Industry_Day_QA_log_14_Feb_13.pdf

AS OF 14 FEB 2013

QUESTION AND ANSWER LOG

C-32A, C-40B AND C-40C CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT (CLS)

SOLICITATION #: FA8106-13-R-0002

SOLICITATION TYPE: SOURCES SOUGHT

INDUSTRY DAY

14 DECEMBER 2012

Note and Disclaimer: The following questions were received before, during or shortly after the Industry Day for the anticipated C-32A, C-40B and C-40C CLS acquisition. This announcement is not a contract, request for proposal (RFP), a promise to contract, or a commitment of any kind on the part of the Government. Attendance at Industry Day and participation in the market research for this action remains strictly voluntary. The Air Force (AF) will not assume liability for costs incurred by an attendee or for travel expenses or marketing efforts; therefore, attendee's cost in response to the notice is not an allowable direct charge and will not be reimbursed by the Government. The answers provided in response to industry’s questions are preliminary and not binding on the government. The Government reserves the right to update, change and/or withdraw answers to questions and any RFP may or may not incorporate these answers. Questions are non-attributed and answers are posted for any interested participant.

1. Who is your Program Executive Officer (PEO)? Our PEO is Mr. Kevin Buckley, AFLCMC/WL, Chief of Mobility Directorate, with the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center.

2. How is this contract to be funded? Under a specific program element (PE) in the AF Budget or in some broader PE? This contract will have multiple funding sources to include Active Duty Air Force (ADAF), AF Reserve Command (AFRC) and Air National Guard (ANG). Basic contract funding will be annual BP3400 funding which comes through the Centralized Asset Management (CAM) budget process. Modification kits and activities will be funded by investment funding processes for each of the basic model series (C-32A and C-40B/C). Over and above will be funded by appropriate funds profile.

3. Do parts require Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) or do you accept PMA parts?

All parts must meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspection and documentation requirements. PMA is an FAA approval process for modification and replacement articles. The Contractor must maintain approved configuration baseline of all systems.

4. Do we require a FAA Part 121 certificate for this contract? At this time, we are not planning to require FAA Part 121 certification and license for this contract. Instead, we will require maintenance practices equivalent with FAA Part 121 and/or FAR Part 43 for maintaining AF Airworthiness. We will provide further clarification in draft PWS updates and Instructions to Offerors for comment. We will still require FAR Part 145 certification on the commercial model equivalent for depot level work.

5. Reference Performance Work Statement (PWS) 3.33 - Will modifications to the on-board communications networking, computing and antenna system be included in the scope of this contract? (manufacturer/model/number)? Modifications to the on-board systems are a required capability, but no specific modification installation is currently part of the initial requirement. Modifications will normally be worked as separate actions.

6. If so, what is the current baseline capability on each aircraft (manufacturer/ model/ number)? We will provide that at a later date.

7. We would like to verify that C-check heavy maintenance is required to be performed at a facility or facilities located in the United States. Is this correct?

That is under investigation and will be based upon security and export control limitations. Specific requirement will be in the DD254 and PWS.

8. Is there a similar requirement for subcontracted component or module repair?

Not at this time. However, all repairs/overhauls have to maintain FAA certification.

9. PWS section 3.6 states, “The Contractor shall ensure engines meet serviceability and functional test requirements applicable to Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) specifications. Are the PW2000 and CFM56-7 engines maintained to OEM commercial manuals? The engines are maintained to OEM standards plus tailored requirements above the minimums. The MAINTENIX program integrates these requirements and generates task cards for A and C checks to maintain serviceability.

The MAINTENIX requirements will be provided as Government Data to the Contractor.

Details are being worked on this process. Overhaul and Engine shop visits are per the OEM commercial manuals and SPO approved Service Literature.

10. If so, similar to the CF6-50 on KC-10, will the AF provide blanket approvals so that competing contractors can bid FAA approved alternate parts and repairs knowing they can be installed without need for further USAF approval? No blanket approvals are anticipated. We will investigate further on this issue and provide more information at a later date if required.

11. If not, what review approval steps will need to be accomplished in order to bid FAA approved parts and repairs? Offeror’s proposal must support configuration at contract award. Any change to form fit or functions will require formal configuration and air worthiness change evaluation and process. The Contractor must maintain FAA Type Certification (TC) configuration control to include ensuring alternate parts have been approved by System Program Office (SPO) through Service Action Review Board (SARB)/Configuration Control Board (CCB) process.

12. Will the reviews and approvals be accomplished prior to contract award? None are anticipated. The offeror’s proposal must meet the requirements of the RFP and

PWS.

13. Will the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structure of the current contract be provided? At this time, the structure of the current contract will not be provided because we anticipate that that the new contract will have a different structure.

14. Do you anticipate any changes in the CLIN structure? Yes, the RFP will have its unique CLIN structure.

15. Will the placed in service (born on date) be made available to bidders for the C-40 and C-32 installed engines and spares? For AF operated engines and Auxiliary Power Units (APUs), this data will be made available. As a reminder, the AF currently owns no spare engines or APUs. As such, the actual engine/APU on-board at time of contract award may change. We will provide as much data as feasible.

16. Will bidders be able to obtain non-proprietary Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR) data in order to determine spend on aircraft and engine maintenance? No.

CFSR data is proprietary.

17. PWS section 3.7.4.4 requires, ~~contract Full-Time Equivalent Manpower Reporting. The contractor shall report ALL contractor labor hours (including subcontractor labor hours) required for performance of services provided under this contract via a secure data collection site. The contractor is required to completely fill in all required data fields using the following web address, http://www.ecmra.mil. (CDRL to be determined (TBD)) Is this a new reporting requirement? Yes.

18. What is the due date of the report? Annually as of 30 Sep with report due no later than 31 Oct.

19. How will this information be used? To facilitate DoD’s annual report to Congress on contracted services to the Government.

20. How will proprietary information be protected? Please see the CRMA website for details on protection processes.

21. How is information for sub-contractors gathered? Please see the CRMA website for details on this process.

22. What is the due date of the subcontract report? Same as the Prime’s. 31 Oct of each year on the previous 1 Oct to 30 Sep.

23. PWS Section 3.13.4 states, "The Contractor is encouraged to develop, prepare and submit Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECPs) voluntarily. PWS Section 3.13.4 states, "The Contractor is encouraged to develop, prepare and submit Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECPs) voluntarily. The Contractor shall share in any net acquisition savings realized from the accepted VECPs in accordance with FAR Part 52.248-1. (CDRL TBD)" Has the method to share savings been determined? If yes, what is that method? As this clause does not apply to commercial products per FAR 48.201, we anticipate this paragraph/clause will be removed from the PWS/RFP.

24. PWS section 3.19.3 requires the contractor to provide, Engine Condition Monitoring (ECM) Support. The Contractor shall provide ECM support to monitor and analyze engine performance data received from each installed engine in order to detect engine deterioration at an early stage and allow for corrective action before safe operation is effected, prevent damage, and ensure that engine limit margins are not exceeded. This paragraph infers that contractor recommendations for on wing corrective maintenance will be accepted and implemented in order to keep the engine on wing and eliminate an unscheduled removal. Is there a current track record of these actions? Yes, this happens as an independent action on the part of the contractor with info to the crew. This is not currently independently tracked and reported.

25. Will this be made available? This is not anticipated as a separate report, but engine maintenance will be provided, as available.

26. This paragraph infers that an active Engine Fleet Management program exists. Is this assumption true? Yes. These requirements are being defined and will be provided in a future PWS update.

27. Can you describe the non-proprietary activities of the Engine Fleet Management Program? See Question 26.

28. PWS section 3.21.3. "Engines and APUs" provides the quantity of AF owned engines. Sections 3.21.3.1 also states, "If more than 2 spares are required, the Contactor shall lease any required additional engines under a separate contract action.” PWS section 3.38 states, “The Contractor shall provide a leased engine when authorized in writing by the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO).” For the lease requirement in 3.21.3.1, does the AF fund the lease for the 2 engines?

This area is still under development. We anticipate that the RFP will require the contractor to maintain 2 dedicated spare engines each for the C-32A and C-40 and include their solution to this requirement as part of bid package. The engines and APUs are to be baselined to current configuration to include incorporated/approved Service Bulletins. It is further anticipated that any lease required above the two spare engines provided by the contractor would have to be negotiated separately based upon reason for need and availability of specifically configured engine and it being acceptable for use.

29. Does the AF specify the spares levels that must be leased for both C-40 and C-32?

Normally no. However, for engines, we are still investigating this and how engine lease costs will be incorporated into the contract. For other spare levels, the offeror’s sustainment plan must address their spares plan to include insurance levels at specific bases, strategy to obtain and sustain spares, systems and the aircraft and meet PWS requirements. To assist this, we plan to release historical data on various support areas such engine histories, consumption reports for the last 2-3 years, approved “over and above” repairs at C-checks as well as task cards executed at recent A-checks and C-checks. We will also provide long range schedules for A-checks and C-checks and will provide known tasks scheduled with that specific checks. The offerors are advised that many tasks are based upon hours or cycles and that a change in aircraft utilization can drive a change to the scheduled tasks at a specific A-check or C-Check.

30. PWS section 3.21.3.1 is for C-32. PWS Section 3.21.3.2 does not contain similar language concerning a lease. Will the lease requirement limited to the C-32A?

This section is under review and will be updated. It is anticipated that C-32A and C- 40B/C will have similar requirements for spare levels and sustainment.

31. In what situations has a lease been required in the current contract? The lease was required to support service bulletin incorporation of engines on C-32A and C-40B/C.

32. Does the AF specify the spares levels that must be leased for both C-40 and C-32?

See question 29.

33. If yes, what are those spares levels that are specified? If no, what are the spares levels provided by the current contractor? That information is proprietary and not releasable. However, we do plan to release consumption and other historical data to facilitate spares planning by offerors.

34. Is a lease a separately funded line item with additional funds added to the contract to support the requirement? Or must a bidder consider this cost in their proposals? See question 29.

35. What spares support scenario is contemplated? See question 29. The use of a “scenario” for the RFP has not yet been determined.

36. Are lease costs funded as a separate line item in the contract? See question 29.

37. In the past 6 months, we have seen 2 or 3 Request for Quotes (RFQ) for C-32A PW2040 engine overhaul to commercial entities. We would have expected overhauls for both C-32A and C-40 to be accomplished under the current CLS contract and production schedule and not via a commercial bid for individual engine overhauls. What was the reason for the commercial engine overhaul bids?

You would need to contact the office that released the RFQs for their clarification. How offerors plan to support their future engine work is unknown at this time.

38. Do you expect this situation to be repeated in the new CLS contract? See question 29 and 37.

39. PWS section 3.22.5 states, "Depot Maintenance Schedule. PWS section 3.22.5 states, "Depot Maintenance Schedule. The contractor shall plan/schedule all work to be complete within 25 calendar days." PWS section 3.36 states, "The Contractor shall accomplish scheduled engine overhauls and landing gear overhauls in accordance with (IAW) the OEM specification for the C-32A and C-40 aircraft using a FAA Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 145 repair facility."

What exhaust gas temperature (EGT) and EGT margin is being achieved by the current CLS contractor? Specific EGT and EGT margins are not part of current contracts. These ratios may be provided in engine health and history forms.

40. What is the EGT and EGT margin requirement for the new CLS contract? At this time, no specific margin is directed. Engine specification is per OEM performance specifications.

41. PWS section 1.2.2. FAA application to Covered Aircraft. The USAF C-32A and the C-40B and C-40C fleets are maintained IAW Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 21- 1, and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 21-101 which require these aircraft to continue to maintain and comply with the applicable military standards (which encompasses applicable civil requirements). And so, these FAA Transport Type Certified aircraft are maintained in a manner consistent with Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 using a combination of government and industry maintenance systems and procedures as described herein. Thus in order to ensure continued maintenance in a manner consistent with Title 14, CFR Part 121, the Contractor shall hold a current CFR Part 121 certificate. FAA TC requirements are also maintained IAW AFPD 62-6 and AFI 62-601 when modifying these aircraft to maintain safety, airworthiness and configuration control.

Question: Will the CFR Part 121 Certificate be required at contract award? Or will Government solicit a timeline to obtain a 121 Certificate post contract award? See Question 4. The Government will provide the specifics for demonstrating/documenting specific maintenance capability in the Instruction to Offerors.

42. Item Unique Identifier (IUID) Requirements. Question: Has an IUID program been established and exercised on the current contract? No, except at the aircraft level where a single IUID barcode was installed on the aircraft. It should be noted that all items managed by base supply will have to comply with IUID requirements in support of AFMAN 23-110, AF Supply manual. We will expand this information in the PWS, as applicable.

43. PWS section 3.11.1. Personnel Safety. Question: Will the successful offeror be required to supply/maintain the required fall protection engineering devices at each Maintenance Operation Base (MOB) locations? The Contractor is responsible for providing and maintaining all safety equipment for Contractor’s employees and Contractor’s subcontracted labor. The Contractor also provides and sustains these items at full CLS sites for both Contractor and Air Force use. At Partial CLS sites, the Government furnishes and maintains their equipment.

44. PWS section 3.21.2. The Contractor shall maintain a non-proprietary inventory data management system that provides real-time inventory balance, and transaction/ transaction history. It shall support and provide logistics analysis tools to develop trends by part, system, aircraft or unit. The Contractor shall ensure that FAA certification data and documentation of parts is maintained and preserved for accountability and traceability. The contractor shall report Contractor Owned and Maintained Base Supply (COMBS) inventory and transactions monthly. (CDRL) Question: Will Government provide historical material management data for the platforms in future FedBizOpps.gov updates?

The holdings of the current contractor are proprietary and not releasable. However, we plan to release the Government Furnished Material (GFM) listings and historical consumption data.

45. PWS section 3.22.1. The Contractor shall schedule and manage all aircraft maintenance (short/long-term and intermediate/depot) planning for full CLS aircraft and all depot visits for both full and partial CLS aircraft to maximize aircraft availability. The Contractor shall provide to the Government an aircraft and engine 5-year depot maintenance schedule for current and out-year funding and aircraft scheduling planning. (CDRL TBD) Question: Will Government provide historical maintenance planning data for the platforms in future FedBizOpps.gov updates? To some degree, yes. However, we cannot certify data accuracy. We are also investigating our maintenance planning functions and responsibilities and will provide an update on this in later responses.

46. PWS section 3.23.1. Depot Maintenance Scope. The Contractor shall provide all depot level capability required to perform work required herein this PWS to include, but not limited to: Question: Will there be unique security requirements for off-station/commercial repair facilities? Yes. Specifics are being developed and will be provided in future PWS updates and/or the draft DD 254, Contract Security Classification Specification, provided with the draft RFP.

47. "Industry Briefing Slides: MSG-3 Maintenance Management Concept Questions:

Will both platforms be managed under the MSG-3 concept/schedules? If so, will Government share this data in future FedBizOpps.gov updates? We do not use formal MSG-3 at this time; however maintenance requirements are based upon those concepts. Maintenance requirements are generated by MAINTENEX based upon our unique low utilization maintenance plan.

48. Firm Fixed Price Flight Hour Rate (FFPFH) rate Question: If Government elects to exercise a FFPFH rate, will the repair of Government unique line replacement units be included in this FFPFH rate? This support strategy is under review. This will be more clearly explained in future PWS updates. Even if repairs are not included, the COMBS process at all sites and O-level maintenance activities at full CLS sites will be included in the FPPH rate.

49. Can you tell us the current incumbent of this full CLS effort on each airframe?

Boeing Government Transportation and Executive Services (GTES) is the current incumbent. Full CLS is only performed on the C-40Bs at Ramstein and Hickam. All others are partial CLS.

50. Will the Government provide a listing of the spares and equipment lists currently being maintained for current effort? We will provide the Government Furnished Material (GFM) listings only. The current contractor’s holdings are proprietary.

51. Are full facilities for depot provided by the government at Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) locations or are they fully provided for by a contractor?

The Government provides no depot facilities. The Contractor must provide depot facilities. Currently all scheduled heavy maintenance is performed in the continental United States (CONUS).

52. (Follow on to #51) Can you provide us the name of the company which is providing Program Depot Maintenance (PDM) support at OCONUS locations, assuming the incumbent is subbing PDM efforts at non- government depot facilities? We do not provide subcontracting actions of the prime.

53. What is the official name of the program: Contractor Logistics Support, Fleet Logistics Support, or Fleet Sustainment Support (intro slide, slide 15 and 16)?

There is no "Official" name. We are using C-32/C-40 Contractor Logistics Support as a short title.

54. Does the Non-Mission Capable - Maintenance (NMCM) rate < 8% at Ramstein and Hickam include both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance? (Slide 14). Yes, for the line (O-level) maintenance. Depot level maintenance is not part of the NMCM rate.

55. Will the model contract or the PWS contain formulas to calculate all the service metrics? (i.e. Mission Capable (MC), (NMCM), Not Mission Capable - Supply (NMCS), etc.) (slide 14) The PWS will have the basic calculation. Aircraft reporting is controlled by AFI 21-103.

56. Does the note imply that all Mission Communications systems are included in the NMCM calculation at Ramstein and Hickam regardless of their Minimum Equipment List (MEL) designation or status? (slide 14) That was a possibility, however the MEL for this contract is not yet defined and the final version may or may not include the Mission Comm. The MEL is a living document.

57. What is the current Andrews Base maintenance contract requirement for NMCM?

(Slide 14) That is outside the scope of this action.

58. In the brief NMCS and Partially Mission Capable - Supply (PMCS) rates are stated as per system / per location as opposed to per model and site as in the PWS (ref Para 3.6). Does the noun “system” refer to the “weapon system” or aircraft model? If not, can the government provide a list of aircraft systems which are covered by the metric? (Slide 14) In this instance it means the individual model such as C-32A, C-40B and C-40C. At Andrews, where multiple "models" are supported, each individual model (C-32A, C-40B, C-40C) is measured against its performance requirements.

59. Are all missions flown from Ramstein and Hickam considered to be Distinguished Visitor (DV) missions? No. There are also local types such as training missions, non- DV and ferry flights to PDM facilities.

60. Will the Government provide a complete list of Government Furnished Property (GFP)/Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)? (slide 15) Yes, but verification is in progress and it will be provided later.

61. Since these aircraft transit Extended Operations (ETOPS)/Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) transoceanic routes, will aircraft maintenance activities performed at the field and in depot require ETOPS dual maintenance certification and practices? All maintenance performed by the contractor must satisfy aircraft configuration and mission capability requirements to include ETOPS and RVSM per FAA standards. Additional guidance will be included in future PWS updates.

62. Will RVSM and Category III (CAT III) autoland certifications be required of aircraft maintenance personnel? (slide 15) We anticipate this and we will provide supplemental instructions.

63. Can the government clarify the extent of World-wide support requirements? Will export, customs and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) compliance be a requirement? (slide 15) World-wide is all encompassing. Import/Export, customs, ITAR compliance is a core requirement.

64. Does field team support include aircraft on the ground (AOG) support both CONUS and OCONUS? (slide 16) Yes, to include Area of Responsibility (AOR) if needed.

65. Do the aircraft status reporting requirements Core Automated Maintenance System (CAMS)/ Reliability and Maintainability Information System (REMIS) apply to both scheduled and un-scheduled maintenance? (slide 17) Yes, at full CLS sites for organizational support. It applies to all aircraft for depot level maintenance, field teams, mod teams, etc.

66. Some Reliability and Maintenance (R&M) data needed for comprehensive trends and analysis for this fleet may be performed by the OEM or other engineering parties under a separate contracting vehicle(s) like an engineering services support contract. What will be the scope/boundaries of the R&M program and analysis for the CLS contractor? That is in work at this time.

67. How will R&M data be integrated and shared? (slide 17) See Question 66.

68. The list of Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) needed to provide full CLS service support of this fleet documented in the PWS (paragraph 3.7.7.1) does not include a listing for the Engineering Service Support contract mentioned throughout. Is there an ACA missing? We will add the ACA for the ESS contract and potentially others as well.

69. What company holds the data and drawings for improvements to the green aircraft (i.e. auxiliary fuel, communications systems, etc.) or any military unique systems which have been added to the platforms? A list of the Supplemental Type

Certificates (STCs) will be provided. Most drawings are held by the OEM or STC holder.

We will provide details as available.

70. Will an ACA be required to support these systems/improvements? That is anticipated.

71. When will ACAs need to be in place? (slide 17) As required to support Contractor’s transition and sustainment plans. Documentation of ACA coverage/strategy may be required as part of submitted proposals. If so, this will be detailed in the Instructions to Offerors.

72. Can the government provide detail on the scope of the Mechanical Equipment and Subsystems Integrity Program (MECSIP)? Yes, we will post information on this at a later date.

73. Will it include subsets of individual systems integrity programs? (For instance, an Avionics Systems Integrity Program, a Landing Gear Integrity Program, etc.)

(slide 18) TBD.

74. Will Field Service Representative (FSR) or other technical support be required for the Hickam and Andrews maintenance crews? (Slide 19) That is anticipated.

75. What experience and qualifications will be needed? See the PWS.

76. How many FSRs per site would the government desire? The government doesn't specify a quantity, but the Contractor must provide adequate numbers to meet the PWS and 24 hour coverage.

77. How much of the 737 commercial aircraft and systems are common to the C- 40B(s) at Hickam and Ramstein? Specific details will be provided in the proposal library when established. It may be added to the FBO information, if fully releasable.

78. Will platform specific technical experience or support be required of the maintenance staff at these full CLS operating bases? (slide 20) See the PWS.

Your team must support your sustainment strategy and maintain FAA certification.

79. Could the government specify which key personnel or skills will be required to have a secret security clearance? (slide 22) Security requirements will be as required to comply with PWS and DD 254. This includes personnel needing recurring access to the flight line, FSRs, site manager, COMBS personnel handling Communications Security (COMSEC) and classified Line Replaceable Units (LRUs), etc.

80. Are special procedures and standards for Very Important Person (VIP) paint part of the quality program plan? Yes, it is a contract specification.

81. Will program plans be a required delivery of the proposal submittal? That is anticipated.

82. Are program plans a Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) delivery? (slide 22) That is anticipated.

83. Will a field team support plan, including response to (AOG) support be included in the program plans? Which plan? (slide 22) That is anticipated. Specifics will be in the RFP.

84. Would the government entertain an approach to use a blended FAR Part 12 and FAR Part 15 contract which aligns contract line items to leverage commercial best practices and yet retains needed government reporting and management disciplines? (slide 23) At this time, the Government plans to pursue a FAR Part 12 contract.

85. Could the government provide more information on the award term incentives being considered for option years 5 and 6? (slide 24) TBD

86. Will the government allow small business goals to be met using a significant (major subcontractor) or partner small business performance in addition to the percentages of small businesses utilized by the prime contractor? (Second tier applicability) (slide 26) This would be based on the market research performed, history and the combined analysis to determine if 2nd and 3rd tier subcontracting are the only opportunities available. The justification for the use of 2nd and 3rd tier subcontracting will be based on the government's assessment and may be addressed within the Small Business Utilization Plan and Instructions to Offerors. Since there is no privity of contract between the prime and the sub to a sub, application of 3rd tier credit is more difficult to support.

87. In reference to the DFARS clause 252.225-7008, will the government allow a waiver from Berry Amendment for acquisition of Specialty Metals? (slide 26) TBD, but is not likely. This information will be provided in the Instructions to Offerors in the RFP.

88. Could the government provide more information on the relevancy and confidence rating requirements for past performance? (slide 27) TBD. This information will be provided in the Instructions to Offerors in the RFP.

89. Will both Past Performance (PP) and Experience volumes be required? TBD. This information will be provided in the Instructions to Offerors in the RFP.

90. Limiting the number of pages for either of these volumes can compromise the evaluator /evaluation team ability to understand, qualify and evaluate the recentness and relevance of a contractor’s past performance (PP). Can the government provide an indication of the number of pages which may be allowed in addition to past performance information (PPI) sheets for each PP candidate?

Recommendation is 30-50 pages per PP candidate. (slide 27) TBD. This information will be provided in the Instructions to Offerors in the RFP.

91. Do FSRs fall under the COMBS management CLIN? TBD

92. Which CLIN will include program and logistics management functions (labor)?

(slide 28) TBD

93. Will the draft Request for Proposals (DRFP) be released prior or provided at the pre-solicitation conference in August 2013? (slide 29) We plan to release no later than the pre-solicitation conference.

94. Is there a business structure (organizational chart) for the current contract? That is proprietary and not releasable.

95. Is this project considered a new requirement? No.

96. If this project is not considered a new requirement; who is the incumbent? Boeing

GTES.

97. What is the contract number? F33657-01-D-0013

98. What was an estimated value? $835,000,000

99. PWS section 3.1.2 states that the contractor will "maintain Covered Aircraft in a manner consistent with CFR Part 121 and contractor's Part 121 processes/procedures". Par 3.1.3 states that "The Contractor shall hold a current CFR Part 121 certificate". Request that we explore the possibility of servicing this contract IAW Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) 8210.1, Service guidance, and in a manner consistent with 14 CFR 121114 CFR 145 processes/procedures. DCMA 8210.1 is not an equivalent to FAR Part 121 or FAR Part 145. Use of DCMA for oversight has not yet been determined. See Question 4.

100. COMBS requirements state a requirement for the contractor to provide primary spare engines and APUs. Are these in addition to the stated number of engine and APUs that the Government owns? Additionally, are the stated engines and APU in addition to the ones installed on the aircraft or are they the ones currently installed? See question 29.

101. It is conceivable that due to the mission and DV customers supported by these aircraft that foreign nationals would not be eligible for work on the aircraft covered. And based on prior experience with the Ramstein-based DoD Contractor Personnel Office (DOCPER) and German guidelines for achieving Technical Expert Status Accreditation (TESA) status, there is a notable risk that if Germany-based, non-local personnel requiring TESA but not requiring a U.S. secret clearance could be denied TESA status. Has the Government developed a mitigation plan in the event that DOCPER or the German authorities do not accredit all required CLS personnel positions with TESA? National Security impacts and ability to utilize local nationals is being investigated. Once that decision is made, any impacts to TESA will be evaluated and information to Offerors will be provided.

102. Although not specifically clarified in this PWS, could it be that all OCONUS C- 32/C-40 CLS support personnel will require a U.S. secret clearance? It is possible, but it would be based upon the Contractor's manpower strategy and how they plan to divide duties and responsibilities. We will investigate security requirements and provide further information at a later date.

103. Per PWS section 3.13.4 of the 30 Nov 2012 updated PWS the Government states that they encourage voluntary Value Engineering initiatives to reduce acquisition costs and that the Contractor shall share in any subsequent net acquisition savings. PWS section 3.13.5.5 also states that the Contractor shall execute a Systems Engineering program to achieve minimized program costs. Although not clarified in the PWS, does the Government intend to share any subsequent net acquisition or program savings with the Contractor as a result of savings due to initiatives targeted by the Systems Engineering program? See Question 84. This requirement is planned to be removed as we now plan to pursue a FAR Part 12 contract.

104. Are secret level security clearances required for engine technicians performing depot level engine maintenance/repair/overhaul (MRO) in Canada? This is not anticipated.

105. Statement: During Industry Day it was briefed there are no spare engines for either C-32 or C-40 aircraft (A/C). No defined spare engine requirement may work for new aircraft (A/C). Some of these A/C are approaching major engine MRO workscopes requiring engine removal & shipment to a depot-level engine MRO provider. Question: How is it possible for a prime contractor to meet performance based logistics (PBL) contract requirements and stringent mission capable requirements without a without spare engine requirement in the contract? The Contractor will be responsible for having the capability to provide spare engines if required for meeting performance requirements. We have not yet determined how that will be implemented.

106. Please describe the specific data collected, the information routing & infrastructure required for each A/C, by type model series (TMS), by Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). This is in work. We will provide in a later submission.

107. Will ACARS services & coverage be a requirement on the CLS contract? Yes. The PWS will be expanded to clarify the requirement.

108. How will the government verify the qualifications, experience, and readiness to support of the competitors key personnel? TBD. The process and evaluation of technical requirements will be provided in the RFP instructions.

109. Is the government considering an approach similar to other RFPs where specific skills and years of experience are required for key personnel? That is provided in the PWS.

110. Will resumes for key personnel be required? See question 108.

111. Will evidence of utilization of a workforce with the necessary qualifications be required in the past performance volume in order to support the key personnel requirements of the technical volume? See question 108.

112. How will the government ensure that bidders can provide the necessary level of support equipment needed to execute the maintenance requirements? See question 108.

113. Will the government require competitors to show evidence of possession of peculiar support equipment on day one of contract execution? The intent is for the contractor to have necessary and required equipment on day 1 of “full performance” to meet PWS performance. However, not ALL peculiar support equipment is required on day 1; some is only required for depot operations. The RFP will provide details on how offerors are to document their support and transition plan to include common and peculiar support equipment.

114. Will the contract require that bidders be able to provide documentation of available support equipment needed for contract execution on day one? See question 113.

115. What will the follow-on contract require a contractor to provide as insurance spares? This is currently TBD. However, it should be noted that this is a performance based contract and it is the offeror’s responsibility to determine the logistics and spares position to meet the PWS requirements. The Government does reserve the right to specify in the PWS specific required spares levels for certain critical assets.

116. How will bidders be required to address ability to provide spares for unique mission and communications systems? This is TBD.

117. Will evidence of ownership of or ability to acquire insurance spares be required?

Yes. Specifics will be provided in the RFP instructions.

118. "In order to satisfy CLS Program Metrics, including Not Mission Capable Supply, Dispatch Reliability, and AOG Response, a qualified contractor should have ready access to all of the parts on the MEL and all of the parts that commonly fail, plus others that may fail within the contract period of performance but less often. A commercial FAA certified parts pool approach can be an integral component to ensuring air-worthiness and sustaining these high readiness rates related to supply. Will the new contract have this or a similar authorization requirement as part of the technical package? If not, how will the government determine whether the contractor proposed parts pool meets the government’s needs and desired NMCS rates?” Parts support capability will be a technical requirement, but the solution is left to the individual offeror. The RFP will provide instructions on required documentation to demonstrate the capability.

119. Will a document similar to the ISSP (Integrated System Support Plan) be required as a basis for FAA parts pooling authority? See Question 118.

120. What is the required response time for in-country AOGs? TBD.

121. Will the contractor be responsible for all transportation and export/ITAR requirements, including shipment and customs? For the most part, yes. Unique conditions may require Government assistance.

122. What Service Metrics will be required in the RFP? These are in work, but draft requirements have been provided. Expect changes and additions to these metrics in the final version released with the RFP.

123. Will ability to meet service metrics be a pass/fail requirement for the technical volume? TBD.

124. Will documentation of service metrics be required in the past performance section of the proposal? TBD.

125. Will incentives/penalties regarding service metrics be outlined in the RFP? Yes.

126. Are there plans for a fall 2012 Industry Day or PWS release for this Acquisition?

Accomplished 11 Dec 2012.

127. Is the government prepared to release the date for Industry Day? Accomplished 11 Dec 2012.

128. When will a notional Acquisition Schedule be available / posted on FBO? This was provided in the Industry Day briefing package.

129. Does the government intend to use a Performance Price Trade-Off (PPT) evaluation method for Source Selection? TBD.

130. Which Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) method will the government use? TBD.

131. What period of performance will the government solicit for Past Performance candidates? TBD.

132. In order to reduce risk of securing an inexperienced or lesser qualified contractor, what risk measures will be addressed as criteria to ensure relevant and substantial past performance is possessed by the bidder? All criteria and proposal evaluation requirements will be provided in the RFP Instructions to Offerors.

133. Is the government considering a Flying Hour program where the contractor provides supply support and inventory management through use of an annual Cost per Flight Hour (CPFH) variable rate? We are investigating this approach, but no final decision has been made.

134. Does the Government have a complete set of Military Unique Equipment to include in the bidders library? The Government will not provide actual hardware in the proposal library. We will provide some data, but the level of detail has not yet been determined.

135. Does the Government have a complete and comprehensive inventory of GFE/GFP? See Question 60.

136. Does the Government have a complete set of material and process specifications? No. Most of those are OEM proprietary due to their commercial nature. It is the offeror’s responsibility to obtain access to this type data.

137. Will the Government be able to provide a complete Technical Data Package of nonproprietary aircraft information (737/757 service bulletins, IPC, specifications etc.) prior to publication of the final RFP so that competitors have adequate time to review, ask questions, and understand the aircraft and supply configurations needed to provide full CLS support? We do not maintain a complete tech package in the Program Office. Available information will be provided to the maximum extent practical and available/releasable due to proprietary restrictions.

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ORAL QUESTIONS WERE MADE DURING THE 11 DEC 2012

INDUSTRY DAY. RESPONSES MADE THAT DAY ARE INDICATED. ANY CHANGES TO

THE RESPONSE ON THAT DAY ARE SEPARATELY CALLED OUT.

138. Are there COMSEC requirements? Yes, but they will not be discussed in this open forum. They will be part of the PWS.

139. Will tech data from manufacturer be provided? No, the CLS contractor will have to negotiate with data owner. The government will provide the Air Force maintenance library data.

The following additional information is added to the original response. The CLS contractor will also have to work with individual vendors, OEMs, STC holders, etc. for data access just as commercial operators/maintainers do.

140. Will past performance be based on all other contracts that a company has performed? Relevancy to the contract effort will likely be a factor.

141. How do you reconcile the Contractor Manpower Reporting Requirement with this effort being considered a FAR Part 12/Firm Fixed Price contract? The government source selection team has these same questions. It has been made an official requirement that is not something that the team can change.

142. Will information on aircraft/engine time in service/time between overhauls be shared? Will we be able to plan at least a year in advance? See question 29.

143. Will data be provided regarding parts usage rate? The government cannot certify that data, but will provide the data as best we can.

144. How soon do you expect a decision on pricing the contract, such as using a flying hour basis? That decision will be made before the pre-solicitation meeting.

145. Will there be incentives and/or penalties connected to the performance metrics?

TBD.

146. How will the mission systems contract interface with the CLS contract? We are not prepared to answer that at this time.

147. Will there be rebadging of previous personnel from incumbent contractor? The government would encourage this.

148. Since the Service Contract Act (SCA) is expected to be incorporated, will the incumbent employees have the first right of refusal? We believe so, but not sure of the status of that executive order. Of note, the SCA does not apply in Germany.

The following additional information is added to the original response. We have been advised that since the current contract is a supply contract and the new one is a services contract, the Right of First Refusal does not apply. However, this is not a formal legal opinion, but our understanding of the rules in effect. The Final Rule for enforcement of Executive Order 13495, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts, has been published and is effective 18 Jan 2013. The final rule is available on the Department of Labor website at http://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts/SCANonDisplcmntFinalRule.htm. We will continue to investigate this and its applicability to this action.

149. Is the maintenance plan not based on MSG-3? The government is working this issue. We need additional information from current contractor. It should be provided around May 2013.

The following additional information is added to the original response. See question 47.

150. Has there been a determination of the percentage of small business participation?

That decision has not been made. We will aim for maximum extent practical, in coordination with our Small Business Office.

151. What is the guidance on the FAA 121 definition of “Like Equipment” in terms of type/flag carrier? We will research this question and get back to you.

152. If a small business is the prime, then you do not need a subcontracting plan?

Correct, no you would not.

153. With full CLS services at Hickam and Ramstein, are C-checks included? Yes, C-checks are required at Hickam and Ramstein. However they are not accomplished on station. They must be coordinated at other locations. In Germany, there may be requirements to wash the planes off-base as well.

154. Will the government provide the current aircraft checks-data schedule? The government will provide as much information as we can.

The following additional information is added to the original response. This data will be provided with the historical data.

155. Does the incumbent contractor schedule the checks? There is an umbrella maintenance requirement from the Engineering Services Contract. The maintenance plan itself is up to the CLS contractor. Boeing has the task cards. We need to be able to forecast out the next 3 years. Each task will be separately negotiated.

The following additional information is added to the original response. The process and controls for the forecasted C-checks is currently in review and this approach may change. The pricing of future C-Checks will be addressed in the RFP Instructions.

156. Will the pricing be one fixed price for 3 years, or 3 one-year prices? 3 one-year prices. More information will be forthcoming about the pricing plan.

The following additional information is added to the original response. Multiyear contracting will not be used. The Government now plans to issue the RFP for a basic period plus option years for a total of 7 years (or 7 years plus 120 day transition period). We are investigating utilizing each of the last two Option Years be http://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts/SCANonDisplcmntFinalRule.htm earned individual incentives. Actual requirements for offerors will be provided in the RFP and Instructions to Offerors.

157. Do any C-checks fall in the first year? Yes, a detailed schedule will be provided for each platform by tail number.

158. Is there a need for a 121 certificate in the PWS? Yes.

The following additional information is added to the original response. This answer has changed to No. See Question 4 for more information.

159. Does the prime need to have the 121 or can one of the partner teams have the 121? The government will take this as an action item, addressing whether we need the 121 at all.

The following additional information is added to the original response. The requirement for a FAR Part 121 license will be removed. See Question 4 for more information.

160. Our company has had problems before with AOG’s, such as when it occurs in the AOR. How will these be handled? How will it be priced? The AOG requirement will be added later. The CLS contractor will not be penalized if an engine is down. That would put it in depot status. Rates for over and above and CFT’s will need to be set ahead of time. The CLS contractor needs to be able to send their team worldwide whenever something like this happens.

161. Is there a list of parts not deliverable by FEDEX or DHL? There are DOD supply channels. If it is a cryptographic part, it will be handled on a case by case basis. There is nothing top secret in this contract, so a classified courier should not be needed.

162. At the full CLS sites, is launch and recovery needed and is there a crew chief?

Yes, launch and recovery is needed at full CLS sites, and a crew chief is part of the aircrew.

The following additional information is added to the original response. A Flying Crew Chief is not used on all missions.

163. Will there be subfactors in past performance for processes? Yes, that is a significant part. We will develop the subfactors from a Risk Workshop early next year (2013).

The following additional information is added to the original response. Factors and Subfactors have not yet been determined and will be provided in the RFP Instructions to Offerors.

164. We have some concerns about the interdependency of the CLS and ESS contracts. There is overlap and redundancies. The Government recognizes this.

We are working to better define responsibilities and requirements for each of the contracts. Details will be provided in future PWS updates.

165. Will the PWS be edited for better subject matter flow? There will be revisions to the

PWS.

166. Is there a decision about different pieces of the contract being FAR Part 12 and others being FAR Part 15? No decision has been made yet. There are pros and cons to each, and hybrids are difficult.