The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Question Set 3 for RFP FA8106-09-R-0007
| Question # |
| FORMAL RFP QUESTIONS |
| ANSWER |
| 1 |
| Reference Section L page 70 of 106 paragraph 4.2.4. Is it acceptable to include the required "draft FAA Certification Plan" as an attachment to the Model Contract as described in paragraph 7.3.6? |
| The FAA Certification Plan shall be an attachment to the Technical volume, subject to font size and line spacing IAW Section L, paragraph 2.3 The FAA Certification Plan shall be limited to 10 pages. |
| 2 |
| Reference SOO Section 5.6.6. This section requires upgrade to the Aircrew System Trainer (AST), FlightViz Debrief Tool, FMS Table Top Trainers and oil skin cockpit diagrams if impacted by the CNS/ATM program. Which CLIN should these upgrades be bid against and will the Air Force provide a soft copy of the oil skin cockpit diagrams after contract award to facilitate the updates? |
| Option CLIN or CLINs will be added under “Over and Above Fixed Price Per Item” for pricing. |
| 3 |
| SOO paragraph 5.6.6 states: 5.6.6 Aircrew Training System (ATS)/Aircrew Training Device (ATD). ATS requirements shall include the modification of two (2) existing Flight Training Devices (FTD) and four (4) Weapons System Trainers (WSTs). If the CNS/ATM modification affects the Aircrew System Trainer (AST), FlightViz Debrief Tool, FMS Table Top Trainer and oil skin cockpit diagrams, these tools shall be included. (DI-IPSC-81432A, DI-IPSC-81437A) There is no place in the Final RFP CLIN structure to price the underlined additions. Please clarify where these items are to be priced. |
| Option CLIN or CLINs will be added under “Over and Above Fixed Price Per Item” for pricing. |
| 4 |
| Reference: Section L 4.2.4 Subfactor 2; page 70 of 106 |
Background: “Provide a draft FAA Certification Plan.”
Question: Does the draft FAA Certification Plan count against page count?
The FAA Certification Plan shall be an attachment to the Technical volume, subject to font size and line spacing IAW Section L, paragraph 2.3 The FAA Certification Plan shall be limited to 10 pages.
| 5 |
| Reference: Section L 4.2.4 Subfactor 2; page 70 of 106 |
Background: “Provide a draft FAA Certification Plan.”
Question: Should the draft FAA Certification Plan be submitted as an attachment to Subfactor 2?
The FAA Certification Plan shall be an attachment to the Technical volume, subject to font size and line spacing IAW Section L, paragraph 2.3 The FAA Certification Plan shall be limited to 10 pages.
| 6 |
| Reference: Section L 7.3.5; page 77 of 106 |
Background: “Include a Data Rights List IAW special contract requirement H036, Identification and Assertion of Restrictions on Technical Data and Computer Software (Dec 2006).”
Question: The RFP does not contain a Section “H”. Will the government provide the full text for this special contract requirement clause?
Section L 7.3.5; page 77 of 106 should be changed to reflect clause 252.227-7013 Rights in Technical Data—Noncommercial items – Alternate I
| 7 |
| On page 60 of the RFP you have the AFMC clause 5352.215-9007 Use of Non-Government Advisors. Did not take exception to this clause or LCI, however forgot to ask the question as to "does the government have a NDA in place with LCI that would cover the prime contractors"? Since the clause is silent about this and no verbiage was added, contractors typically assume that the government has already done this. Most proposal I have worked will state if it is the responsibility of the contractor to establish a NDA with the government advisor. |
Your response would be greatly appreciated.
Non-disclosures exist for all Non-Government Advisors.
| 8 |
| Clause 5352.209-9002 - The prescribing language for this clause, found at AFMCFARS 5309.507-2 states that the clause should be inserted in solicitations when the contractor's eligibility for future prime contract or subcontract awards shall be restricted because of services being provided as stated in FAR 9.505-1 through 9.505-4. These rules prescribe limitations on contracting as the means of avoiding, neutralizing, or mitigating organizational conflicts of interest that might otherwise exist in the stated situations. This clause is not appropriate for this soliciation; can it be deleted? |
| Clause will be omitted. |
| 9 |
| Clause 52.222-41 - This clause applies only to service contracts and this solicitation is for supplies. Can this clause be deleted? |
| This is the Service Contract Act clause. Although this is not a services contract, we are required to include the clause if there is any inherent service involved in the performance of the contract. |
| 10 |
| Reference Section L, paragraph 6.2.1, page 74: Submission of Pricing Model, states that "The Offeror is requested to submit an electronically encoded price model in support of their proposed price. Any price model submitted must be consistent with an approved estimating system and must duplicate the logic and mathematical formula reflected in the paper copy of your proposal." Page limitations found under paragraph 2.2.3 of Section L indicate that only 2 pages are allotted for this Price Model. Typically, it would require more than two (2) pages to provide the data requested. If two (2) pages is, in fact, the limit, please describe the data to be included. |
| Section L, Table 2.2 states that the price model is limited to 2 pages. Ref. corrected Para 6.2 on page 74 IAW amendment 1 and Question Set 2, question #8. Para 6.2.1 also states: "Price model data files should be .XLS file format (MS-Excel 2003 or earlier) compatible format. These Government estimates include information to be used to develop the TEP. The price model must show how the Offeror derived the evaluated price each year as well as the estimate for TEP of the potential period of contract performance (Basic Period, Options I, II, III, and IV)." |
| 11 |
| Addition of Table Top Trainers did not revise CLIN structure. Looking at available CLINs, it is our assumption that Table Top Trainers are to be priced and delivered under CLIN X016. Please confirm whether this is acceptable. (Note that current plan is to deliver two TTTs during EMD and the remaining three during Production. |
| Option CLIN or CLINs will be added under “Over and Above Fixed Price Per Item” for pricing. |
| 12 |
| SRD paragraph 3.2.4.2.1.7 addresses a 10db VHF fade margin at 200NM LOS. What are the characteristics of the off-board transmitter/receiver (i.e. antenna gains, Receiver sensitivity and Transmit power) to be used in the link analysis |
| SRD paragraph 3.2.4.2.1.7 will be deleted. This response supersedes question #25 from Set #1 of posted responses. |
| 13 |
| SRD paragraph 3.2.4.2.1.8 indicates that the KC-10 shall transmit and receive military VHF voice and data communications without specifying what data communications are being referred to. If this requirement goes beyond the military-specific AOC message set, please identify such data, including protocol and security requirements. |
| Requirement includes datalink traffic that the FAA will require under CPDLC requirement. |
| 14 |
| Regarding SRD paragraph 3.2.4.4.4.1, is ATN a “Threshold” as referenced in KPP#1 Table 1 (CNS/ATM Requirements) or is it an “objective” as cited in paragraph 3.2.4.4.4.1 and 3.2.4.3.5.5? |
| Removed ATN from Table 1. |
| 15 |
| CDRL A025 Block 5 contract reference (SOO 5.3.1.1) indicates Integrated Master Plan (IMP), typically a comprehensive depiction of proposed contract activities are incorporated into the contract at time of award. Block 4, however, cites DI-MGMT-80004A (Management Plan) which describes overall management planning for various specialty areas with a initial delivery with the proposal. Please clarify; does the Air Force expect an Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and a Program Plan as part of the proposal? If so, is there a page limit and will it be incorporated into the resulting contract? Should it be included as an attachment for the model contract? As a recommendation, please note that the detailed nature of an IMP and the sequential nature of its contents argue strongly against its being included in the Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) since doing so would bloat the size of the CRM while adding little utility. |
| An Integrated Master Plan (IMP) will be required IAW Section L, Para. 4.2.7, DoD IMP and IMS Preparation and Users Guide, Version 0.9, 21 Oct 05. The IMP will be an attachment to the technical volume and included in the contract at award. CDRL A025, Management Plan is not required and will be removed. The CRM is a cross reference of the proposal volume and paragraphs to specific RFP requirements, CLINs and other parts of the proposal that contains relative information. The IMP would only be cross-referenced to the requirement paragraph(s) in the RFP, not the contents of the IMP. |
| 16 |
| As now defined, CLIN 0006 constrains effort toward trainer device modification until FY11. With aircraft design beginning in February 2010, a limited revision of CLIN 0006 could allow the trainer device IPT be represented during the upfront aircraft design activities, assuring that trainer functionality is considered in the overall design and that the trainer design effort is fully up to speed in October of 2010. |
| A subCLIN to CLIN 0006 will be added to reflect all three Fiscal periods. |
| 17 |
| FAR 5352.209-9002 appears not to apply to this effort. |
| Clause will be omitted. |
| 18 |
| Online representations and certifications are accurate but could be expanded, for example, by specifically identifying installation location. Does the Air Force desire this additional degree of granularity? Clarification of original question: Question derived from my reaction to closing words of RFP's Section L Para 7.1.7: "After reviewing the ORCA database information, the Offeror verifies by submission of this offer that the representation and certifications currently posted electronically are correct." Our ORCA reps and certs as filed by **** are, of course, "correct" for **** but -- thinking in terms of "the truth" versus "the whole truth" -- cannot simultaneously be true for the whole ****or for all its locations. As a specific example, proposal will be from **** location which exists as an arm of ****. That part's easy. But proposed assembly will be in **** which is totally apart from ****. So, with Section L, para 7.3.4 already asking for CAGE and DUNS codes of other locations, I had planned to provide specifics of **** facility at that point and get clarification from you that I could let ORCA reps and certs stand as "correct" (as in true but not necessarily the whole truth) rather splicing in more specifics. (Question has been altered for anonymity. KM) |
| Section L Para 7.1.7, Representations and Certifications states that it is the Offeror's responsibility to complete the annual representations and certifications. Section L Para 7.3.4 Company/Division address,...; requires different information. "List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate or subcontractor and the percentage of work to be performed at each location." Section L Para 7.1.7 is concerned with the Prime Offeror where 7.3.4 is concerned with who and where the work will be performed. |
| 19 |
| The Technical Manual Contract Requirements (TMCR) for the trainer devices appears to be a full blown technical data package. Given that the changes to the training device may be minimal, full implementation of the CDRL may exceed Air Force needs enough to justify a tailored CDRL more aligned with the scope of the proposed changes. |
| The ATD TMCR (A064) and the Aircraft TMCR (A055) have been amended to use the latest version, TM-86-01N. |
| 20 |
| Paragraph 7.3.6 addresses “Attachments to the Model Contract.” Should this be understood as attachments for use in a model contract? Or is a model contract intended at time of proposal? Please clarify intended approach for arriving at a model contract for each offeror including identification of point at which model contract’s Section B Schedule will include price for each CLIN. |
| A Model Contract is expected from each offeror, to include pricing and proposed delivery schedules, at the time of proposal (Section L Para 7.1). The intent would be to use the Model Contract to build the Award document (contract). |
| 21 |
| Beginning at page 100, table for price evaluation apparently disagrees with RFP Section B’s CLIN structure; i.e., CLINs show 1018 as “reserved” with second FTD under CLIN 2018 while Section M table has second FTD under CLIN 1018. |
| On page 100, CLIN 1018 in the table will be removed. On page 102, CLIN 2018 will be added for FFP for one (1) EA Modification to FTD IAW SOO/SRD. This will be reflected in a RFP amendment. (Note: Same as question 3 on Question Set 2) |
| 22 |
| Background: During the course of documentation and reporting analysis for the proposal, we have identified cases where Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) cited by CDRLS require documentation to be generated for program elements that are beyond the scope of the CNS/ATM Program effort. For example, CDRL A031, Weight & Balance Report for Aircraft is to be accomplished in accordance with DID DI-MGMT-81501A. This DID requires significant data to be included that is not part of the CNS/ATM program. The additional scope can be accomplished, but will add cost and complexity to the program. Other examples apply. Question: Is it the intent of the Government that DID content and format be strictly followed in all cases, or may the contractor tailor the DID content and format, in accordance with standard industry practices for similar programs, to achieve all program requirements for the associated CDRL? |
| The CDRL 1423s should be bid as written including the Weight and Balance. |
| 23 |
| The RFP includes FAR 52.216-11, which is for Cost Reimbursable no-fee contracts. Please clarify if this clause is truly applicable on KC-10 CNS/ATM as we understand this Program to be Firm Fixed Price. |
| Clause is applicable to the Cost Reimbursable Travel. |
| 24 |
| Ref Question Set 1, posted on the KC-10 FBO site on 6-17-09 at 11:30 AM, Question # 8. |
The government's response to Question # 8 stated:
"Differences training will start with the 1st a/c using the FTD and will continue with difference training using the WST when it is delivered at the time of the 7th a/c until all crews have received difference training."
This response is in conflict with other SOO requirements.
SOO paragraph 5.6.6.1. states: "ATS is the primary source of aircrew training for the CNS/ATM modification." This is Flight Safety, who is the current KC-10 ATS contractor.
SOO paragraph 5.6.11 states: "Support the ATS prime contractors with analysis, electronic source data, and courseware requirements to ensure the personnel are adequately trained on the new CNS/ATM functionality.
Please clarify: Does the government expect the CNS/ATM contractor to conduct difference training for all 295 crews?
No, the Government does not expect the CNS/ATM contractor to conduct difference training for all 295 crews. The "all" in the response to question #8 is in reference to the initial squadron aircrews. The original question (#8 posted 6-17-09) appeared to be concerned with schedule for Initial Squadron Aircrew Difference Training and the requirement for one (1) FTD and one (1) WST. The response explained the schedule requirement and the delivery requirements for the FTD and the WST. In SRD para 3.7.3.1, and SOO para 5.6.6.2"...initial squadron aircrew difference training" is for the 1st squadron as defined for IOC.
