Q&A_16Aug19.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 42 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MSN-7 Communication Central CLS
- Solicitation number
- FA8102-19-R-0001
About this file
Additional questions submitted regarding FA8102-19-R-0001
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Q&A__5.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Q&A_to_Question_asked_13_September.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| FA810219R0001_______0002.pdf | ||
| Q&As_to_Questions_29_Aug_through_5_Sep.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| FA810219R0001_0001.pdf | ||
| Shipping_CLIN_Clarification_(21Aug).pdf | ||
| Q&A_09Aug19.pdf | ||
| (12.5)_MSN7_RFP_Att4_GFP_Attch.pdf | ||
| (12.3)_MSN7_RFP_Att2_Sect_M.pdf | ||
| (12.6)_MSN7_RFP_Att5_PWS_UPDATE.pdf | ||
| (12.4)_MSN7_RFP_Att3_PriceMatrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| (12.1)_MSN_RFP_FA810219R0001.pdf | ||
| Q&A_25Jul19.pdf | ||
| (12.7)_MSN7_RFP_Att6_CDRL.pdf | ||
| (12.2)_MSN7_RFP_Att1_Sect_L.pdf | ||
| Pre_Solicitation_Conf_MSN7_15Jul19.pdf | ||
| Q&A_15Jul19.pdf | ||
| MSN-7_dSectL_01Jul19.docx | DOCX document | |
| MSN-7_dPWS_19Jun19.docx | DOCX document | |
| MSN-7_dCDRL_24Jun19.pdf | ||
| MSN-7_dRFP_20Jun19.pdf | ||
| MSN-7_dGFP_Attachment_24Jun19.pdf | ||
| MSN-7_dSectM_01Jul19.docx | DOCX document | |
| MSN-7_dPrice_Matrix_02Jul19.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MSN-7_Usage_Report.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 25
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Pre-Sol Conf Q&A (15Jul)
| CATEGORY: Requirement Clarification | Government Response/Action: | |
| 1 | RFP Reference: PWS 4.7, Equipment/Parts Request | Contractor is not expected to have spare shelter. Government will update PWS 4.7 to eliminate the confusion of shipment size. |
| Topic: Shipment sizes | ||
| Question: Would the Government please clarify if the contractor would be expected to ship or have a spare shelter? | ||
| 1b | RFP Reference: PWS 4.7 Equipment/Parts Request | During a PDM action, when the complete MSN-7 unit has been shipped to the Contractor's site for PDM, the Contractor is not expected to have a 'spare' MSN-7 unit available to deliver to the field unit. The field unit will be without an MSN-7 until the PDM is complete. |
| Topic: Clarification of Question/Answer | ||
| Follow-up question: Please clarify / repeat question and explain answer. | ||
| 2 | RFP Reference: PWS 3.1,Phase-In Requirement | The Government has identified 60 days phase-in is sufficient for this effort. |
| Topic: Duration of Phase-In period | ||
| Question: Previous PWS documents have changed from 60 to 90 day phase-in periods. Is the phase-in period set to 60 or 90 days? This will affect the inventory 60 day requirement as well. | ||
| 3 | RFP Reference: PWS 5.4 F, Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) | The entire MSN-7 (interior and exterior surfaces) will need to be painted every time in PDM. |
| Topic: Extent of interior and exterior painting | ||
| Question: Will each system be painted based on individual system needs or will the entire interior and exterior need to be painted every time? | ||
| 4 | RFP Reference: PWS 4.7 & PWS 5.1 | The requirements in PWS 4.7 are governing requirements for contractor performance. Government will revise language in PWS 5.1 to eliminate the confusion. |
| Topic: Parts Requests | ||
| Question: PWS 4.7 & 5.1 seem to refer to the same activity (Parts Requests) but have different requirements. PWS 4.7 gives three priorities with three different requirements. PWS 5.1 for the same activity only stipulates a single requirement. | ||
| 5 | RFP Reference: PWS, Equipment/Parts Request, Para 4.7, p. 10 | Both field replaceable parts and structural and body component parts shall be stocked as part of GFP. Additional components may be identified and added to the GFPthroughout the term of the contract. |
| Topic: Stocked Parts | ||
| Question: What parts shall be stocked? Field replaceable parts only or structural and body components as well? | ||
| 6 | RFP Reference: PWS 5.4, Programmed Depot Maintenance, p. 11 | No, the Government has determined that LMR Radios should not be included or added to this section. |
| Topic: Special Note Section | ||
| Question: Should LMR radios be part of this section? | ||
| 7 | RFP Reference: PWS, Programmed Depot Maintenance, all | No, the Government has identified that Antennas and Masts are not included in PDM for this effort. |
| Topic: Antennas and Masts | ||
| Question: Are the antennas and masts included in PDM? |
| CATEGORY: Pricing Clarification | ||
| 1 | RFP Reference: PWS 7.1 | The Government will issue FFP modifications as these O&A CLINs require you to submit Fixed Price labor hour rates and fixed material handling rates. The (highly abbreviated) modification process can be described as: contractor submits proposed labor hours & material estimates, Government completes a Tech Eval, then both parties negotiate/agree to labor hours and material estimate and award an FFP modification to contract to include these hours and material figures using the negotiated FP rates. |
| Topic: O&A Determination | ||
| Question: Once contractor provides a ROM for O&A’s, does the government anticipate issuing a FFP or Cost Reimbursable contract mod for these efforts? | ||
| 2 | RFP Reference: PWS 4.5 & RFP page 3 | PWS 4.5 Modifications should be included in the O&A CLIN X005, not CLIN X002. Final Solicitation Section B will be updated. |
| Topic: Modifications | ||
| Question: The RFP states this activity is FFP. But the government doesn’t state what modifications it may request. Shouldn’t this activity be an Over & Above activity since an as requested modification wouldn’t be a normal or fair wear and tear condition? | ||
| 3 | RFP Reference: SSP Attachment 3, Section L, page 14, Section 6.3.10 | RFP language should read "data files should: (b) Be in XLS file format (MS-Excel 2016 or earlier) compatible format." Final Solicitation Section L will be updated. |
| Topic: Submission of Pricing Matrix | ||
| Question: Government provided Price Matrix Excel file in .XLSX file format. RFP says, “data files should: (b) Be in XLS file format (MS-Excel 2010 or earlier) compatible format.” |
| CATEGORY: Document/Solicitation Clarification | ||
| 1 | RFP Reference: PWS 9.1 | Yes, dGFP Attachment is the Attachment X listed in PWS 9. PWS will be updated to reflect correct attachment title. |
| Topic: GFP | ||
| Question: Please confirm that MSN-7_dGFP_Attachment is the same as Attachment X mentioned in PWS 9. | ||
| 2 | RFP Reference: None | Tentative RFP release date is included in Presentation Briefing as 5 August 2019, with forecast award on 22 June 2020. Government currently anticipate 45 day proposal submission window. |
| Topic: Acquisition Timeline | ||
| Question: When does the Government anticipate RFP release and award? Also should Offerors anticipate a 30 day turnaround for proposal submission? | ||
| 3 | RFP Reference: Section L 6.3.4 | Section L.6.3.4 contains a typographical error and should read “CLIN X005” not X007 for the O&A CLIN, not the Phase-Out effort. Final RFP Section L will be updated. |
| Topic: CLIN 007 and CLIN 009 | ||
| Question: There appears to be a discrepancy between the pricing matrix and Section L.6.3.4. The matrix is blacked out for CLIN 007. Is the Offeror expected to overwrite the pricing matrix row 73 and 75. Provide fixed price rates as noted in Section L.6.3.4. Please clarify. | ||
| 4 | RFP Reference: None | Per Market Research and the current NAICS code (982110), this effort is anticipated to be Full and Open Competition and no part will be set-aside. |
| Topic: Acquisition Timeline | ||
| Question: Does the Government anticipate that part of this opportunity will be a socio-economic set-aside? | ||
| 5 | RFP Reference: Briefing Sl. 14 vs. 22 | The current MSN-7 CLS contract expires 27 Mar 2020, so the Government's preferred award date is 28 Mar 2020. However, given the required events needed to occur for award, the automated milestone estimation tools predict award on or about 22 June 2020. As the Government has exercised the Option to Extend services, we have available services coverage through the estimated June award date, but we are striving to improve our award date to move it toward the March 2020 timeframe. |
| Topic: Anticipated Contract Award Date | ||
| Question: There appears to be a dconflict in the projected contract award date: chart 14 states 28 Mar 2020, while chart 22 states 22 June 2020. Please verify correct estimated award date. |
Follow-Up Q&A (22Jul)
| CATEGORY: Requirement Clarification | Government Response/Action: | |
| 1 | RFP Reference: Paragraph 5.3.1 of Section L | The Government has identified three years as sufficient for the recency assessment. |
| Topic: Past Performance | ||
| Question: Will the government change the requirement from three years to five years in order to ensure adequate competition from industry? | ||
| 2 | RFP Reference: PWS 9.1 & 5.3 | The Government will provide the items identified in the GFP attachment. |
| Topic: Contractor Spares & GFP | ||
| Question: Will the current contractor provide their existing spares, GFP/M/E and any Contractor Acquired Property to the new contractor during phase-in? | ||
| 3 | RFP Reference: PWS 5.4 | The intention is for the contractor to remove all LRUs and other practical items and then mask remaining items to prevent them from being damaged during paint. The government will provide specifications for both interior and exterior painting of the shelter. |
| Topic: Paint | ||
| Question: During the Industry Day “Q&A” discussion, a question was asked about whether each system would be painted based on individual system need or will the entire interior and exterior need to be painted each PDM cycle. The Government response was that the entire MSN-7, interior and exterior, will need to be painted every PDM cycle. With regards to the interior of the MSN-7 this would require the contractor to remove all components from the interior including the desk, power section, radio racks, roof components, wiring, ductwork, etc. in order to fully paint each MSN-7’s interior. Is this the intention for this PDM contract or is the intention to take out what is most practical such as the electronic equipment and radios but leave the wiring, power section, floor structure, and other difficult to remove components installed, mask them off, and paint what is practical? If so, can the exact paint boundary and expectation be clarified and is a complete strip and sanding required? | ||
| 4 | RFP Reference: | 2 in Ramstein, Germany |
5 in Robins AFB, Georgia 1 in Kapolei, Hawaii 1 in Klamath Falls, Oregon 1 in Portsmouth, New Hampshire 1 in Alexandria, Lousiana 1 in Johnstown, Pennsyvalnia 1 in Meridian, Mississippi 1 in McEntire, South Carolina 1 in Cheynne, Wyoming 1 in New London, North Carolina 1 in St.Joseph, Missourri The Mock-up is in government possession.
| Topic: Location | ||
| Question: Where are the 18 MSN-7 systems located (base/city/state)? | ||
| 5 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 1.1, | The Government has no requirements concerning the physical location of the contractor facility. |
| Topic: Contractor Location | ||
| Question: Are there specific requirements/limitations concerning the physical location of the contractor facility? | ||
| 6 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 1.1, | The Contractor's facility must be able to completely enclose the MSN-7 system within an environmentally controlled facility while fully elevated (in raised position). No other requirements concerning the physical configuration/size of the contractor facility are defined. |
| Topic: Contractor Location | ||
| Question: Are there specific requirements/limitations concerning the physical configuration/size of the contractor facility? | ||
| 7 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 1.1, | The current best estimate of percentage of work is that 95% of work will be conducted at the Contractor facilities and 5% of work will be conducted on-site at Government facilities but these estimates are subject to change as driven by Government requirements. |
| Topic: Work Location | ||
| Question: What is the government’s estimate of percentage of work that will be performed at: 1) the contractor facility, and 2) on-site at government facilities? | ||
| 8 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 2.2, | The PWS includes a list of the minimum required skills for this effort and the solicitation / RFP identifies the Federal Equivalent position. |
| Topic: Labor | ||
| Question: Will the government provide a list of contract labor categories and quantity of each? | ||
| 9 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 2.2, | The PWS includes a list of the minimum required skills for this effort and the solicitation / RFP identifies the Federal Equivalent position. |
| Topic: Labor | ||
| Question: Are any labor categories classified as “key personnel”? | ||
| 10 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 2.2 and 2.8 | The effort does not require a cybersecurity IA training and certifications for the performance of these efforts. The task requirements are listed in the PWS. |
| Topic: Labor | ||
| Question: Are any contractor personnel/labor categories required to be a part of the cybersecurity workforce with corresponding Information Assurance (IA) training and certifications (e.g., Level I, Level II, Level III) per DOD Directive 8140,01? | ||
| 11 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 2.2, | The effort does not require a security clearance for the performance of these tasks. The security requirements are listed in the PWS, para 2.8. |
| Topic: Security Clearance | ||
| Question: Are any contractor personnel required to possess a security clearance? And if so, at what level? | ||
| 12 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 3.2 | The Government will be responsible for cost of transport/shipping GFP at the close of the current contract and ensuring that any successful offeror receives the required GFP for the operation of the follow-on effort. |
| Topic: Location | ||
| Question: Should the physical location of the successor contractor facility be in a different city and/or state from the incumbent contractor facility, who will be responsible for the cost of transport/shipping of all GFP? The government or the successor contractor? | ||
| 13 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 4.7, | The Contractor will be responsible to arrange and pay for shipping equipments/parts to OCONUS and CONUS destination as stated in the PWS para 4.7. |
| Topic: Shipping | ||
| Question: Will the government consider shipping equipment/parts to OCONUS destinations? Experience indicates that contractor shipment to OCONUS destinations is delayed due to custom requirements whereas these requirements are not invoked when shipments are made by the US Government. | ||
| 14 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 5.4, 8.1 | The PDM requirement is 4 MSN-7 units per year. |
| Topic: PDM | ||
| Question: Will the government clarify how many MSN-7 systems will undergo PDM each year? | ||
| 15 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 5.4, 8.1 | "Each awarded year of the contract, the Government will schedule up to four (4) MSN-7s for depot level maintenance" The Government anticipates staggered PDMs so only one system is at the Contractor facility, but this schedule is subject to change based on the Government needs. The Government will provide a schedule of PDMs upon contract award. |
| Topic: PDM | ||
| Question: How many MSN-7 systems of the annual 4 (or 6) systems will be at the contractor facility simultaneously for PDM? Is system induction to PDM staggered so only one system is in the contractor facility at a time? Or is there overlap? If there is overlap, what is the duration of overlap? Will the government provide a notional timeline of how the PDM of the 4 (or 6) systems relate to each other? | ||
| 16 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 5.4 | The Government will make the final determination. |
| Topic: As Needed | ||
| Question: Regarding PWS paragraph 5.4, subparagraphs A, B, C, D, G and their use of the phrase “as needed”, who determines if an item/component requires replacement, the government or the contractor? | ||
| 17 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 5.4, | No, MSN-7 verification testing does not required the use of the MSN-7 hot mock-up. |
| Topic: Hot Mock-Up | ||
| Question: Does MSN-7 verification testing require use of the MSN-7 hot mock-up? | ||
| 18 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 5.4 | All acceptance testing and acceptance of supplies and/or units will occur at the destination. |
| Topic: Testing | ||
| Question: Regarding PWS paragraph 5.4, after completion of PDM, is acceptance testing conducted at the contractor’s facility? | ||
| 19 | RFP Reference: | All acceptance testing and acceptance of supplies and/or units will occur at the destination. There is no need for classified and/or sensitive material storage at the Contractor facility. However, all GFP should be maintained in a bonded storage location. |
| Topic: Testing | ||
| Question: If acceptance testing will be conducted at the contractor’s facility, will there be a need for any classified/sensitive material such as crypto, radios, software, etc. (if needed for testing) to be stored at the contractor’s facility? If yes, to what classification level? | ||
| 20 | RFP Reference: | All acceptance testing and acceptance of supplies and/or units will occur at the destination. For interim evaluation at the Contractor's facility, 'dummy loads' are acceptable. |
| Topic: Testing | ||
| Question: If acceptance testing will be conducted at the contractor’s facility, will there be a need for an outdoor area for live testing of radios and other electronics? | ||
| 21 | RFP Reference: PWS 6.1 | The PWS paragraph 6.1 has been updated and the Operational Availability reference and requirement has been removed. |
| Topic: Availability Rate | ||
| Question: Regarding PWS paragraph 6.1, what is the published/stipulated threshold Operational Availability rate for the MSN-7 system? | ||
| 22 | RFP Reference: PWS 5.4, 7.1 | The AN/MSN-7 Communication System is also know as the Tower Restoral Vehicle (TRV). The AN/MSN-7 is mounted on the HMMWV. Per the PWS, "The Contractor shall not be responsible for repair or maintenance of the PRC-113 radios and the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) on the AN/MSN-7." |
| Topic: Tower Restoral Vehicle | ||
| Question: Regarding PWS paragraphs 5.4 and 7.1, will the government clarify maintenance of the HMMVW vehicle? Paragraph 5.4 Special Note states: The Contractor shall not be responsible for repair or maintenance of the HMMWV on the AN/MSN-7. Paragraph 7.1 makes reference to “tower restoral vehicle maintenance.” | ||
| CATEGORY: Pricing Clarification | ||
| 1 | RFP Reference: Section L, page 4, Table 1 – Proposal Organization | The Price Matrix is required in Volume IV. |
| Topic: Price Matrix | ||
| Question: Table 1, Volume IV Contract Documentation, 7.1.2 lists Price Matrix. Is it the Government’s intent to require Offerors to include 7.1.2 Price Matrix in Volume IV rather than Volume III Price Proposal? | ||
| 2 | RFP Reference: Excel MSN-7_dPrice_Matrix_02Jul19.xlsx | Offerors do not need to price CLIN X009. This CLIN will not evaluated. |
| Topic: Pricing | ||
| Question: Row 75, CLIN X009, Other Direct Cost, says, “Not Evaluated”. Could the Government confirm Offerors do not need to price CLIN X009? | ||
| 3a | RFP Reference: Excel MSN-7_dPrice_Matrix_02Jul19.xlsx | The Government is asking for a single fully burdened and loaded wrap rate. This rate needs to include all engineering O&A labor categories needed to accomplish the O&A task. The evaluation quantities in rows L-Q are the total number of estimated hours the Government anticipates for O&A labor. Those hours are then multipled against the Offerors O&A Fixed Hourly Labor Rate. |
| Topic: Pricing | ||
| Question: Row 68, CLIN X005AA, O&A Engineering Fixed Hourly Labor Rate, shows quantity of 20 for each year. If Offeror proposes multiple labor rates for this CLIN, is 20 hours still the maximum quantity for each year? | ||
| 3b | RFP Reference: Excel MSN-7_dPrice_Matrix_02Jul19.xlsx | Please refer to 3a above. |
| Topic: Pricing | ||
| Question: Is the Government asking Offerors to provide a fixed composite labor rate? | ||
| 4 | RFP Reference: PWS 9.1 & dPrice Matrix | The Government will provide the items identified in the GFP attachment as initial or current stock for spares inventory and are subject to inventory control. The successful offeror must maintain appropriate inventory control of items to meet the required shipment times as described in the PWS, and communicate low-stock levels to the Government. |
For Total Price Evaluation of the submitted offer, Offerors must provide pricing of the requested subCLIN items in accordance with the solicitation. Some of the existing GFP items are subject to DMSMS and obsolescense due to sustainment re-engineering and may not be re-aqcuired. This pricing is for pre-pricing of known recurring items only; quantities are for evaluation purposes only and may not reflect actual ordering requirements for the Government.
| Topic: Spares Pricing vs. GFP | ||
| Question: The Government provided a list of spares to be priced in the draft price matrix spreadsheet that is different than the list of GFP items provided in the draft GFP document. PWS 9.1 states that the Government will furnish to the contractor the GFP listed in the dGFP document. Some of the furnished GFP items are also on the list to be priced, some are not. Can the Government provide clarification as to the purpose of the two different lists? | ||
| 5 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 1.1 | The PWS paragraph 2.2 has been updated and the Place of Performance has been clearly stated to be Contractor's Facility. |
| Topic: Pricing | ||
| Question: Will the government provide a “place of performance” list/paragraph in the final PWS? | ||
| CATEGORY: Document/Solicitation Clarification | ||
| 1 | RFP Reference: Document Package | On July 3, the FBO Notice for this solicitation provided instructions on how to gain access to the controlled access Bidder's Library. All offerors who complete and submit the appropriate documentation (i.e. DD2345) using the prescribed process as described in the Pre-Solicitation Notice and request authorization to the Bidder's Library through FBO will have access to the materials. |
To gain access to the Controlled Bidder’s Library for the MSN-7 Communication Central CLS effort, login to www.FBO.gov and request access to the Controlled Access/Locked Package through FBO according to the instructions in the Vendors User guide on page 43. When the Government receives electronic notification of your request, we will grant access and you will be able to download the documents directly from FBO at that time. (We cannot email these documents to you due to file size restrictions and firewall restrictions on security content.)
Offeror's are reminded that the Air Force is not the controlling organization to process the DD2345 submission and approval process so early submission of the required documentation to secure an approved DD2345 is in the best interest of the Offeror.
| Topic: Technical Orders | ||
| Question: Please advise when the Tech Order package can be made available. | ||
| 2 | RFP Reference: Excel MSN-7_dPrice_Matrix_02Jul19.xlsx | The value for the Basic and Option Years will be updated to the Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) in the final RFP. Offerors will propose a rate (expressed as a decimal number, i.e., 25% = 0.25) which will be multiplied by the BEQ to determine the Material Handling Price per Period. |
| Topic: Pricing/CLIN Clarification | ||
| Question: Please clarify the meaning of 5 unit of issue LO in CLIN X005AD Material Handling. | ||
| 3 | RFP Reference: | Yes, the SCA applies to the current contract and will apply to this effort. |
| Topic: Service Contract Act | ||
| Question: Will the Service Contract Act (SCA) apply to this effort? Is the incumbent effort covered by the SCA? | ||
| 4 | RFP Reference: | The solicitation will not include AWD for the MSN-7 system locations, as the Place of Performance is the Contractor's facility, not the location of the MSN-7 systems. The DOL AWD for the successful Offeror's Facility (or facilities) will be included in the final awarded contract . |
| Topic: Wage Determinations | ||
| Question: Will the final solicitation include DOL Area Wage Determinations (AWD) for these MSN-7 system locations? | ||
| 5 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 4.2, | The MSN-7 manuals are Government Technical Orders and are controlled access documents. On July 3, the FBO Notice for this solicitation provided instructions on how to gain access to the controlled access Bidder's Library. All offerors who complete and submit the appropriate documentation (i.e. DD2345) using the prescribed process as described in the Pre-Solicitation Notice and request authorization to the Bidder's Library through FBO will have access to the materials. |
To gain access to the Controlled Bidder’s Library for the MSN-7 Communication Central CLS effort, login to www.FBO.gov and request access to the Controlled Access/Locked Package through FBO according to the instructions in the Vendors User guide on page 43. When the Government receives electronic notification of your request, we will grant access and you will be able to download the documents directly from FBO at that time. (We cannot email these documents to you due to file size restrictions and firewall restrictions on security content.)
Offeror's are reminded that the Air Force is not the controlling organization to process the DD2345 submission and approval process so early submission of the required documentation to secure an approved DD2345 is in the best interest of the Offeror.
| Topic: Manuals | ||
| Question: Will the government provide current MSN-7 manuals to all offerors? | ||
| 6 | RFP Reference: PWS 5.4 | Documents pertainaing to PDM efforts undertaken on the current MSN-7 systems are proprietary to the incumbent Contractor and the Government cannot provide those documents to other Offerors. |
TO-31R5-2MSN7-1/-4 are Government Technical Orders and are controlled access documents. On July 3, the FBO Notice for this solicitation provided instructions on how to gain access to the controlled access Bidder's Library. All offerors who complete and submit the appropriate documentation (i.e. DD2345) using the prescribed process as described in the Pre-Solicitation Notice and request authorization to the Bidder's Library through FBO will have access to the materials.
Offeror's are reminded that the Air Force is not the controlling organization to process the DD2345 submission and approval process so early submission of the required documentation to secure an approved DD2345 is in the best interest of the Offeror.
| Topic: Documents | ||
| Question: Will the government provide, to all offerors, documents that detail PDM efforts undertaken on MSN-7 systems that have already gone through the PDM process? Will the government provide TO-31R5-2MSN7-1/-4 to all offerors? | ||
| 7 | RFP Reference: PWS paragraph 5.4, | The current MSN-7 verification and validation test procedures are Contractor-developed documents using the data in the Tos and are not releasable to offerors. |
| Topic: Test Procedures | ||
| Question: Will the government provide the current MSN-7 verification and validation test procedures to all offerors? | ||
| 8 | RFP Reference: | Previous questions posted on 15 July indicated that LMR radios are not included in the Special Notes section of 5.4 regarding the PDM. LMR are included in PDM requirements. Masts will not be required for testing. |
| Topic: Q&A | ||
| Question: Regarding “Requirement Clarification” questions 6 and 7 posted on FBO which indicate that LMR radios as well as antennas and masts are not included in PDM efforts; will the government provide these excluded equipment/components to the contractor for verification testing of an MSN-7 system at the completion of PDM? | ||
| 9 | RFP Reference: | See questions 8 above: LMR radios are included in PDM actions. Antenna, Masts, or any items that are coded as "throw away" items in the TO are not subject to PDM. |
| Topic: Q&A | ||
| Question: Regarding “Requirement Clarification” questions 6 and 7 posted on FBO which indicate that LMR radios as well as antennas and masts are not included in PDM efforts, are there other items that are excluded from PDM efforts that are not listed in PWS paragraph 5.4? Will the government add LMR radios, antennas, and masts as well as any other excluded items to the Special Note in PWS paragraph 5.4? | ||
| 10 | RFP Reference: PWS 5.5 | The 60 days average will be based on data from the last 12 months. Taking the total usage data from the previous 12 months (or 365 days), an average usage for 60 days will be computed. For example, if 18 items were used over 365 days, then the 60 day average would be 18 divided by 365 multiplied by 60 or (18/365 * 60 = 2.95) or 3 items. |
| Topic: Clarification | ||
| Question: Regarding PWS paragraph 5.5, will the government clarify the last sentence of this PWS paragraph? Specifically, clarify the meaning of “(annual basis)”? | ||
| 11 | RFP Reference: PWS 8.1 | PWS paragraph 8.1 has been updated for clarity. |
| Topic: Verbiage | ||
| Question: Regarding PWS paragraph 8.1, will the government clarify the syntax of the paragraph’s first sentence? Are any words missing? Are any words incorrect; should “if” be “of”? | ||
| 12 | RFP Reference: PWS 9.5 | PWS paragraph 9.5 has been updated for clarity. |
| Topic: Verbiage | ||
| Question: Regarding PWS paragraph 9.5, will the government clarify the last sentence of this paragraph? Should it read: The Contractor shall replace GFP (when determined BER is 75% of new part replacement value) if readily available, as directed by the PCO. | ||
| 13 | RFP Reference: Section L paragraph 1.1 and PWS paragraph 1.1, | The language in Section L and PWS now agree. Quantity and types of MSN-7 systems are as follows: eighteen (18) systems (16 operational, 1 trainer and 1 hot mock-up). |
| Topic: Verbiage | ||
| Question: Regarding Section L paragraph 1.1 and PWS paragraph 1.1, will the government clarify quantity and types of MSN-7 systems? Section L states: eighteen (18) (17 operational and 1 hot mock-up). PWS states: eighteen (18) (16 operational, 1 trainer and 1 hot mock-up). | ||
| 14 | RFP Reference: Section L paragraph 3.7.10/Table 2, | The Offeror should create a column in addition to the seven existing columns in Table 2-Requirements Correlation Matrix to enter the corresponding paragraph number for the proposal materials which addresses the required content discussion. |
| Topic: Format | ||
| Question: Regarding Section L paragraph 3.7.10/Table 2, will the government clarify within which column of the Requirements Correlation Matrix shall the corresponding proposal paragraphs be included? | ||
| 15 | RFP Reference: Section L paragraph 3.10.2, | If the offeror wishes to include graphics, including photos, within their submission, they may do so. However, all graphics will be included within the stated page limit. Any pages in excess of the stated page limit will not be evaluated. |
| Topic: Photos | ||
| Question: Regarding Section L paragraph 3.10.2, can photographs be embedded / pasted in the Technical volume? | ||
| 16 | RFP Reference: Section L paragraph 3.13, | Yes, certified, registered, and return mail can be accepted at the provided address. If you desire a hand-receipt to document an on-time delivery, you may also contact the CO and arrange to deliver the submission in person. |
| Topic: Mail | ||
| Question: Regarding Section L paragraph 3.13, can “certified mail” or “registered mail” and “return receipt” mail be accepted at this mailing address/location? | ||
| CATEGORY: History | ||
| 1 | RFP Reference: | FA8102-15-D-0001, AAR Integrated Technologies |
| Topic: Incumbent | ||
| Question: Will the government provide the name of the incumbent contractor, contract number, and contract value? |
&A Answers Posted on 25 July 2019 http://www.fbo.gov/ RFP Q&A (12Aug)
| CATEGORY: Requirement Clarification | Government Response/Action: | |
| 1 | RFP Reference: PWS 4.1 | The Government has received seven requests on average; however, the number of request will vary based on the user's need. As stated in PerformanceWork Statement (PWS) 4.1, the help desk may receive the request via email as well. |
| Topic: Help Desk | ||
| Question: What is the anticipated number (historical number) of calls received by the Help Desk each month? | ||
| 2 | RFP Reference: PWS 4.1 | All contractor personnel with Enhanced Technical Information Management System (ETIMS) can access tech orders. |
| Topic: Help Desk | ||
| Question: If the Help Desk is staffed at multiple locations, will the Government provide multiple sets of technical documents to the Contractor? | ||
| 3 | RFP Reference: PWS 4.1 | There is a 24-hour turnaround on helpdesk responses. |
| Topic: Help Desk | ||
| Question: Is there a fixed time limit for a Help Desk employee to respond to a Help Desk Call? | ||
| 4 | RFP Reference: PWS 5.4 | The contractor will receive Air Force Tech Order (AFTO 227) from the program office. All MSN-7 items that require maintenance will be listed on the AFTO 227. The form will be provided to the successful offeror. |
| Topic: PDM Historical Records | ||
| Question: When an MSN-7 system is received for induction in PDM, to ensure proper PDM attention, will the Contractor also receive documentation from the unit/squadron detailing historical maintenance actions/problems areas associated with that specific MSN-7 system)? | ||
| 5 | RFP Reference: PWS 5.4 | Every component that is on the MSN-7 will stay on the MSN-7. For any equipment that is not bolted on the MSN-7, the Government will make a final determination on whether to send it in with the system or not. |
| Topic: PDM Requirements | ||
| Question: When an MSN-7 systems is received for induction in PDM, will it be fully equipped, or will the originating unit/squadron have removed/disassembled certain components? | ||
| 6 | RFP Reference: PWS 5.4 | Yes. MSN-7 cannot ship without the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV). |
| Topic: PDM Requirements | ||
| Question: Realizing that the Contractor is not responsible for High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) repair or maintenance; will an MSN-7 system received for induction in PDM be accompanied by an HMMWV? | ||
| 7 | RFP Reference: PWS 5.4 | At the Contractor's Facility, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) will perform the acceptance testing. At the field unit, the unit will perform operational inspection. No minimum number of personnel required at the field unit location. |
| Topic: PDM Acceptance Test | ||
| Question: What is the anticipated length (in number of days) of acceptance testing at destination? | ||
| 8 | RFP Reference: PWS 5.4 | The length of acceptance testing at the Contractor's facility will be based on the local DCMA representative. The length of operational inspection will be based on the individual unit. |
| Topic: PDM Acceptance Test | ||
| Question: Will the government provide a list of contract labor categories and quantity of each? | ||
| 9 | RFP Reference: PWS 7.1 | The equipment would be provided as GFP. |
| Topic: Clarification of O&A Expenses | ||
| Question: Will replacement of an electronic equipment such as the entire voice recorder be considered a justified O&A expense or be provided as GFP? | ||
| 10 | RFP Reference: PWS 7.1 | No. The increase cost in painting costs by a subcontractor to the Prime Contractor would not considered as O&A expense. |
| Topic: Clarification of O&A Expenses | ||
| Question: Will an unexpected increase in painting costs by a painting vendor which is beyond the control of the contractor be considered a justified O&A expense? | ||
| 11 | RFP Reference: PWS 7.1 | Yes, subject to the proper inspection, request for proposal, and review process, this could be considered an O&A expense. |
| Topic: Clarification of O&A Expenses | ||
| Question: Will water damage to an MSN-7 system's roof necessitating roof replacement be considered a justified O&A expense? | ||
| 12 | RFP Reference: PWS 5.4 | The Contractor will be responsible for all PDM shipping as well as Parts Shipping and should include all proposed pricing for these tasks in the respective CLINS (CLIN X004 for PDM; CLIN X003 and associated subCLINs for Parts Shipping). The shipping will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP). CLIN X00X ODC which is Cost Reimbursable-No Fee (CR-NF) is for personnel travel only and is subject to Joint Travel Regulations. |
| Topic: Pricing of PDM / Parts Shipping | ||
| Question: Paragraph 5.4 (PDM) does not clearly state who (contractor or government) will be responsible to arrange and pay for shipping of completed PDM MSN-7 systems to OCONUS and CONUS destinations. Will the government clarify PDM shipping responsibilities? If this is a contractor responsibility, and considering the varied destination locations, would this shipping be considered a FFP or CR-NF (Other Direct Cost) cost? | ||
| 13 | RFP Reference: PWS 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 9.1, 9.3 and RFP | The Government is requesting pre-priced parts now, so that the Contractor's management expense throughout the contract is minimal and labor cost is maintenance of the inventory management/tracking system with minimal orders throughout the term of the contract. These Labor costs are to be included in the pricing on the individual parts SubCLINS and are not direct labor hours to be bid separately. |
| Topic: Clarification of Chargeable Hours/Pricing | ||
| Question: The RFP CLIN X003 references PWS paragraphs that have requirements that will require labor hours, however the pricing matrix template provided doesn’t allow for the labor hours to be included and only shows a unit of measure of EA. Price matrix template, Evaluation Quantities columns: L to K are locked by the Government, and Offerors are not allowed to edit. Are we to modify the template to show the hours, or add the necessary hours to another CLIN? For example X003 calls out PWS para’s 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 9.1, & 9.3. Paragraph’s 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 are not referenced in any other CLIN but do have requirements that would require labor hours. The Unit of Measure for X003 in the pricing spreadsheet says EA, but the Unit of Measure in the RFP is LO. Please clarify. | ||
| 14 | RFP Reference: PWS 6.4, 6.6, 9.5, 9.6 | The Government estimates 20 Hours total per year to cover any efforts attributed to tasks in PWS sections 6.4, 6.6, 9.5, and 9.6. These hours are to be included in the CLIN X002 Maintenance Labor and Material effort. Contractor personnel are responsible for any monthly maintenance of contractor provided or purchased systems as a standard process in the performance of any resultant contract. |
| Topic: Clarification of Chargeable Hours/Pricing | ||
| Question: None of the RFP CLIN’s refer to PWS Paragraph’s 6.4, 6.6, 9.5, or 9.6. However each of these PWS paragraphs do have requirements that will necessitate some labor hours. Please clarify how or which CLIN these PWS paragraphs should be included and addressed in the pricing matrix. | ||
| 15 | RFP Reference: RFP Section L.7.3.6 | A Commercial Small Business Plan is acceptable for submission for the requirement for a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in RFP Section L. 7.3.6. The Offeror must still present a separate narrative to address the requirement in Technical Volume, Subfactor 1: Program Management in RFP Section L.4.1.3. |
| Topic: Subcontracting Plan Requirement | ||
| Question: Please confirm if “Commercial Small Business Subcontracting Plans” are acceptable. |
&A Answers Posted on 12 August 2019
RFP Q&A (16Aug)
| CATEGORY: Requirement Clarification | Government Response/Action: | |
| 1 | RFP Reference: RFP Attachment 3 Pricing Matrix | The Government does not have additional manufacturer's NSN for these parts. Due to the age of components and the MSN-7 system, many items will likely need to be manufactured rather than ordered upon replacement/ordering. Specifications for these parts are available in the Technical Orders and associated drawings. To gain access to the Technical Orders and the associated drawings, please submit a Form DD2345 as previously described (originally on July 3, and in subsequent Q&A postings). |
| Topic: CAGE Supplier Pricing Access | ||
| Question: CAGE code suppliers have refused to provide pricing for parts associated with its CAGE listed on GFP list. Instead, they state they intend to sell the parts directly to the Air Force. Are NSN's for the parts on the GFP list available to allow Offerors to directly contact the OEM for pricing? | ||
| 2 | RFP Reference: RFP Attachment 1, Section L.5.3.1 | The Government confirms that the Prime Offeror is to submit up to three Past Performance Information Forms (PPIFs) on current or previous contracts (IAW recency and relevancy instructions) for their company's performance, and up to three PPIFs for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner. Significant Subcontractors are defined as those subcontractors or teaming partners who will perform over 10% of the total contract value OR may perform less than 10% of the total effort but performs a critical function on the effort. (The Teaming Arrangement table in Section 5.0 which is a required submission may help Offerors identify Significant Subcontractors.) |
| Topic:Past Performance Information Forms | ||
| Question: For the MSN-7 CLS effort, Section L, Para 5.3.1 refers Offerors to attachment 1.1 which states significant subcontractors are to submit three (3) PPIFs. However Para 5.3.1, goes on to state that the Offeror should submit up to three (3) PPIFs for significant subcontractors. Please confirm the Section L Para 5.3.1 reference is correct and Offerors and significant subcontractors may submit up to three (3) PPIFs. |
&A
File details come from the government source that posted it.