The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
E-9 Vendor Questions From Pre-solicitation Conference and Draft RFP
| QUESTION |
| RFP REF |
| ANSWER |
| SOURCE |
| Does the prime contractor HAVE to be ISO certified, or if one of the primary key subcontractors is, does that count as compliance. I just want to make sure that if we as a prime are not certified, but our sub’s are, if that will count as compliant. |
| PWS 4.11 & 4.11.1 |
| The prime contractor's system must be ISO AS9110 compliant. Certification meets the "compliant" requirement. |
| Draft RFP |
Both Attachment 3-Instructions to Offerors (ITO, 4.2.4) and Attachment 4 ((2) Subfactor 2: Zonal Maintenance) - Evaluation Factors refer to PWS 1.4.1.2. The PWS does not contain a paragraph with that number.
Question: Should the reference be PWS 1.4.2?
ITO 4.2.4
EF 2b(2)
| PWS posted as Attachment A to RFP does contain paragraph 1.4.1.2 |
| Draft RFP |
Mission Systems Maintenance Support final sentence stipulates: “The contractor shall provide FAA certification or a Certificate of Conformance (CoC) for repaired parts.”
Question: Are all of the Mission Systems components certified to FAA standards? If not, the contractor cannot provide the required certification for non-FAA approved parts.
| PWS 1.6 |
| For non-FAA approved mission system parts a locally generated CoC is acceptable. PWS will be updated. |
| Draft RFP |
Is touch-up painting permissible in the hangar used for E-9A maintenance?
If not, what is the procedure to comply with this requirement?
| PWS 1.8.3 |
| Touchup painting is allowed in the E-9 maintenance hangar. |
| Draft RFP |
| Are the Technical Drawings and Data in PWS paragraph 1.11.4 considered Government property? Will they be transferred from the incumbent contractor? |
| PWS 1.11.4 |
| Technical drawings and data referenced in PWS paragraph 1.11.4 are government property and will be provided. |
| Draft RFP |
| Will the commercial internet providers be able to provide connections and phone service at the Government’s E-9A facilities for contractor communication between Site and Contractor Program Office? |
| N/A |
| Commercial phone and internet service is available in the E-9 facility. |
| Draft RFP |
Does the existing contract have Award Fee?
| The current contract includes award fees. The follow on contract will not include award fees. |
| Pre-solicitation Conference |
| Is Contractor Support Equipment calibrated by Contractor? |
| PWS 1.7 |
| The contractor is responsible for the calibration of contractor owned support equipment. |
| Pre-solicitation Conference |
| Is office fixture part of GFP? E.g. COMBS Shelving, office computers. |
| RFP App. B |
| A complete listing of all government furnished property can be found in Appendix B to the draft RFP. |
| Pre-solicitation Conference |
Will we get paint code?
| Paint codes are included as part of the paint drawings. All drawings will be provided to the contractor. |
| Pre-solicitation Conference |
| Short of SSR, are other upgrades projected – other than engine. |
| N/A |
| Engine Condition and Trend Monitoring (ECTM) |
Aircraft Data Acquisition System and Data transfer Unit(ADAS) Manufacturer: United Technologies Model: ZK-NEF(ADAS)(d)(V5)
Ground Proximity Warning System(GPWS) Manufacturer: Honeywell Model: MK VI MK VII EGPWS Pre-solicitation Conference
Engine upgrade was there a STC?
| Engine upgrade was completed using a Major Repair and Alteration Form (FAA Form 337) signed by a Designated Engineering Representative (DER) |
| Pre-solicitation Conference |
| Is there a requirement for the Tyndall facility to be Federal Aviation Regulation FAR 145 Certified? |
| 1.4 |
| The Tyndall facility is not required to be FAR Part 145 Certified. The contractor shall provide all maintenance for the E-9 fleet IAW Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 62-5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 14 Part 25, Part 33, Part 35, Part 43, Part 91, and Part 145 (Depot only) |
| Pre-solicitation Conference |
| On the E-9 program, will the government accept an O&A for a Service Bulletin or Service Acton portion only for a part where the SB is required to return the part back to service? |
| PWS 4.15.8 |
| The cost of incorporating Airworthiness Directives, Service Bulletins, and Service Actions required to return a Government owned part to a serviceable condition will be paid by the Government as an over and above cost. The PWS will be updated to clarify. |
| Pre-solicitation Conference |
| Search and Rescue – Weekends? Holidays? Outside 0600-1800hrs? What support does the government want? Section 1.3 already states that we are to support short notice schedule changes. |
| PWS 1.3.6 |
| Paragraph 1.3 provides the requirement to support flight operations. Paragraph 1.3.6 provides the requirement to support SAR operations under paragraph 1.3. Weekend support will be covered as an over and above. PWS will be updated |
| Draft RFP |
Zonal Maintenance – Non hurricane season is December thru May not November to April.
| PWS 1.4.1 |
| The intent is to provide a 45 day period (per aircraft) between November and April to complete the Zonal Maintenance requirements. PWS will be left as is. |
| Draft RFP |
| Aircraft Repaint – Does the telemetry antenna and frame need to be removed for a complete strip and paint? If so, does the government have specialized equipment to provide the paint facility to remove/store the telemetry antenna and frame? Normally a strip and paint doesn’t involve this level of work |
| PWS 4.15.3.1 |
| The telemetry antennas and frame need to be removed from the aircraft for a complete strip and paint effort. Removal instructions in the TM3255 manual do not show a requirement for specialized equipment for the removal/installation of the antenna and frame. |
| Draft RFP |
| Several times, the ITO refers to “model contract/solicitation”, which is also mentioned in Table 2.2 (beginning on page 3.) On page 5, Paragraph 7.1 it specifically states Model Contract Page Limit is N/A. Does that mean there is no model contract requirement “or” does it mean no page limit for a model contract? We are concerned that a model contract takes a much longer preparation period and most small businesses would not be familiar with the legal terms used/required in attempting to provide a model contract for government approval. |
| ITO 7.1 |
| The model contract is Schedule B of the solicitation and is a government provided document. |
| Draft RFP |
| We would like to clarify the “Tab Indexing requirements” for each volume as stated in Para 2.2.7 of the ITO. Should we use the headings that are described in Para 4.1 thru 4.2.6 in their entirety or should we use “only” the major headings, i.e., Executive Summary, TOC (which would normally include a list of the Table and Drawings and the Subfactor headings?) |
| ITO 2.2.7 |
| Tabs required for all elements listed in ITO Table 2.2 |
| Draft RFP |
| The requirement for written verification from the candidate Mission Systems Technicians stating intentions to work for the offeror appears to be a very extraordinary request from the government. It is evident that the mission systems on board the E-9A aircraft are very unique and highly specialized. This fact clearly leads to the government's concern that the winning contractor will be able to retain the technicians presently working for the current contractor. Our concern is that the current contractor is positioned as a significant sub contractor for a competitive bidder. |
| ITO 4.2.5(a) |
| The experience requirements for both intermediate and organizational mission system maintenance personnel are listed in paragraph 4.1.3 of the PWS. Proposed mission system maintainers must meet at least one of the listed minimum experience levels. |
PWS paragraph 4.1.3.2 will be updated to reflect organizational maintenance technicians only have to meet one of the listed experience levels.
Draft RFP
| The ITO indicates Letter(s) of Intent from the TMRS and SSR OEMS are required to verify a formal agreement…..”. Is the Letter of Intent required for “only” the companies indicated in the four (4) bullet statements that follow Para 4.2.5 (b), or are there others? |
| ITO 4.2.5(b) |
| Letters of intent are only required from the TMRS and SSR OEMs listed in ITO paragraph 4.2.5(b). |
| Draft RFP |
| Please clarify Para 6.2.4 of the ITO requiring identification of the cognizant DCAA or DCMA responsible for administration of the Offerors government contracts. Specifically, what contracts does that apply to? |
| ITO 6.2.4 |
| Cognizant DCAA and DCMA are regional based on and CAGE code |
| Draft RFP |
| Para 6.3.2 of the ITO indicates we should state whether or not we have Government approval of our purchasing system. We are not sure whether that means we must have had a DCAA (recent) audit, or what validation is required to prove the government has approved our purchasing system? |
| ITO 6.3.2 |
| Government approved purchasing system is not a requirement. If the vendor’s system is government approved it needs to be indicated. DCAA provides documentation when approving a vendor’s purchasing system |
| Draft RFP |
| Para 7.1 of the ITO states “the Offerors proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Sections A through K”, however, we see no “Section A – K’ included with previous material that has been distributed. The Appendices only include A thru F and there is no reference to Section A thru K in the PWS or the draft RFP although the same Table 2.2 that begins on page 3. |
| ITO 7.1 |
| Changed references in ITO from “Sections A-K” ; to “Paragraph 7.1.1 through 7.1.7”. |
| Draft RFP |
| Para 7.3.1 in the ITO mentions the fact that an Ombudsman has been appointed to hear concerns from Offerors or potential Offerors during the proposal development phase of this acquisition. Should we also contact/copy the Ombudsman during this question and answer period (specifically about the model contract), or should we wait until we receive a response from the contracting office? |
| ITO 7.3.1 |
| The ombudsman is for support outside the contracting office. The ombudsman should be contacted if a vendor feels the contracting officer is not adequately addressing their concerns/issues. |
| Draft RFP |
| PWS, Appendix D, indicates several plans, i.e., Quality Management Plan, Evacuation Plan, System Safety Plan, and Emergency Management Response Plan are due 30 days prior to full contract compliance and the Contract Transition Plan is due 10 days prior to start of transition/phase-in period. May the Offerors be confident there are no additional plans required that are required prior to contract transition/phase-in? |
| PWS |
App D
| All required plans are listed in PWS Appendix D |
| Draft RFP |
16 Jun 10
