Amendment Question Set 1.doc
DOC document 67 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Aircraft Components and Accessories
- Solicitation number
- FA8106-09-R-0007
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
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
Question Set 1 for RFP FA8106-09-R-0007-0001
| Question # |
| AMENDMENT 1 QUESTIONS |
| ANSWERS |
| 1 |
| Reference: Part III – List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments, Section J, Page 56 A |
Background: TMCR_6_26_09.doc Technical Manual contract Requirements for KC-10 CNS/ATM (TM-86-01N/T) TMCR_Trng_Sys_6_26_09.docx Technical Manual Requirements for KC-10 Aircrew Training System (TM-86-01-N/T) Question: Will the Government please provide the two referenced TMCR manuals TMCRs (TM-86-01N/T) will be put immediately in bidders' library and the RFP will be amended to include these.
| 2 |
| Reference: RFP Amendment issued July 8, 2009 – deletion of CDRL A011, Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) Plan |
Background: There is an USAF Instruction requirement for a Life Cycle Support Plan.
Question: How should the contractor provide the ILS information?
The Government has no requirement for this data item.
| 3 |
| According to the revised Section L Paragraph 4.2.7 Subfactor 5, the IOC completion date is still FY2013. Is this the AF intent? If we can meet the FOC date of FY2015, is it still necessary to meet the 2013 IOC date? Would our proposal be considered non-compliant if it portrays a program schedule that shows IOC later than FY 2013, but achieves FOC by 2015? The recently disclosed slip of three (3) months to the planned contract award date adds risk to the attainment of FY2013 IOC. |
| There is no change to the IOC and FOC dates. Offerors shall propose per the RFP. |
| 4 |
| According to revised SOO Paragraph 5.3.5.1, IBRs are now required as soon as feasible after PDR "and subsequently after all program major events/milestones". The Interim Defense Acquisition Guidebook section 4.3.3.4.1 IBR agrees that the first IBR should be no later than 180 days after contract award but describes subsequent IBRs to be completed when "(2) exercise of significant contract options, and (3) the incorporation of major modifications. Does the AF really want IBRs after every event/milestone such as CDR, PRR, FTRR, etc? |
| Offerors shall propose per the RFP. |
| 5 |
| RFP Notice 2 dated July 1, 2009 stated: |
"3. Due to USAF acquisition policy changes, the previously announced expected award date of Feb 2010 will be changed. The new expected award date is now projected for May 2010. This date will be reflected in the forthcoming Amendment."
The Amendment and attachments did not include any changes in language indicating a change in the expected award date, and the Solicitation Synopsis on the FBO website as of July 11, 2009, states the "Award is anticipated to be in February 2010."
Offeror requests clarification of the anticipated award date, the IOC and FOC dates with the change in award date, and when the update to the RFP will be released reflecting these new dates?
No change to IOC and FOC Dates. Award date is now scheduled to be May 2010.
| 6 |
| Part I, Section B of the Amendment adds CLINs x025 which includes a reference to "Exhibit: A". |
Offeror requests confirmation this is the same Exhibit A referenced in the RFP as DD FORM 1423 and is attached to the Amendment as "FA810609R0007_______0001_CDRL_Summary_and_CDRL_Change_Pages_Amendment_8_Jul_09.pdf,” or Exhibit A provided via the FBO website.
Reference to Exhibit A is correct. Will add SOO reference (paragraph 5.6.6.) with amendment.
| 7 |
| Part III, Section J of the Amendment, List of Attachments, includes references to "TMCR_2_23_09.doc" and "TMCR_Trng_Sys_3_12_09.docx." Offeror's assumption is these are the referenced documents for CDRLs A055 and A064, respectively. The previous revision of CDRL A055 required a draft of the Technical Publications TMCR be included in the proposal. |
When will these attachments be provided for Offeror tailoring and inclusion in the proposal as required per the previous version?
TMCRs (TM-86-01N/T) will be put immediately in bidders' library and the RFP will be amended to include these.
| 8 |
| Section L, Subfactor 2 (a) and Section M, Subfactor 2 (a) SRD references do not match. Section M includes SRD reference 3.2.9.2 in addition to the references made in Section L. Section L, Subfactor 5 (c) was modified as part of this Amendment. Section M, Subfactor 5 (c) has not been modified to match Section L. |
When will the update to the RFP be released to include Section L and M containing the same SRD references?
Will add SRD paragraph 3.2.9.2 to section L subfactor 2(a). Subfactor 5c match in both Section L and Section M.. Amendment will be released after questions are posted.
| 9 |
| SOO section 5.6.6.5 and SRD section 3.7.4.4 describe program work scope detailing providing an initial spares package for the ATDs. Per the pricing instructions in the RFP and further clarification per Question Set 1, questions 7 & 18, and Question Set 2, questions 1, 2 & 15, the ATD Initial Spares CLIN (x019) is not to be priced. |
Offeror recommends deleting SRD section 3.7.4.4, and updating SOO section 5.6.6.5 to state the requirement for an initial ATD spares list lead time prior to ATD PRR as similarly defined for the aircraft spares list in SOO section 5.4.6.1. Also recommend updating Sections L and M to refer to SOO section 5.6.6.5 for Subfactors 4(d) and 5 (e) in place of SRD section 3.7.4.4.
SOO 5.6.6.5 will be amended as follows: FROM: “5.6.6.5 Develop and deliver an appropriate ATD initial spares package for each modified device to support the 98 percent device availability requirement. (CDD Threshold) “ TO: “5.6.6.5 Develop ATD spares list for each modified device to support the 98 percent device availability requirement. (CDD Threshold) (DI-ILSS-80134A)" Will change CDRL DI-ILSS-80134A to add SOO Paragraph 5.6.6.5. Will delete this from Section L & M and SRD.
| 10 |
| Part IV, Section L of the Amendment requires an Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) be attached to the proposal Technical volume and imposes the proposal formatting requirements to the attachments. Microsoft Project does not allow for changes of line spacing. Additionally, this Amendment removed the CDRL (A025) requirement from the SOO, section 5.3.1.1, removing the CDRL number and DID to track the delivery against, as well as delivery tracking for all subsequent updates during contract execution. |
Will updates to the IMP not be required as part of the contract and baselining process, or will a CDRL be reassigned to the IMP to track deliveries during contract execution?
The DoD no longer has a DID for an IMP, ie, CDRL A025 DID is no longer valid. Therefore it was deleted. The proposed IMP will become part of the contract after award. Updates will be accomplished per the contract change process.
| 11 |
| SRD sections 3.2.10.1.1 and 3.2.10.1.2 are duplicates of SOO sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2, and contain program work scope descriptions, not CNS/ATM system requirement statements. |
Offeror recommends SRD sections 3.2.10.1.1 and 3.2.10.1.2 be deleted, and Sections L and M, Subfactor 5 (c) refer to the SOO sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2.
Recommendation noted.
| 12 |
| SOO section 1.3.2 contains the statement "IOC also include... and enough spares for operations at home and in deployment kits." Amendment 1 removed this requirement from Sections L and M, and elsewhere in the SOO, but did not correct the description in SOO section 1.3.2. |
Offeror recommends SOO section 1.3.2 be updated to reflect removal of spares from this program work scope description.
Will modify SOO Para 1.3.2 to add: .....enough spares (as negotiated)
| 13 |
| SOO sections 5.4.6.2.1 through 5.4.6.4 describes program work scope to support spares which Question Set 1, question 7, states are not part of this contract. |
Offeror recommends deleting SOO sections 5.4.6.2.1 through 5.4.6.4 to eliminate further confusion regarding inclusion of spares within the scope of this contract.
No SOO changes will be made. Initial spares will be negotiated after the spare list is recieved.
| 14 |
| SRD section 3.9.1, Depot-Level Maintenance, is a duplicate of SOO section 5.4.9 and provides a definition of CLS program work scope. |
Offeror recommends deleting SRD section 3.9.1 in lieu of SOO section 5.4.9, and rewording to describe program work scope for the KC-10 CNS/ATM Program, not the CLS contractor work scope.
Recommendation noted.
| 15 |
| SRD section 3.10, Technical Order (T.O.) Source Data, is a near duplicate of SOO sections 5.5.3 through 5.5.12, and describes program work scope. Specific discrepancies include requirement for TO Guidance Conference within 30 calendar days per the SOO (5.5.3.1), but 60 calendar days per the SRD (3.10.1.1), and where paper copies of manuals are to be delivered (SOO 5.5.8 vs SRD 3.10.8.1). |
Offeror recommends deleting SRD section 3.10 in total in lieu of SOO sections 5.5.3 through 5.5.12, and incorporating clarifying language into the appropriate SOO sections.
SOO will be changed to allow 60 days calendar for the TO Guidance Conference. FROM: “5.5.3.1. TO Guidance Conference. Conduct a TO Guidance Conference within 30 calendar days after contract award. (DI-ADMN-81249A, DI-ADMN-81250A/T, DI-ADMN-81373)” TO: “5.5.3.1. TO Guidance Conference. Conduct a TO Guidance Conference within 60 calendar days after contract award. (DI-ADMN-81249A, DI-ADMN-81250A/T, DI-ADMN-81373)”
| 16 |
| SRD section 3.11.1.4, Vendor Manuals/Service Literature, clarifies program work scope described in SOO section 5.5.15. Further, SRD section 3.11.1.4.1 has not been updated with the change from the "Bill of Materials" CDRL to the "Parts List" CDRL requirement. |
Offeror recommends moving SRD sections 3.11.1.4.2 through 3.44.1.4.3 to SOO section 5.5.15, and deleting SRD section 3.11.1.4 in lieu of SOO section 5.5.15.
SRD para 3.11.1.4.1 will be revised to change from BOM to Parts list.
| 17 |
| SRD sections 3.7 (Training) and 3.8 (Maintenance Training) are a near duplicate of SOO section 5.6 (Training), and describes program work where duplicated between the documents. |
Offeror recommends the following: - Add SRD section 3.7.1.2 to SOO section 5.6, or delete, - Add SRD section 3.7.1.4 to SOO section 5.6.1, or delete, - Add SRD section 3.7.4.2 7 3.7.4.5 to SOO section 5.6.6, or delete, - Add SRD sections 3.8.1.1, 3.8.1.2, 3.8.2.2, 3.8.2.4 & 3.8.4.1 to SOO section 5.6.12, or delete, and - Delete SRD sections 3.7 and 3.8, except subsections 3.7.4.8.1 and 3.7.4.9, in lieu of SOO section 5.6.
Recommendation noted.
| 18 |
| From Amendment page 13 of 15: |
THIRTY-NINTH: Change SRD Paragraph 3.2.4.2.1.1 (Page 9):
FROM:
“3.2.4.2.1.1. The KC-10 CNS/ATM Program shall provide beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) and line-of-sight (LOS) voice and data mission communications during all phases of flight and ground operations (THRESHOLD).”
TO:
“3.2.4.2.1.1. The KC-10 CNS/ATM Program shall provide beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) and line-of-sight (LOS) voice and data communications during all phases of flight and ground operations (THRESHOLD).”” However, the attached change pages do not reflect the deletion of “mission’ from the requirement statement.
Which is correct, the Amendment contents or the change page record?
Should have deleted “mission” on change page. Will provide a corrected change page.
| 19 |
| SRD section 3.11, Data Management, not including subsections, is a duplicate of SOO section 5.2.1.3, and contains a program work scope description, not a CNS/ATM system requirements statement. |
Offeror recommends the text contained in SRD section 3.11, not including subsections, be deleted.
Recommendation noted.
| 20 |
| SRD section 3.6.5.1 states the need to complete a System Safety Assessment Report (CDRL A045, DI-SAFT-80102), which is a duplicate of the program work scope description stated in SOO section 5.2.2. |
Offeror recommends SRD section 3.6.5.1 be moved from the SRD to SOO section 5.2.2 to describe the program work scope and requirement for a System Safety Assessment Report as a deliverable.
Recommendation noted.
| 21 |
| SRD section 3.9.3 describes program work scope to repair CCIs IAW COMSEC procedures, as required. SOO section 5.2.4 describes Security related program work scope. |
Offeror recommends SRD section 3.9.3 be deleted, and SOO section 5.2.4 be revised to describe the program work scope to repair CCIs IAW COMSEC procedures, as required.
Recommendation noted.
| 22 |
| SRD sections 3.6.4.2 and 3.6.4.3 contain descriptions of program work scope regarding completing frequency planning and providing the documentation associated with the planning. SOO section 5.2.7 implies the need to complete this work scope. |
Offeror recommends SRD sections 3.6.4.2 and 3.6.4.3 be moved from the SRD to SOO section 5.2.7 to describe the program work scope and deliverable requirements.
Recommendation noted.
| 23 |
| SRD section 3.2.9 and subsections expand on the program work scope description for FAA certification and deliverables to show compliance as stated in SOO section 5.2.10. |
Offeror recommends SRD section 3.2.9 and subsections be moved from the SRD to SOO section 5.2.10 to describe the program work scope and deliverable requirements.
Recommendation noted.
| 24 |
| SRD sections 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 describe the program work scope for a SIL including a cockpit mockup, and configuration management, deliverable description, certification/calibration, etc. SOO section 5.2.11.2 implies the need to complete this work scope. |
Offeror recommends SRD sections 3.12.4 and 3.12.5, and subsections, be moved from the SRD to SOO section 5.2.11.2 to describe the program work scope and deliverable requirements.
Recommendation noted.
| 25 |
| SRD section 3.9.9.5 regarding HFE effort is a duplicate of SOO section 5.2.12, not including SOO subsections, and describes the program work scope, not a CNS/ATM system requirement. |
Offeror recommends deleting SRD section 3.9.9.5 in lieu of SOO section 5.2.12.
Recommendation noted.
| 26 |
| SRD section 3.9.9.2 regarding inclusion of HSI expertise is a duplicate of SOO section 5.2.12.2 and describes the program work scope, not a CNS/ATM system requirement. |
Offeror recommends deleting SRD section 3.9.9.2 in lieu of SOO section 5.2.12.2.
Recommendation noted.
| 27 |
| SRD section 3.3.3 regarding HAZMAT describes program work scope and is a duplicate of SOO section 5.2.13, except for SRD subsection 3.3.3.3, which is not present in SOO section 5.2.13. |
Offeror recommends adding the statement in SRD subsection 3.3.3.3 to SOO section 5.2.13, and deleting SRD section 3.3.3 in total.
Recommendation noted.
| 28 |
| SRD section 3.12, Test and Evaluation, except subsections 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 covering the SIL and discussed above, describe program work scope for system test and evaluation in nearly duplicate language as described in SOO section 5.3.9. |
Offeror recommends adding the statements in SRD subsection 3.12.6, AEIT, to SOO section 3.12, and deleting SRD section 3.12.
Recommendation noted.
| 29 |
| SRD sections 3.6.5.2.1 (HERF) and 3.6.5.3.1 (HERP) describe program work scope related to conduction of tests. SOO section 5.3.9.2.6 describes the system test conduction and reporting program work scope. |
Offeror recommends adding the statements in SRD sections 3.6.5.2.1 (HERF) and 3.6.5.3.1 (HERP) to SOO section 5.3.9.2.6, and deleting SRD sections 3.6.5.2.1 and 3.6.5.3.1.
Recommendation noted.
| 30 |
| SRD section 3.9.7, Support Equipment (SE)/Test Equipment (TE), and subsections describes program work scope and is a duplicate of SOO section 5.4.4 and subsections. |
Offeror recommends deleting SRD section 3.9.7 in total in lieu of SOO section 5.4.4.
Recommendation noted.
| 31 |
| SRD section 3.9.2, Spares, and subsections describes program work scope and duplicates SOO sections 5.4.6.2.1 through 5.4.6.4. |
Offeror recommends deleting SRD section 3.9.2 in total in lieu of SOO sections 5.4.6.2.1 through 5.4.6.4.
Recommendation noted.
| 32 |
| SRD sections 3.9.4 through 3.9.6, Key Logistics Criteria, Program Support, and Mobility/Airlift Requirements/Constraints, are duplicates of SOO sections 5.4.10 through 5.4.12, and describe program work scope. |
Offeror recommends deleting SRD sections 3.9.4 through 3.9.6 in lieu of SOO sections 5.4.10 through 5.4.12.
Recommendation noted.
| 33 |
| SRD section 3.11.1 through 3.11.1.3, except for 3.11.1.1, is a duplicate of SOO section 5.5.14, and describes program work scope. |
Offeror recommends moving SRD section 3.11.1.1 to SOO section 5.5.14 and deleting SRD sections 3.11.1 through 3.11.1.3 in lieu of SOO section 5.5.14.
Recommendation noted.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .