QUESTIONS_FOR_RELEASE_02_May_2013.pdf

Questions on Draft RFP and Draft PWS

For PACAF DMO IPASS

May 02, 2013

Please note: This acquisition is still under review and any statement by the Government made with regards to any of the draft documents for PACAF DMO IPASS are subject to change. All necessary changes shall be made to the solicitation by the Contracting Officer as appropriate.

No. Page Section Para. Question/Comment

Q1 DPWS

1.5.1 h This is unclear with respect to “conduct all pre-mission planning for DMO missions.” The unclearness comes into play as far as planning & building the mission. You will need input from the customer in advance as to what they are going to do. If it necessitates building a “new” mission, the timeline for building & testing the new mission will come into play (and everything else that goes along with it -mission materials, maps, etc). Getting the customer to provide that info in timely manner has always been an issue.

If using a pre-built mission & associated materials, no issue.

If this statement just relates to putting in the DMO ticket, getting the “behind the scenes” technical/MTC requirements accomplished to run the DMO mission taken care of, briefing/debriefing…..then it’s a non-issue.

A1 PWS remains as written. The task does relate to the 'behind the scenes’ MTC/scenario preparation and coordination, to include submitting DMO tickets.

Nominally, inputs will come from Wing Weapons/SMEs, with modifications to pre-built/existing scenarios the norm.

Q2 DPWS

1.7.1 The big question here is “who from the government” will supply the necessary support materials to build/conduct required academics? It is very difficult from a contractor point of view to get necessary access or “hands-on” material directly relating to the academic subject because you are a contractor.

A2 Inputs will come from Wing Weapons at local squadron, SMEs for specific mission/events, or PACAF Weapons and Tactics as required.

No. Page Section Para. Question

Q3 DPWS

1.4.7 1.7.4 a Does this mean that contractor is responsible for acquiring/making Inflight guides for the LAO brief and the like? This might also apply to “other” academics or spinups that the wing requests (ie ONE spinup, deployment prep spinup, etc).

A3 Note corrected reference. No. Contractor will issue appropriate academic paperwork/materials. The OGV office will issue Inflight guides to the contractor as stated in 1.7.4.g, but the contractor will keep up to date. The contractor will provide contractor developed documentation for contractor developed courseware (e.g.

handouts for students, presentations).

Q4 DPWS

1.4.7 1.7.4 d Contractors have not developed any type of examinations to be given nor are they privy to what the active duty pilots talk about in their own academic situations. I guess if contractors were to develop academics for whatever, this might entail creating an examination. The bigger question to ask is “who” on the wing staff will “bless” given academics and how will this flow into a higher headquarter inspection scenario?

A4 Note corrected reference. This paragraph pertains to IRC and LAO type classes. All academics will need to be “blessed” by either Wing Stan Eval or Wing Weapons depending on the topic to ensure training goals and requirements are met.

Q5 DPWS

1.4.7 1.7.4 g Where does this come from? Usually contractors have very little authority to get publications from various organizations/websites/etc. because they are contractors.

A5 Note corrected reference . Government (i.e. Wing Stan Eval, Wing Weapons, SMEs, PACAF Weapons and Tactis or Stan Eval)will provide/share information as required if contractor is unable to obtain access.

Q6 DPWS

1.4.7 1.7.4 j The AF Form 8 is an evaluation//checkride form. This is in relation to completing a checkride. When you say “document academic and MTC training accomplishments”, is that what you mean?

A6 Note corrected reference. Contractors are AF Form 8 certified and will document their checkrides on AF Form 8.

If the OSS/CC delegates this certification to contractor evaluators, then the contractor evaluator will use AF Form 8 in their documentation of check-rides.

Q7 DPWS

1.7.5 a This is something new in that CIPs will be required to complete IRC/open/closed book/EPE as part of an 18 month mission check. Can teaching the IRC count since contractors will be required to teach as well?

A7 No, contractor will meet same standard as aircrew.

Q8 DPWS

1.7.2, 1.7.4 Tbl 2 e Ref 1.7.4

For IRC, first ref. says contractors will make the exam but the Govt will score the IRC exam. 2nd ref. says contractors will score the exam. Are you really requiring the govt to score this specific exam? If so, who? Request the performance objectives also define a maximum amount of IRCs per month the contractor is responsible for. Lastly, does the Govt pay for training a contractor to go TDY/travel to the course to become an IRC instructor?

A8 First reference refers to the initial IRC certification of contractor personnel. IRC exams can be graded by either Gov’t or qualified CIPs. contractors. Qualified CIP is a contractor qualified to teach the IRC and has a Form 8 qualification in any position that would require an AF operator to take the IRC (ie. Any pilot can grade the IRC test – example - an F-22 sim instructor can grade an IRC exam for an E-3 pilot.)

PWS and workload estimate indicate estimated number of IRC course to be taught. Mission requirements or unforseen circumstance may dictate increased number of classes per site but is not anticipated.

Reference PWS 1.3, contractor is required to provide qualified personel to meet the requirements of the PWS--to include training. As provided in PWS 3.4.3, the Govt may fund for training to meet changing requirements or broaden skills but not to correct deficiecies in contractor not providing qualified personnel. For training that is ONLY available througn government chanels, the government may provide a slot on a case by case basis but that does not alleviate the contractor from hiring qualified contractors to start with.

Q9 6 DPWS 1.3.5.c

1.3.5.d 1.3.5.e

The Draft PWS on page 6 indicates that DMO IPASS is only required for the A-10C at Osan. However, on slide 13 of the Industry Day Slides it indicates that Osan F-16 pilots will use the MTC’s at Misawa and Kunsan (after IOC).

• Do the workload estimates for Misawa and Kunsan in Appendix 4 of the Draft PWS include the workload estimates for Osan F-16 pilots? Yes

• What is meant by “AF Visitor-Tactical 4 ship” on the Kunsan Chart on page 61 of the Draft PWS? Those are non-Kunsan pilots (e.g Osan F-16 aircrew)

• If the Osan F-16 requirements are not included in either of these locations, will they be provided in the final RFP? The workload for Osan F-16 is in the Kunsan and/or Misawa workload estimates

A9 See answers above in Q9 that are red.

Q10 104 L-9 1.1 The Draft RFP, indicates in the table at 1.1 that one original plus two hard copies, plus one CD will be provided for the Past Performance volume. The verbiage on page 110, paragraph 4.0 indicates we are to submit “original plus one printed copy and 1 digital copy”. Please clarify.

A10 Currently, the Government will request one original plus two hard copies and one CD for the Past Performance volume.

Q11 110 L-9 4.0 This paragraph requests the offeror to provide information with regards to teaming agreements and a list of past and present relevant contracts. The only page allowance indication for Past Performance is for four pages for each citation (IAW table 1.1).

a. Is there a page limit for the entire Past Performance volume?

b. Is there a page allowance for the other requested and introductory past performance information?

A11 Currently, the Government will set the page limit for the entire Past Performance Volume at 20 pages.

Q12 111 L-9 4.1 As mentioned above, this paragraph requires letters from subcontractors. Is the subcontract letter included or additional to the four page limit mentioned on page 110, paragraph 4.0?

A12 No.

Q13 9 DPWS 1.3.6 In the government’s response to Question 19 released on 5

Apr, it was indicated that there were no known ITAR/TAA agreements required. It is our understanding that an ITAR and TAA exists between the contractor and the Canadian government for the E-3 program. Please clarify.

A13 The ITAR/TAA reporting requirement is exempted for the DMO IPASS contract. No separate contractor ITAR/TAA reporting requirement or agreement is required.

Q14

5 B 0005 In CLIN 0005 the Quantity is listed as 7 months. On Page 28, Section F, the same CLIN has a delivery date of 1 Feb 2014 to 30 Sep 2014, which is 8 months. Please clarify.

A14 Initially, the IOC for this CLIN was in February 2014.

Since then, the requirement for the CLIN has changed to have an IOC date of October 2013; therefore, CLIN 0005 has been updated because it will now no longer be an Option CLIN and will need to be priced for 12 months beginning October 2013.

Q15 52 H-40 (a) It appears that the reference to CLIN X0006 should be X0007.

A15 The verbiage has been corrected. It should be CLIN X008, Special Projects

Q16 52 H-40 (e) This clause states that pricing for CLIN xxx7 will be computed by multiplying the appropriate negotiated hourly rates by the number of direct labor hours. It also states other direct costs will be cost reimbursable. This pricing is in line with a T&M contract type, however, CLIN xxx7 is FFP.

Will the government please clarify that contractors would provide a bottom line price for this support?

A16 Currently, the Government will provide a NTE amount for the total evaluated price for CLIN X008.

Q17 112—

Q&A Q&A

L-9 Mar 13, Apr 5,

5.0 #28 #1

Please clarify requirements for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, (refer to FAR clause 52.219-9) small business goals required by large business offerors.

In a recent (6 Mar 2013) national training session with the Small Business Administration, the SBA Representative stated that for contracts with performance in foreign areas, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is only required for the percentage of the work being performed in the U.S., as FAR 52.219-8 does not require utilization of small business concerns when performance is entirely outside the U.S. and outlying areas.

Therefore, will the Government reconsider requiring meeting small business goals only for Alaska & Hawaii? (As stated in Q&A dated 13 March 2013, #28, “For planning purposes, may require a percentage from 30% to 40% small business subcontracting for Alaska & Hawaii sites”), rather than in Q&A dated 5 April 2013, #1, “Currently, the percentage will be at least 25% of the entire effort.”)

A17 Currently, the Government’s intent is for an Offeror to provide 25% of their subcontracting goal to Small Business Concern, not limited to Alaska and Hawaii.

Q18 112—

Q&A Q&A

L-9 L-9 Mar 13, Apr 5,

5.0 Table 1-1 #28 #1--3

Please clarify requirements for: a) Small Business Subcontracting Plan & b) Small Business Participation Plan & the respective small business goals for each plan required by large business offerors.

a) Small Business Subcontracting Plan: Section L-9,

5.0 states “Offerors shall submit a subcontracting plan (refer to FAR Clause 52.219-9)” & Table 1-1 requires a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. In accordance with the FAR clause, Subcontracting Plans measures small business goals as a percentage of “subcontracted” dollars.

b) Small Business Participation Plan: The current draft RFP does not call for the submittal of Small Business Participation Plan. However Q&A dated 5 April 2013, #2 states that “Yes”, the Government will require a Small Business Participation Plan.

Typically a Participation Plan measures small business goals as a percentage of “total contract value”, which is not explicitly required by the FAR.

Please clarify if small business utilization goals are required as a percentage of “subcontracted” dollars in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 and not as a participation percentage of “total contract value”.

Also, does the Government anticipate adding the requirement for Small Business Participation Plan to the RFP?

A18 Currently, the only requirement will be for a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted in accordance with Section L of the RFP which states IAW FAR 19.704.

Currently, there will not be a separate Small Business Participation Plan requirement for this effort.

No. Page Section Para. Excerpts from draft RFP and Question

Q19 DRFP

117-

B (3) i (c)

“(c) Offeror provided experience with manning requirements with the same scope, complexity and magnitude as outlined in 1.3 through 1.8 with employees similar to 4.4 and 4.5 of the PWS. Offeror provided experience same scope, complexity and magnitude with:

3. Providing Instructor Pilot Training for multiple weapon systems (e.g. MTC F-15, F-16, E-3, A-10, F-22) in multiple locations OCONUS”

DRFP

B (3) ii (3) ii (e)

“(e) Provide experience with managing requirements with the same scope, complexity and magnitude as outlined in 1.3 through 1.8 of the PWS. Same scope, complexity, and magnitude is defined as managing contracts and subcontractors for contracts valued over $50 million to include training device instruction, scenario development, academic support, security management, and scheduling services with a place of performance primarily OCONUS.”

In conclusion, we request the Government clarify their intent in the current verbiage in the DRFP in the areas noted. To keep this competition as full and open as possible with enough qualified applicants, request the Government change the past performance requirements to contracts valued over $15M with places of performance either CONUS or

OCONUS.

A19 Currently, the intent is not for the contractor to provide experience with the items noted under one single contract.

The Offeror may provide all this experience through several contracts. The Government will review the request.

Q20 The current F-22A MTCIs at JBER recently petitioned and voted to be represented by the IAM. It is expected that an agreement will be reached that will set wages and benefits that will be some degree higher than the AWD that is currently posted on FBO. This agreement will not be completed prior to the Final RFP being posted. How does the Government expect all bidders to handle this situation when pricing their proposals?

A20 Bidders should propose using rates in accordance with the Alaska Wage Determination established by the Department of Labor. If there is a collective bargaining agreement agreed to at a later date, the Contractor may submit an Equitable Price Adjustment for the Government to consider.