Visit schedule in addition to the Poinsett visit. This will provide a fairly accurate look at EW, and small and large B&G vehicle requirements.

Will Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) be made available? A: Current CBA's will be released with the RFP.

Are there any Associate Contracts on the current PTR requirement?

A: Not at this time. As stated during industry day, as ranges are linked to the base there will be interaction with other contractor during operations and ACA's may become necessary in the future.

Will the Transition period be 3 months like the current contract?

A: The Government is giving the Transition period additional consideration.

Will the Government require resumes for certain proposed personnel?

A: The SOW specifies Key Personnel and what qualifications are required.

Can three references be provided for both the Prime and Subcontractor? A: Yes.

Will there be any OCONUS work on the new PTR requirement?

A: No, there is currently no work scheduled to be performed

OCONUS.

How is Air Combat Command being affected by budget cuts and could the contractor be asked to assist?

A: Funding has been fairly steady for the requirement. If there are significant cuts, requirements may have to be scaled back.

Would the RFP challenge industry to propose more cost effective and efficient ways of doing business in an effort to lower costs?

A: The contractor may build their proposal as they deem fit. The government is evaluating whether or not the requirement is addressed and the risk level.

Will the Government accept written questions/comments on the SOW up until RFP release? A: Yes.

If not the whole RFP, could a Draft Section L and M, and the most current SOW be released before the final RFP?

A: At this time, the Government feels there has been enough information provided and a Draft RFP may not be necessary, but we are considering it.

Will the proposal page limits be the same as the current contract?

A: No, page limits will be different See Section L of the Request For Proposal.

Would the Government consider providing a plug number for approximate Contract Furnished Equipment?

A: No, a contract line item with plug number would indicate the Government was directly paying for Contractor Furnished Vehicles/Equipment.

64 When will the bidders library be available for visiting?

A: Bidders library access will be determined once the dates for the site visits have been confirmed.

If proposing as a Joint Venture (JV), what are the Facility Clearance requirements for the members versus the JV entity?

A: See Section L of the Request For Proposal for specific Facility Clearance requirements.

66 Could Transition be 45-60 days?

A: The Government is giving the Transition period additional consideration.

Could the Government provide a minimum age limit / mileage restriction on Contract Furnished Equipment/vehicles?

A: At this time there are no limiting parameters. As the RFP will be Best Value the contractor should provide their best proposal.

Older and unreliable vehicles will add additional risk to the contractor.

Could the Government provide historical costs for vehicle maintenance (tires, oil, gas, repairs)?

A: The government does not have this specific data for contractor equipment.

Will the vehicle plan be required to demonstrate how they will obtain and maintain Contractor Furnished Equipment/Vehicles?

A: The requirement for the vehicle plan is addressed in the last bullet of para 1.7.1, but additional language will be forthcoming.

What are the Government's expectations regarding the Equipment Status Reporting information? Will contractors be responsible to use a Government site or maintain the data on its own Management Information System?

A: The contract requires a contractor web based Management Information System.

71 Are Site Managers considered Key Personnel?

A: The Key Personnel section is being revamped to respond to a few inquiries.

Will any new equipment be phased in prior to the release of the RFP and possible award?

A: There may be a change of EW equipment at Dare County that will be listed prior to RFP. Workload data will be provided. Once the RFP is released there should be no equipment changes prior to award.

Could the vehicle line items be Cost or Cost Plus Fixed Fee rather than Firm Fixed Priced?

A: No, a contract line item with any pricing arrangement would indicate the Government was directly paying for Contractor Furnished Vehicles/Equipment.

Who determines when a vehicle has reached it's useable life?

A: The cost of repair vs. equipment value will make the determination.

75 Where are the heavy vehicles needed most?

A: The government is considering adding either Mountain Home AFB or Holloman AFB to the Site Visit schedule in addition to the Poinsett visit. This will provide a fairly accurate look at EW, and small and large B&G vehicle requirements.

Is it necessary for some vehicles to be transported on the highway between locations?

A; Holloman and Mountain Home transport equipment between ranges. EW sites have remote emitter sites that require grounds maintenance.

Can specifics be laid out for what the Government wants in the Vehicle Plan?

A: The requirement for the vehicle plan is addressed in the last bullet of para 1.7.1, but additional language will be forthcoming.

Can the Government provide the number of Full Time Employees (FTEs) they anticipate needing for the requirement? A: No.