Q_and_A__2_16_Feb_16.docx

Questions and Answers #2. Received as follow up to 05 Feb 16 Q & A.

Q1. L.3.2.3.7 identifies PWS 2.24.2 as the Tool Control Plan reference. PWS 2.24.2 does not address tool control plan requirements. Please identify the appropriate PWS reference(s) for bidders.

A1 RFP L.3.2.3.7 reference has changed from 2.24.2 to PWS para. 4.2.6. for PWS dated 4 Feb 16. Section L will be updated in next amendment to RFP.

Q2. Ref M.3.1 identifies PWS 3.2 as Tool Control Plan reference. Should PWS 4.2.6 also be referenced?

A2. Yes. PWS para. 4.2.6 should be referenced. The RFP, Section M will be updated in next amendment to the RFP.

Q3 Will the Government confirm that the only volume that requires a Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix is Volume I – Mission Capability?

A3: That is correct. The technical volume, volume I, is the only volume in section L of the RFP that requests a cross reference matrix.

Q4: Will the Government allow tables, graphics, call out boxes, the table of contents, and lists of tables and figures to be single spaced?

A4: Yes to all above. Page line spacing has changed to single line spacing in Section L, para. 2.2.1.1.

Q5: Will the Government provide instructions for L.4.2(7) “Responsibility Determination Supporting Documentation,” L.4.2(8) “Teaming Arrangement(s) and/or Letters of Intent (if applicable)” and L.4.2(9) “Subcontracting Plan.”

A5: Yes. In section L, Paragraphs 4.1.5, 4.1.6, and a modification to 4.1.4. have been added to provide clarity to the governements expectations for the mentioned paragraphs. Information for Subcontracting Plan is located in paragraph 3.2.5. and the Subcontracting Plan (9) has been deleted. Small business participation has also been added.

Q6: L.4.1.3 and L.4.1.4 are not in the Volume Organization. In order for offeror’s to be compliant, will the Government please update the Volume Organization?

A6: Volume Organization was moved to 4.0.1 and renumbered.

Q7: PWS 5.1.2 indicates “use of UH-1N armed support for convoy operations and support for activities associated with armed helicopters on alert. Convoy support could require two armed helicopters per convoy depending on location.” Will the Government provide workload data indicating approximate number of missions requiring armed helicopters and approximate number of missions requiring two armed helicopters?

A7: The govenment is not able to provide workload data at this time. The armed helicopter mission is a new requirement at the early stages of its implementation and is expected to evolve over time.

Q8: Para. 5.1.2.5.12. states: “SP will coordinate ammunition transportation and delivery with local munitions squadron.”

Who is responsible for transporting munitions to and from the munitions storage area and the flight line?

A8: SP is responsible for transporting ammunition from the forward storage area to the aircraft and the government is responsible to transport ammunition to the forward storage area.

If the SP is responsible, then is the SP required to be armed with an M9 pistol during transport?

A8: Yes

Also, is the SP required to obtain a Commercial Driver’s License for all employees who transport munitions?

A8: No

Q9: Reference clause 52.245-2. The clause references Attachment 15 of the RFP as GFP/GFE. The PWS does not contain the referenced attachment, but does have Attachment 13 as GFP.

Will the Government update clause 52.245-2 to reflect the correct attachment.

A9: Yes. Attachment 15 has been changed to Attachment 13 to coincide with correct attachment number.

Q10: Concerning Yokota operations. Are these helicopters regulated under the EAR or ITAR? There do not appear to be any references to export compliance requirements in the RFP. As military helicopters, we believe they may be on the USML under Category VIII (“Aircraft and Related Articles”) and our associated maintenance services would be regulated under ITAR as well. Please clarify.

A10: To my knowledge the EAR (Export Administration Regulation) applies.

Q11 For Yokota operations. If maintenance services are regulated under ITAR, are these defense services eligible for a license exemption under 22 CFR 126.4(a)? We feel that this may meet the definition of performing a defense service for an agency of the US government for the official use of such an agency and all aspects of this transaction are affected by this US government agency. Please clarify.

A11 To my knowledge this effort is not regulated by ITAR.

Q12: For Yokota operations. If the 22 CFR 126.4(a) ITAR exemption is not available, would this contract be eligible for the 22 CFR 124.2(a) exemption for basic maintenance?

A12: The ITAR does not apply so there is no need for this exemption.

Q13: For Yokota operations. If the equipment the SP is performing maintenance on is regulated under the EAR rather than ITAR, is the SP eligible for license exception GOV for the transfer of any technical information related to the maintenance?

A13: There is no answer for this question at this time. If an exception is required, the COR at the site would work with the SP to navigate through the process.

Q14: Reference states, "All employees shall have a minimum of a secret clearance…" Question: Does this include custodial personnel if employed by the SP? What about custodial personnel employed by a third party vendor?

A14: The PWS states “all” employees. However, custodial personnel are not required to have security clearances, but must be escorted by cleared personnel when in controlled areas. Most areas of responsibility are within controlled areas

Q15: PWS 6.1.16 Reference states “The SP shall be able to support mobilization/off-station response/requirements (supplies/tools) within 48 hours of notification to support aircrew and aircraft for two weeks of continuous flying operations. The SP shall ensure off-station support kits are inventoried, packed and inspected at 180 day intervals.

Question: Please provide the annual frequency for supporting the stated requirements?

A15: Use 15 times a year for the estimated annual frequency.

Q16: Please define what "The SP shall maintain identified equipment at a 100 Percent in-service rate" means? Does it mean that every piece of equipment is available, or that sufficient numbers of equipment are available to meet the flight schedule each day?

A16: Intent is that every piece of equipment be available at all times.

Q17: Para. 2.1.1.1. states: “When there is no alert requirement the SP has the flexibility to setup duty shifts at their discretion to meet the daily mission requirement and the other requirements of the PWS. The SP will have standby personnel available to respond within one hour outside of scheduled duty hours.” Will the Government provide historical data on how often there is an alert requirement at the various sites? Is this paragraph implying aircraft are not on alert 24/7 and the three CONUS sites do not have to have personnel physically at work for all shifts, 7 days a week?

A17: The government anticipates an alert requirement at the start of the contract. However, if circumstances limit the need for the alert requirement, the government is allowing the SP to adjust shifts to meet the flying schedule until we have an alert requirement which will then require 24/7 support by the SP (service provider). This will provide flexibility for the SP when mission needs change. The SP is given discretion to schedule work as they deem appropriate to support the flying mission and requirements of the PWS. Aircraft on alert require personnel available 24/7. One hour notification response is necessary for any contingency.

Q18: Para. 2.15.8. states: “All units are considered 24/7 operations. Off-duty personnel must respond within 1 hour after notification.” This paragraph is confusing. See question #17 above. Is there SP personnel physically at work for three shifts, 7 days a week?

A18: See answer to #17. If more employees are needed at work during a contingency, the additional employees have one hour to respond after notification.

Q19: Para. 5.1.2.2.1. states: “F.E. Warren only: Include range gun maintenance support into daily maintenance schedule as required.” Please clarify the statement “range gun maintenance support.” Does this imply the SP will station a person at the “range” to perform daily gun maintenance? Is the range only located at Camp Guernsey?

A19: The term “range gun maintenance” is normal maintenance to support the training mission. This would be anything from swapping out a gun that has malfunctioned (during operator preflight check out) to end of firing day cleaning. The idea is that there will be a small team from F.E. at the range ready to respond and to take care of transporting the weapon from the armory to the aircraft and cleaning at the end of the day. At the moment Camp Guernsey is the only location where the government anticipates the use of helicopter guns for training. However, that situation may change depending on range availability.

Q20: Section 2.15.11.3 of the PWS references AFPAM 10-100. AFPAM 10-100 has been superseded by AFTTP 3-4, which has restricted access to CAC holders only. Will the government provide AFTTP3-4 to bidders for use in proposal development?

A20: There is no plan to provide the entire AFTTP 3-4 to offerors for proposal development due to releasability issues. However, within this publication only chapter 12 applies to the operations. All training and gear is provided by the government and AWI 21-106 is being provided to asssist with proposal development as Atch 15. AFTTP 3-4 has been added to Appendix I in the PWS.

Q21: Would the Government please provide a revised Section B that includes the original items and all changes so that the SP can populate as required for submission?

A21: Offerors can use bid schedule provided in RFP with the following summarized changes: remove the word “administration” from any CLIN description. For CONUS sites, remove “tools and equipment” from CLIN descriptions. Those items are being provided as GFP and will be replaced by government under normal wear and tear. For OCONUS SP is required to provide common hand tools (see PWS.). I have covered the changes for travel CLINs and provided examples for CONUS and OCONUS. OFFERORS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BID ON TRAVEL CLINS.

Q22: In Amendment 2, the Government changed the Quantities and Units for the Travel CLINs (0006, 0010, 0014, X002, X006, X0010) to 50,000 Each. Is it the Government’s intention that the SP would have 50,000 units of travel? Since this is now FFP is it the Government’s intention that the SP provides a Unit Price of Each for the quantity of 50,000? Also the Government stated that the cost constraint has changed from EST to NTE but nowhere in the CLIN description is NTE referenced. Is it the Government’s intention that that these CLINs be FFP with a NTE amount of $50,000? If not please clarify how offerors should complete these CLINS..

A22: Due to the way the procurement desktop contracting software formats documents, the information did not display as intended with Unit Price not displaying as $1.00. However, due to current policy guidance, I am changing the CLIN back to CR. The CLINs will read as follows:

TDY Travel –FE Warren AFB, WY

COST

NOT TO EXCEED (NTE)

50,000

Each

$1.00

$50,000

TDY Travel –FE Warren AFB, WY

FFP

50,000

Each

$1.00

$50,000

TDY Travel –Yokota AB, Japan

COST

Offeros are not required to provide a bid amouint for the travel CLINs. The amounts above will be plugged in automatically by the contracting officer during price evaluation.

Q23: In Amendment 2, the Government changed the Quantities and Units for the Travel CLINs (0018, X014) to 5,000 Each. Is it the Government’s intention that the SP would have 5,000 units of travel? Since this is now FFP is it the Government’s intention that the SP provides a Unit Price of Each for the quantity of 5,000? Also the Government stated that the cost constraint has changed from EST to NTE but nowhere in the CLIN description is NTE referenced. Is it the Government’s intention that these CLINs be FFP, with a NTE amount of $5,000? If not please clarify how offerors should complete these CLINs.

A23: Please see answer to question 22. NO BID IS REQUIRED FOR TRAVEL CLINS.

Q24: CLINs 0006, 0010, 0014, 0018, X002, X006, X010, X014 still reference the Helicopter Maintenance PWS. Should they reference just the PWS?

A24: Yes. Based on information in Amendment 0002, all information needed to perform services is located in one PWS, Attachment 1. Attachment 2 was deleted.

Q25 4.1.2(a), this section states ..” The sum total of all FFP CLINs, for the Base Period and each Option Period, will form the offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The offeror shall not provide a price for cost-reimbursable CLINs..” Is it the Government’s intention with Amendment #2 that all travel CLINs now be included in the TEP? If not please clarify.

A25: The original intent of the RFP was for the offeror to not have to calculate his or her own price for the travel CLINs because the government has already estimated this amount. The government does not want the offeror to input his or her own price for travel.

Q26 4.1.5, Summary Page. This section currently states “Provide a summary page of total proposed price for the base period, and each option period. Provide a summary of total proposed price for each CLIN, in the order listed in Section B, for the base period, and each option period. For fixed priced CLINS, list the CLIN number (item number), the unit price, and the max amount. For the cost CLINs, list the CLIN number, and include the prices inserted by the Government. The offeror is not required to provide a travel cost for the travel CLINs. If this amount is changed, please provide reasoning behind the change. Please provide a total amount for the entire proposal at the bottom of the CLIN schedule which identifies total proposed price for all CLINs.”

Should the reference for cost CLINs be removed since Amendment #2 revised these CLINs from Cost to FFP?

A26: Yes. All references to Cost CLINs will be removed in the next Amendment (0003).

Q27: The Q&A #1 stated that Amendment #2 would revise the POP date for CLIN 0018, but that change was not made. Would the Government please reissue with this change?

A27: Yes. To clarify, PoP for CLIN 0018 should indicate 01 Oct 2016 to 31 Jul 2017.

Q28: Section 2.6.3.3.2 and Q/A #12. Since this now states that travel for this course is at SP TDY expense, does this fall under the FFP Travel CLINS?

A28: Yes. Unless other arrangements are made by the government to pay for travel (e.g. DTS), the SP will be allowed to bill for this travel under the applicable travel CLIN.

Q29: When compared to the historical Sortie and Avg. Flt Hr data provided in the response to Question #5 dated 5 February 2016, the FY flying hour allocations appear to be grossly inflated. The data includes the statement “These are estimated hours for planning purposes only”.

Question: What is the purpose of inflating the flying hour data, how is the SP to use the data for planning purposes?

A29: Data for Malmstrom FY 15 provided in question #5 dated 5 February 2016: 1778 sorties times 1.9 avg flt time = 3378.20 hours. Appendix A Para 1.2 shows FY17 at 3100 Hrs. The government anticipates flying more hours in the future years, that is why there is an increase every year, so the SP can plan accordingly. Flying hours are actual programmed flying hours based on future requirements.

Q30: Section L.3.2.6 states that the Table of Contents (TOC) and Summary Page(s) shall not exceed five (5) pages combined. Considering that Volume I has a 125 page limit, if offeror’s are to include a reasonable TOC (say to level 3) plus a list of tables and figures, that may take up more than five pages (especially at 1.5 line spacing). We recommend splitting out the Summary Page requirement and giving it its own page limit, so that offeror’s may display a proper TOC and also provide an appropriate summary.

A30: Paragraph 3.2.6 has been deleted. Summary page requirements and TOC 5 page limitation has been removed. TOC and Summary page referenced in 3.2.2. will fall within the 125 page limitation guidelines.

Q31: Prior to Amendment 2 we were working with two PWS documents (Atch 1 and Atch 2) which both contained a paragraph 2.25, Helicopter Maintenance Quality Control and AFE Quality Control, respectively. Amendment 2 combined Atch 1 and Atch 2 into a single document. Atch 2’s previous para 2.25 is now captured in the new Amendment 2 PWS at section 2.26.

Amendment 2, Section L.3.2.3.2 indicates the Quality Control Plan is based on section 2.25 of the PWS. Is it the Government’s intent that the SP’s QCP in the proposal also address para 2.26 on AFE?

A31: Yes

Q32: Section L.4.1.2 requires the SF33 and Sections I – K to be included in Volume II – Price (Factor 2). These are also required in Volume IV – Contract Documentation. Will the Government confirm that the same documents are to be included in both volumes?

A32: The information is not required in both volumes II and IV.Section L, para. 4.1.2 has been changed and necessary instructions moved to Volume IV. Please see Amendment 0003.

Q33: Will the Government confirm that offeror’s may include the solicitation number, the offeror’s name and date on the CD-ROMs?

A33: Yes

Q34 Where are offerors supposed to include the SF30s? Would the Government allow them as part of L.6.1.1?

A34: Include signed SF30s in Volume IV of the proposal. Section L, para. 2.1.6. wording has been amended.

Q35: PWS Para. 3.2.1.1. states: Yokota only: The SP will provide common hand tools required or needed to maintain and/or repair helicopters, support equipment and industrial equipment.”

At contract start, is the Government providing the SP with the hand tools that are currently located at Yokota and the SP replaces as needed, or is the SP required to purchase all new hand tools at contract start to replace the ones that are there now?

A35: SP is required to supply its own common hand tools at contract start.

Q36 Section L.6.1 requires the submission of a signed copy of the Model Contract and Sections A through K. Please confirm that Sections A through K compose the Model Contract, and the referenced attachments need not be provided separately.

A36 Sections A through K do compose the model contract. Relevant attachments will be incorporated at contract award.

Q37: Section L.6.1 requires the submission of a signed copy of the Model Contract and Sections A through K. Sections L.6.1.1-L.6.1.3 are broken out into Section A, Section I, and Section K. Will the Government clarify if offerors are to include A-K or just A, I and K?

A37: Offerors are required to provide sections A through K and all applicable information needed within those sections.

Q38: Section L.6.3.3 is called Attachments to Model Contract. L.6.3.3.1 is missing. Will the Government confirm that only the Subcontracting Plan and the GFP and/or Base Support Requirements are required as attachments to the Model Contract?

A38: 6.3.3.2. was a mistake in numbering. RFP Section L 6.3.3.2 has been renumbered 6.3.3.1. The Subcontracting Plan is an attachment to the model contract. A GFP amd/or Base Support Requirements listing will also be included if the offeror deems it is required.

Q39: L.3.2.5 does not include historically black colleges or universities (HBCU) and minority institutions (MI) the Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals. L.6.3.3.2 specifically requires that offerors address their commitment to historically black colleges or universities (HBCU) and minority institutions (MI) in their plan. The nature of the work performed on Solicitation FA6800-15-R-0001 does not lend to historically black colleges or universities (HBCU) and minority institutions (MI) participation. Request the Government reconsider the requirement for historically black colleges or universities (HBCU) and minority institutions (MI) participation in an offerors Subcontracting Participation Plan.

A39: Even though it may appear that the ability to incorporate Historically Black Colleges and Universities, or Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) does not apply to this acquisition, the primary language is the integration of Small Business into this effort as outlined in your Small Business Subcontracting Plan. I have added wording to Section L. para. 3.2.5. in order to evaluate small business participation and Section M. If it is not possible to subcontract to those institutions, offerors can explain why it was not possible in the subcontracting participation narrative.

Q40: This PWS paragraph states ”When documents containing FOUO material are authorized for destruction, shred the records so that the pieces cannot be reconstructed. Degauss or overwrite magnetic tapes or other magnetic medium. Destroy (burn, shred, etc.) critical and/or sensitive unclassified information no longer needed to prevent the inadvertent disclosure and/or reconstruction of this material”.

Question: Will the Government provide Degauss or overwrite magnetic tapes or other magnetic medium. Is there a Burn site or will a shredder be provided - Destroy (burn, shred, etc.) critical and/or sensitive unclassified information no longer needed to prevent the inadvertent disclosure and/or reconstruction of this material.

A40: SP will provide applicable means of destruction. See paragraph 2.8.2 of the PWS.

Q41: The DD254 for Japan requires safeguarding. The DD254 states at the Government facility or Contractor facility only – see Block 8 Actual Performance location, are vaults or safes provided by Government at the site?

A41: There is no safe available in the work area. Currently the Yokota mission has no requirement to safeguard any classified material. However, if a need to safeguard classified material occurs in the future arrangements will be made to either acquire a safe at government expense or utilize a safe avaiable at the 374 AMXS or another unit.

Q42: Does the SP require a COMSEC account through NSA or will SP be under the AF COMSEC Account?

A42: Account will be under the AF COMSEC account

Q43: PWS Para.2.25.5. states: “As part of the SP’s QCP, the SP shall identify how they will meet all contractual requirements, develop applicable metrics for each contract requirement, and provide a comprehensive inspection schedule to inspect each contractual requirement. This function shall be operational and physically manned during hours of any maintenance and servicing in support of the local flying/maintenance operations to include depot/contract field team maintenance, exercises, contingency plans, and support agreements by an actual QC person.”

Does this paragraph mean that a designated Quality Control person has to be present for all shifts, 24/7? Does the Government anticipate maintenance and servicing to occur 24/7, to include all hours throughout the weekend? Please clarify.

A43: See answer to #17 above. When SP is required to be at work in performance of the contract, the QC needs to be available as well.

Q44: L.4.2(9) Subcontracting Plan has no instructions and goes in the Price Volume. L.6.3.3.2 Subcontracting Plan – Participation of SB, HBCU/MI goes in the Contracts Volume. Are these two requirements the same? If so, will the Government please consolidate the requirements into one location and provide instructions that are applicable to the work performed on Solicitation FA6800-15-R-0001?

A44: Subcontracting Plan reference has been removed. It is addressed in technical volume. I addressed 6.3.3.2 in answer to question 39

Q45 Section L, 4.1.2(d) ” ) STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE CONTRACT LABOR STANDARDS (SCLS); formerly known as the SERVICE CONTRACT (SCA). The SCA Wage Determination (WD) provided in Section J, Attachment 6-8, is applicable to this requirement. It is the responsibility of the Offeror and the subsequent contract awardee to comply with the SCLS Wage Determination Rates. The offeror shall provide a statement acknowledging:

Comment: Attachments 6-8 are not related to SCA Wage Determinations.

Question: Please confirm that the following SCA Wage Determinations are correct for this effort. If not, please provide the correct SCA Wage Determinations.

A45 The government requested a new wage determination based on the collective bargaining agreements for the three sites. The results of that e98 transaction thru the Dept of Labor is the single (1) CBA WD included in the RFP at attachment 6. It is true attachment 7 and 8 don’t apply and I have corrected the information.

Q46: After a 1 month transition shown in CLINs 0001 – 0004, each CLIN in the base period shows a quantity of 10 months. All subsequent option period CLINS also show a quantity of 10 months. It appears that each of the option period CLINS should include a quantity of 12 months. In addition the staffing matrix provided with the RFP has dffering periods of performance from Section B.

Question: Would the Government consider a 12 month base period of performance following the 30-day transition from 01 Sept 2016 to 30 Sept 2016? The base period would be 1 Oct 2016 through 30 Sept 2017. This schedule would align with the Government fiscal calendar and allow for a full 60-month contract performance if all options are exercised. Question: Would the Government consider two additional incentive option periods based on achieving pre-established performance metrics which, if exercised, would establish the period of performance through Sept 2023?

A46: The base period was selected for a 10 month period by design. This was done to coincide with when we anticipate AFGSC will receive its first allotment of funding from the Air Force. Maintaining the period of performance to align with the fiscal year creates issues with funding, especially when there is no budget on 01 October and the government must continue performance without funds being available. All option periods will regain the 12 month schedule once we rotate off the fiscal year. The AFPEO/CM also agreed with this acquisition strategy.

- There is no plan to consider incentive option periods at this time. With the no timeline for the acqusition of the UH-1N replacement, it didn’t appear appropriate to attempt a contract period exceeding 5 years.

Q47: All base period CLINs show a performance period from 1 Oct 2016 to 31 Jul 2017 except for CLIN 0012 which shows a performance period from 1 Aug 2020 to 31 Jul 2021.

A47: This error was previously identified during the Draft PWS/RFP release and was corrected at that time. The originally released RFP available on www.fbo.gov does not include this error in Section F. To clarify the correct PoP for CLIN 0012 is 1 Oct 2016 to 31 Jul 2017

Q48: Request the FAR Clause 52.245-2 on page 38 be deleted and include the clause in Section I.

A48: This error was previously identified during the Draft PWS/RFP release and was corrected at that time. The originally released RFP available on www.fbo.gov shows this clause is in Section I, page 53 (PDF), full text.

Q49: Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders page 71 of 100 and Information To Offerors (ITO) page 84 of 100. The text in these two referenced sections is the same except for the title of the section.

A49: Previously resolved. Current RFP does not contain this issue

Q50: Section M.1. Source Selection a. Basis for Contract AwardSentence in the second paragraph states "Past performance will the commence". For clarity, the Government may consider rephrasing the sentence to "The evaluation of past performance will commence beginning with . . . ".

A50: Thank you for the recommendation. However, the government has decided to maintain the wording “as is”. It has been vetted by policy, legal, and senior staff on several occasions. The crux of the process is Technical Acceptable/Unaccaptable. Of those that are unacceptable, rack and stack by price. Then, past performance will commence starting with lowest priced offeror and will go from there.

Q51: Section M.3. Source Selection Program Management Subfactor, Item (5) has no information shown.

A51: Previously resolved. Current RFP does not contain this issue.

Q52: Section M.5 Factor 3(a) Past Performance (page 69 and page 99), The Government references relevancy as "the offeror's ability to suply the Logistics abd Operations Advisory Assistance Support Services…". This appears to have no relevancy to the tasks of the PWS. Please clarify the relevancy requirements.

A52: Previously resolved. Current RFP does not contain this issue. Reference page 89 of RFP.

Q53: Paragraph 4.2. Volume Organization, Page 80 of 100, price volume organization. In ITO Section 4.2, Volume Organization states the requirement to include Teaming Arrangement(s) and/or Letters of Intent and Subcontracting Plan. There are no further instructions concerning these two items in the ITO. Is it the Government’s intent to revise Section 4.0 and include instructions for these two items?

A53: Please see answer to question 5 above. Also see amendment 0003.

Q54: Paragraph 6.3.3 Attachments to Model Contract, Page 83 of 100, This section begins with Paragraph 6.3.3 and the next paragraph is numbered 6.3.4.2 Subcontracting Plan - Participation of Small Businesses (SB), Historically Black Colleges and Universities, or Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI). In Section 6.3.3 the paragraph numbering begins with 6.3.3 and the next paragraph number is 6.3.3.2, is it the Governments intent to revise the section numbering or insert any missing paragraphs, e.g. 6.3.3.1, to correct the numbering sequence in the final RFP?

A54: Numbering issue resolved/renumbered for 6.3.3. as recommended.

Q55: Paragraph 5.2.2 Summary Page. Offerors shall provide a relevant contract narrative explaining what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. The Table of Contents and Summary Page(s) shall not exceed five (5) pages combined.

The ITO Section provides instructions for inclusion of a Summary Page, including page limitations, in Volume III Past Performance. No other section provides instructions for a Summary Page or its page limitations. Does the Government intend to provide clear instructions for each volume’s Summary Page and page limitations in the final RFP?

A55: With the exception of past performance, the offeror has broad discretion as to how many pages it chooses to dedicate to the summary pages as the offeror stays within the page limitations identified in Table 2.1. Section L, para. 4.1.0 provides more information on pricing summary page .

Q56: Paragraph 2.16.1, Page 25. The SP may be required to support real-world or exercise contingency plans, and short notice TDY outside the normal duty hours. When required by the CO, the SP shall respond to emergency situations (e.g., structural fires, accidents, etc.). The SP shall provide these services as required by the CO.

Would the Government define the definition of “support” and clarify if the support is considered "over and above" the contracted effort? Does the support included personnel or personnel and aircraft? How long is this support expected and what is the process for the SP to recover cost of the support?

A56: The SP would be required to provide the same support that they currently are required to provide. If something more is required the CO will address it with the SP.

Q57: PWS Paragraph 2.18.13.2, Page 26, This paragraph states "All operators of vehicles on the flightline must first obtain training and possess a valid flightline driving permit."

For locations that do not have a Government Flightline Driver’s License requirement, SP is only allowed to receive a Competency Card, is it the Government’s intent to implement this program at all locations?

A57: Intent is to follow AFI24-301. This is an AFI requirement.

Q58: PWS Paragraph 3.2.10.4, Page 60 PWS states "The government will provide real property maintenance for government-furnished facilities to include hoists IAW AF1 32-1001 Section C, and AFPAM 32-1004, Vol. 3, Attachment 3." This does not include the PFAS which is the responsibility of the SP.

What about items not determined to be real property? PWS addresses Fall Restraint inspections as SP funded, what about repairs/maintenance to Fall Restraint equipment. Also, who is required to fund repair/maintenance of lifts that are considered non-real property? Para 3.2.10.4 conflicts with para 2.8.5 in regards to maintenance responsibility of PFAS.

A58: Paragraph 3.2.10.4 includes real/non-real property. The only one the government isn't providing is the PFAS and that's the SP responsibility.

Q59: PWS Paragraph 4.3.12, Page 76 PWS requirement is for "The SP shall establish and perform Maintenance Management Analysis (MMA) functions for SP maintained aircraft IAW AFI 21-101 on assigned aircraft."

This requirement references only AFI 21-101 which would mean all MMA responsibilities covered in Para 5.2 and all sub paragraphs. Is that the intent? As units are contained within missile wings with a centralized HG at FEW would the MMA requirement be levied at the group level as required by AFI 21-101 or is the expectation for each site to operate an MMA function at the unit level that reports to the group? Who at the group would these MMA technicians forward the required data to? Please concisely define the MMA requirement.

A59: AFI 21-101 clearly defines what is expected. Information will be sent to AFGSC/A4MX when requested.

Q60: PWS Paragraph 5.3.8, Page 83. Chapter 5 requirement states "Maintain qualification on designated weapons related qualification tasks for the unit."

Will the government provide weapons qualification support using base CATN/range?

A60: No. The government will not provide weapons qualification support.

Q61: PWS Para 2.1.1, 2.1.1.2 Referenced paragraphs conflict. Unsure if Yokota requirement is 24/7 onsite manning or manned for the flying schedule.

Can you clarify the disconnect between 2.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 in regards to Yokota manning requirements?

A61: It is not the standard to provide 24/7 coverage in Yokota AB. They usually have a two shift operation. However, there are times when three shifts are required and the SP has the flexibility to schedule workers to work during that third shift as required to complete scheduled maintenance. Paragraph 2.1.1.2 identifies the specific window of support, subject to change or adjustment as required.

Q62: PWS Para 2.8.7, SP shall provide at F.E. Warren, Malmstrom, and Minot for either the purchase or rental of parts cleaner and nitrogen required for servicing, if not provided by the government.

If the parts cleaner is provided by the SP, will the waste stream created be handled the same as all other haz waste streams at the site?

A62: No, it will be the SP’s responosibility.

Q63: .PWS Para 2.16.1 The SP may be required to support real-world or exercise contingency plans. Previously, the SP at Yokota surged for 70+ days @ 24 hours a day due to a real world contngency. This was determined to be in scope. Would a contingency that requires a sustained level of effort well above normal operations merit equitable compensation?

A63. You can base your current cost calculations on the example above up to 90 days. However, if an unforseen contingency were to occur (natural disaster, armed conflict, etc) that would cause the SP’s maintenance operation to provide support over and above what is considered normal operations and creates surge requirements beyond 90 days, the CO would enter negotiations with the SP on how to pay for that support. Typically funds must be made available first prior to the support being provided. If normal operations cease and SP support shifts to supporting the contingency, it would be the CO’s determination that is a one for one swap and no additional costs would be forthcoming other than any applicable TDY travel costs which would be covered under the travel CLIN.

Q64: PWS Para 2.20.2.5. AFGSC host bases will maintain the technical administration library and management of unit TO requirements, filing, and inspection of applicable OIs. Does referenced paragraph include etools llibraries?

A64: Paragraph 4.2.6.14 addresses etools.

Q65: PWS Para 2.25.28.10 Major discrepancy: Performance of maintenance without being trained or qualified on the task. Recommend adding to paragraph text…"does not apply in a training situation".

A65: Paragraph 2.25.28.10 clearly defines what is expected. The government considered the recommendation and has no plans to add this wording at this time..

Q66:PWS Chapter 4 Table 1. Table shows Data Base Manager as a SP responsibility. Clarify the intent is for the SP to be the Data Base Manager at each base?

A66: The intent is for the SP to be only the database manager for the helicopter maintenance contract, not the entire base.

Q67: PWS Chapter 4 Table 1, Table shows SP responsibility for "installed Jet Engine Maintenance" and "Jet Engine Maintenance".Can you clarify the difference between the entries? Is there an intent for the SP to perform off-equipment (JEIM) engine maintenance?

A67: The difference is engine buildup, canning parts off spare engines vs engines installed on the helicopter.

Q68: PWS 2.15.8. All units are considered 24/7 operations. Off-duty personnel must respond within 1 hour after notification. Please clarify this statement. If a site is 24/7 (always staffed), what off-duty SP personnel must respond within 1 hour? All, some, or key personnel?

A68: Whatever is required in a emergency or contingency situation (all, some, or just key personnel). The key point here is the scope of the response will not be clear until the government has taken the appropriate action to respond to the situation and will work with the SP to plan accordingly when an incident occurs.

Q69: PWS 2.25.7 the government reserves the right to reduce contract price for the first, and all future instances, of QCP non-conformity. Per referenced paragraph, what will be the methodology, calculations, and process for a contract price reduction?

A69: There is no way to develop a calculation for nonconformity without first knowing what the nonconformity may be. The currently worded paragraph has changed from what is presented here and the methodology appears to be clear referencing the government’s remedies for nonconformance based on the wording in the PWS and the clause.

Q70: Section L - 3.2.4 Subfactor Two Technical Approach Item Number 2. Aircraft Equipment (AFE). Was the referrenced Aircraft Equipment (AFE) inadvertantly used instead of Aircrew Flight Equipment (AFE)?

A70: Yes, this was a error. The A in AFE should read “Aircrew” as indicated in the PWS. The change has been made in this section of the RFP.

Q71: Section M.3 Factor 1 – Technical Acceptability on page 87. There is no reference paragraph "a" starts with reference paragraph "b." Did the Government intend for the Program Management paragraph to be “a.”?

A71: I have made corrections to the RFP to resolve this issue.

Q72: Section H, Clauses Included by Full Text, Page 54 of 90, 252.228-7001 GROUND AND FLIGHT RISK (JUN 2010). PWS Appendix I, Glossary of References and Supporting Information. Section 7.(b) of this Clause states "The Contractor shall be bound by the operating procedures contained in the combined regulation/instruction entitled ``Contractor's Flight and Ground Operations'' (Air Force Instruction 10-220, Army Regulation 95-20, NAVAIR Instruction 3710.1 (Series), Coast Guard Instruction M13020.3, and Defense Contract Management Agency Instruction 8210.1) in effect on the date of contract award."

The combined regulation/instruction referenced in the Ground and Flight Risk Clause is not listed in Appendix I, Glossary of References and Supporting Information, nor is it referenced in the body of the PWS. Is it the intent of the Government that the Offeror fully comply with the Ground and Flight Risk Clause requirements?

A72. The offeror must be in compliance with DFARS clause 252.228-7001 Ground And Flight Risk located in section I of the RFP, Full Text. The PWS also references the GFR/GGFR in several locations and references DCMA INST 8210.1C in the PWS, Chap 3, para. 3.7. Wording has changed in Section L and M to provide more guidance on this requirement. Per AFGSC legal guidance ground and flight risk must be in included in this requirement. Due to SAF guidance, information in Section H has been removed and placed elsewhere in the RFP as applicable.

Q73: Section L.2.2, Table 2.1 lists Volume III Past Performance as including a “Roadmap.” Question: What is information is required in the Roadmap? Please clarify.

A73: The roadmap will include any changes that have occurred within your company that might muddy the waters of what is relevant past performance, for example, if you merged with another company and provide past performance with a different company name that could create confusion during the evaluation. If no changes have occurred and all past performance will be provided under your company name or your subcontractor’s company name, then you can so state in your past performance volume. The RFP states a pamphlet or other document will suffice to identify said changes. Any changes that impacted past performance needs to be explained also as stated in 5.2.4.

Q74: Ref section L-1, Table 2.1 and L-1 section 5.2. Discussion: The past performance volume organization in Table 2.1 and para 5.2.1 do not match.

Question: Which volume organization schema should offerors use to organize the volume?

A74: I have corrected the RFP so the sections match.

Q75: .3.2.5 requires offerors to consider AFFARS 5219.704(a)(1) when establishing a small business subcontracting plan. However, when visiting http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfaffar1.htm there is no 52(xx) references, only 53(xx) references. Question: Should offerors reference 5319.704(a)(1)?

A75: The correct reference is 5319.704(a)(1). The information has been corrected in Amendment 0003.

Q76: The FBO webpage has 1 March 2016, 2pm Central time listed as the response suspense. The solicitation documentation does not list a response suspense. Question: Are the proposals due by 1 March 2016 at 2pm Central?

A76: Yes. Proposals are due 1 Mar 2016 at 2pm central time. I have added the information to Section L.2.0. Information should have been in block 9 of SF33 but did not transfer over when document went to print.

Q77: The FBO webpage has the following information regarding the contract Period of Performance:

· Transition 01 Sep 16 - 30 Sep 16

· Base Period 01 Oct 16 - 31 July 17

· Option Period I 01 Aug 17 - 31 July 18

· Option Period II 01 Aug 18 - 31 July 19

· Option Period III 01 Aug 19 - 31 July 20

· Option Period IV 01 Aug 20 - 31 July 21 The solicitation does not seem to have a PoP summary included in it. The CLIN information aligns to the data above. Question: Is the PoP information on the FBO summary page accurate?

A77: Yes, the information on FBO is accurate. Section F in the RFP also provides the period of performance for every CLIN.