Questions 39-49.docx

Q39. Relevancy definitions for past performance require “fourth generation fighter aircraft AND maintenance on fighter or fixed-wing attack aircraft in support of sortie generation.” What does the government define as fourth generation?

A39. The government defines Fourth Generation Fighter by air frame. For example, any variant of F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18 will be considered fourth generation. If an offeror has past performance experience with an air frame which it believes is generally considered fourth generation but is not a variant of the F-14, F-15, F-16, or F-18, the offeror should provide references supporting their position in their proposal.

Q40. Providing an Air Force Form 8 and/or with experience in the F-15E basically requires any vendor that is not the incumbent to propose the existing work force because of how specialized and unique they are. That poses an incredible challenge to any other vendor other than the incumbent because no other vendor can go hire these individuals prior to contract award but are required to offer proof that we can obtain a “qualified contact” with the existing workforce. Additionally, the President signed an Executive Order on November 18, 2021, which instituted a right of first refusal to existing qualified employees. In our opinion, this new EO neutralizes the risk and should eliminate the requirement to provide a qualified contact, especially if they are the incumbent employees (FACT SHEET: President Biden Signs Executive Order To Ensure Quality Jobs For Service Workers On Federal Contracts | The White House).

A40. The unit does not require the existing workforce be retained. However, the unit requires specialized F-15E experience in order to accomplish its prescribed mission. Safety of people and equipment are paramount and therefore, the government has established a minimum standard of the Form 8 or equivalent. Additionally, aircrew from other platforms (such as F-16, F-18, etc) would not adequately be able to fly and instruct to the F-15E and its tactics. Because of these interests, the offeror has the burden of establishing equivalency. Furthermore, converting non-F-15E aircrew to F-15E qualifications would require extensive resources and therefore put an unacceptable burden on the government and the program. With a mature program, the government needs to ensure that the awardee is capable of sourcing qualified people who do not require extensive retraining. Past experience has demonstrated that a contractor can fill an aircrew position with a candidate who is current and qualified faster than it would have taken to qualify aircrew from another platform. Virtually all qualified personnel will have had a Form 8 or equivalent at some point in their career.

The government has verified that the incumbent contractor will not attempt to encumber competitors’ efforts to contact current contractor personnel outside duty hours. Contractor personnel must be performing duties per the contract while on duty time. Although the Executive Order has been signed, it has not yet been implemented. By law, the Department of Labor has 180 days to write regulations and the FAR Council has 60 days to implement. The Executive Order cannot be effective or incorporated into the RFP/contract until implemented by the FAR Council. In addition, by law, many clauses are only applicable if included at the time of release of RFP (or if incorporated prior to contract award at the discretion of the Contracting Officer) unless the law/regulation requires its incorporation into current contracts.

Q41. The government provided an answer to question 5 that requires Offerors to provide Union Pay escalation. The government referenced FAR 22.1008-2 stating that this FAR clause “…imposes wage and fringe requirements for successor contracts with incumbent CBA”. After a thorough review of the referenced FAR clause, there is no information included that would help to determine future escalation for the two Unions associated with this solicitation or any other Union. There is no possible way for any Offeror to accurately predict what future Union negotiations would determine for pay escalation. One CBA will be re-negotiated during the source selection process and the incumbent will negotiate these follow-on rates. It is unfair for the government to direct that Offerors must guess what the escalation will be in the future.

41a. Will the government consider revising its stance that “Failure to propose escalation will result in the offer being determined non-responsive”?

41b. If the government will not revise its stance on pay escalation, will the government consider providing a published escalation rate to be used by all Offerors for evaluation purposes subject to change based on future CBA negotiations?

41c. Will the government accept requests for equitable adjustment (REA) if the predicted/priced escalation is less than the future negotiated CBA pay escalation?

A41a-c. The government requires escalation in the awarded contract to assist program leadership and our foreign partner in their efforts to estimate the costs of operating the program from the commencement of performance. This information will be used to assess the expected labor costs compared to opportunities for cost savings. The government will not establish boundaries on escalation because doing so could infringe the government’s neutrality in any future labor negotiations.

The government’s request for offerors to propose estimated costs (including labor costs) is required on proposals for many types of government and commercial contracts. As experts in the industry, offerors should be able to utilize their knowledge and familiarity of the subject matter, labor market, and/or other sources of information (e.g., historical data, publicly available tools) to craft their proposal.

With regard to REAs, the government will follow all applicable laws and procedures and will assess all REAs, which will include an assessment of its reasonableness.

Q42. The answer to question 13 the government also states that for any corporate position, the proposal shall provide a title, job description, and justification for such position, but there is no indication of where this information should be located. Which proposal volume does the government expect to see a job title, job description, and justification for corporate positions and will this guidance be added to the Section L instructions?

A42. Corporate positions might be any other position which an offeror proposes as needed to administer the contract. These would typically be salaried, FTE positions and the need must be direct and efforts wholly attributable to this contract. For example, if an offeror believed a full-time accountant devoted solely to this contract were needed, this could be proposed. Offerors should propose all additional positions as a supplement to Section F (Cost/Price Factor).

Q43. Subfactor requires offeror to provide draft FOPs, GOPs, and Training Plan in the Technical Volume which will create a very large document. Will the Government clarify that the Draft FOPs, GOPs, and/or Training Plan are to be written as part of Volume II and, if not, how are the Draft documents going to be submitted?

A43. These documents should be submitted as part of Volume II.

Q44. Performance of Work Statement (PWS) /Paragraphs 1.2.1.1 and 6.14 Concern: The PWS refers to a “transition” is the referenced paragraphs, however, there is no transition time frame or CLIN in the document. Will the Government clarify the transition time frame and provide a CLIN for accurate pricing?

A44. The transition CLIN will be added as a modification later. Transition costs must be negotiated.

Q45. The job titles in the Maintenance CBA for the Fuels personnel do not align with the PWS Appendix 1, Table 7-2. The PWS Appendix 1, Table 7-2 lists 1) Fuels (2A6X4) 2 each, 2) Fuels Operations (2F0X1) 6 each. But the Maintenance CBA lists 1) Fuels Management Lead, 2) Fuels Management Distribution Mechanic, and 3) Fuels Technician. Will the government please explain how the 3 fuels positions listed in the CBA correlate to the 2 fuels positions listed in the PWS?

Q46. The PWS Appendix 1, Table 7-2 lists the job title “Weapons (2W1X1)” 5 each, and it also lists “LSC Weapons (2W1X1)” 3 each. The job title of “Weapons” is not listed in the Attachment 2 Cost Price Worksheet. Should offerors price a total of 8 LSC Weapons (2W1X1) in the Attachment 2 Cost Price Worksheet?

Q47. The PWS Appendix 1, Table 7-2 lists the job title “PMEL/TMDE (2P0X1)”, but the Maintenance CBA does not have a pay rate for this position. Will the government please provide the wage rate for the “PMEL/TMDE (2P0X1)”?

A45-47. Please refer to the note under Section L, F. Volume V, Price and the answer to Question 16. The government is not a party to the agreement between the union and the company. Therefore, the government will not opine on how positions in Appendix 1 align with the CBA.

Q48. Is the qualified contact for Training Instructor/Manager position required to have experience specific to any engine type?

A48. No. Subfactor One only requires the Training Instructor/Manager to be qualified with respect to any 4th-generation fighter aircraft, to include flight-line experience and engine run experience. Position specific criteria stated in the PWS will not be read into the Section M evaluation criteria.

Q49. Will the government reconsider its qualifications regarding the training instructor/manager position in the PWS?

A49. No. Discussions regarding matters related to performance after contract award can be discussed after award.