RFP_Questions_and_Responses__1_02_Dec_14.pdf

FA8106-13-R-0002

POST RFP QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES #1

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

Reference PWS 1.18.4.5 and 1.18.4.6. We recommend the Government re-number as PWS 1.18.3.2 and 1.18.3.3 and place under 1.18.3 Landing Gears.

Is the Government agreeable?

Concur; paragraphs will be renumbered and relocated, RFP -

Appendix L para.

3.3.2.a/Appendix M para.

2.2.2.a reference PWS para.

1.17-1.17.1.14 which do not exist. Recommend they be changed to 1.17.2-.1.17.2.14

Concur, L 3.3.2.a and M 2.2.2.a will be updated

RFP -

Appendix L para.

3.3.2.a/Appendix M para.

2.2.2.a reference PWS para.

1.17.10. This reference is

for Line Mx and not Depot Mx.

Concur, L 3.3.2.a and M 2.2.2.a will be updated

RFP -

CLIN X258 and CLIN X259 reference PWS 1.17.1.1.1.4;

recommend this be changed to 1.17.2.1.1.4.

Concur, CLIN reference will be updated

RFP -

CLIN X254 and CLIN X255 reference PWS 1.17.1.4;

recommend this be changed to 1.17.2.4.

Concur, CLIN reference will be updated

RFP -

CLIN X252 and CLIN X253 reference PWS 1.17.1.7;

recommend this be changed to 1.17.2.7.

Concur, CLIN reference will be updated

RFP -

CLIN X101and CLIN X102 reference PWS 1.17.1.7.3;

recommend this be changed to 1.17.10.

Concur, CLIN reference will be updated

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

CLIN X101and CLIN X102 reference PWS 1.17.1.11 - 1.17.1.11.3; recommend this be changed to 1.17.10.1 – 1.17.10.13

Concur, CLIN reference will be updated

RFP -

CLIN X262and CLIN X263 reference PWS 1.17.6;

recommend this be changed to 1.17.7.

Concur, CLIN reference will be updated

RFP -

Appendix L para.

3.3.2.b/Appendix M para.

2.2.2.b reference PWS para.

1.171.11; recommend this be changed to 1.17.10.

Concur, L 3.3.2.b and M 2.2.2.b will be updated

RFP -

Appendix L para.

3.3.2.b/Appendix M para.

2.2.2.b, CLIN X240, CLIN X241, CLIN X242, and CLIN X243 reference PWS para.

1.175.5; recommend these be changed to 1.17.6.5.

Concur, L 3.3.2.b and M 2.2.2.b will be updated

RFP -

Appendix L para.

3.3.2.b/Appendix M para.

2.2.2.b, reference PWS para.

1.17.7-1.17.10.4; please provide correct reference

Concur, L 3.3.2.b and M 2.2.2.b will be updated

RFP -

CLIN X236, X237, X238 and CLIN X239 reference PWS 1.17.10; recommend this be changed to 1.17.6

Concur, CLIN reference will be updated

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

Reference PWS 1.17.10.12 that refers to 1.17.10.11, which is a title only paragraph. Recommend adding PWS 1.17.10.12 text to PWS 1.17.10.11 and deleting PWS 1.17.10.12.

Subsequently, PWS

1.17.10.13 would be revised to PWS 1.17.10.12.

Concur; change will be made.

1.17.10.10 was also similarly corrected

RFP -

Appendix L para.

3.3.2.c/Appendix M para.

2.2.2.c/CLIN X256/CLIN X257 reference PWS 1.17.11; recommend this be changed to 1.17.12.

Concur, L 3.3.2.c and M 2.2.2.c will be updated

RFP -

Appendix L para.

3.3.2.d/Appendix M para.

2.2.2.d reference PWS 1.17.1.11, which doesn't exist; recommend this be deleted.

Concur, L 3.3.2.d and M 2.2.2.d will be updated

RFP -

CLIN X258 and X259 reference PWS para. 1.17.4;

recommend this be changed to 1.17.5

Concur, CLIN reference will be updated

RFP -

Appendix L para.

3.3.3.a/Appendix M para.

2.2.3.a reference PWS 1.7.5 twice; recommend one of the references be deleted.

Concur, L 3.3.3.a and M 2.2.3.a will be updated

RFP -

Appendix L para.

3.3.3.a/Appendix M para.

2.2.3.a reference PWS 1.7.5.4; recommend this be changed to 1.17.1.6.4

Concur, L3.3.3.b and M 2.2.3.b will be updated

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

CLIN X101 and X102 reference PWS para.

1.17.6.4; recommend this be deleted.

Concur; this reference will be removed.

RFP -

Language in the RFP reflects “[t]he firm fixed price shall include all direct and indirect costs to perform the requirements.”

Previous language in the Draft RFP reflected the “Landing Gear overhaul/repair will be separately negotiated, priced and awarded as the need arises” (per event using fixed labor or material rates)The relevant language in the RFP applies a fixed price for all events (overhaul or repair).

Thus, should an offeror price CLINs X248, X249, X250 and X251 with an overall assumption of cost based upon a mix of overhaul and repair efforts?

Also, the DRAFT PWS defined Landing Gear work as Overhaul / Repair. Is ‘Restoration’ equivalent to Overhaul / Repair?

Only the latest posted instructions apply. The Contractor shall price CLINs X248, X249, X250 and X251 as Firm Fixed Price per event for restorations only.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

What is the number of engines in the fleet?

See PWS paragraphs 1.18.4.1 and

1.18.4.2. There are 8 C-32A and

22 C-40B/C engines. These are the engines originally delivered with the aircraft.

RFP -

How many serviceable spare engines support this fleet?

The Government owns no spare engines (APUs or Landing Gear Assemblies). The Offeror must provide sufficient spare engines available to support the fleet to performance requirements of the PWS. The number, placement, and support strategy are left to each Offeror to determine

RFP -

What is the Thrust rating of engines?

C-32A is rated 41,700 lbs.; C- 40B/C is rated 27,300 lbs.

RFP -

Are Service bulletin incorporation part of the Depot overhauls?

Unless the Service Bulletin is called out in the task card listing for a specific C-Check FFP effort, it will normally be added through the AFTO 103 process. For time critical/time sensitive actions it can be added as Over and Above as negotiated by the PCO.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

What is the LLP Disk sheet and Cycle limiter of each engine

C-32A: See current OEM literature for details and specific items.

Generally, the High pressure Turbine (HPT) Module has life-limited parts with a cycle limit of 15,000 cycles; the High Pressure Combustor (HPC) module has life-limited parts with a cycle limit of 20,000 cycles.

C-40B/C: See current OEM literature for details and specific items.

Fan LLPs: Fan disk is 17,900 cycles; Booster spool is 23,600 cycles and the Fan Shaft is 30,000 cycles.

HPC LLPs: Compressor Discharge Pressure (CDP) Rotating Rear Air Seal - 17500 cycles; most other LLPs are 20,000 cycles.

HPT LLPs: HPT Rotor Disk - 10,300 cycles; Front Rotating Air Seal - 11,700 cycles; HPT Rotor front Shaft is 14,000 cycles and HPT Rear Shaft is 16,5000 cycles.

Low Pressure Turbine (LPTs) LLPs: Most LPT LLPs are 25,000 cycles.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

PWS Paragraph 1.18.5.3:

Can the government expand on this section? Is this section implying the Air Force organic wheel, tire and component supply responsibility is totally to a contractor responsibility?

C-32A, C-40B at Joint Base Andrews (89 AW):Wheel and tire build-up is done by the base maintenance contractor with the Offeror providing all materials and parts.

C-40C at Joint Base Andrews (201 AS - ANG)/Scott AFB (93 MXG - AFRC) - Wheel and tire build-up is done by the ANG/AFRC Maintenance Unit with the Offeror providing all materials and parts.

C-40B at Joint Base PH-Hickam (15 MXG) and Ramstein AB (86 MOS) the offeror is responsible for all wheel and tire build-up to include providing all parts and materials. The host unit will provide joint use of wheel and tire shop on a non-interference basis.

The PWS will be updated to clarify this requirement.

RFP -

PWS general: Is the government intent to maintain the fleet 100% ETOPS, unless specifically approved otherwise by the government?

ETOPS is a primary mission capability for all fleets and must be maintained.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

Subscription services. Will the government provide a list of subscription services so competitors can accurately price the services?

There is no Government list of subscription services for this solicitation. Offerors must determine subscription services required to execute the PWS and their sustainment strategy.

RFP -

Appendix M Para 2.3.1 Table The referenced table states “all offerors rated as ‘Substantial Confidence’ will be considered equal”. The same citation in the draft solicitation stated “all offerors given the same rating (e.g.

Substantial or Satisfactory) will be considered equal”.

Will offers rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” be considered equal? If they are not considered equal, then please explain the evaluation process and how one “Satisfactory Confidence” rating would receive more merit in “the best value award decision”.

No, only those offerors rated

"SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE"

are considered equally. The Government cannot trade price between two or more offerors rated

"SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE".

All others that are technically acceptable can have performance confidence traded with price to include the lowest priced Technically Acceptable Offeror with a "SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE" rating.

RFP -

Performance WORK Statement (PWS) 1.3.2 COMBS Supply Support: Is the list of Mission Communications systems spare parts going to be included in the bidder’s library?

Available Government Spares are Provided in Appendix B.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

When will the bidder’s library be available?

The Bidder’s Library is available now through closure of the solicitation. It is available only by appointment through the PCO, with the appropriate documentation per ITO paragraph 2.2.7

RFP -

PWS paragraph 3.1.6.3:

Subscription services. Will the government provide a list of subscription services so competitors can accurately price the services?

There is no list of Subscription Services required as it is based upon the Offeror's strategy and plans for meeting the PWS requirements.

RFP -

PWS Paragraph 1.18.6.8:

Support Equipment. Will the incumbent contractor transfer the contractor owned support equipment to the new contractor, and if so, what are the transfer charges?

The Government has no part in negotiations between the incumbent and offerors for contractor owned parts, support equipment, or other materials.

RFP -

PWS Paragraph 1.18.6.9.3 Customs: Since the PCO/ACO will assist with Duty Free Entry Certificates;

will the contractor incur NMCS downtime waiting for PCO/ACO results? This requirement appears to be a joint action, rather than a contractor’s sole responsibility.

Suggest government clarify roles and responsibilities for customs clearance and the effect of customs downtime effect on NMCS.

If unusual Government Induced delays are encountered, the Contractor may request Non- Reporting Time credit per PWS paragraph 1.11.5. Otherwise standard NMCS/PMCS time calculations shall apply. See DFARS 225.9 and the referenced DFARS PGI 225.9 for procedures and documentation requirements.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

PWS Paragraph 1.21:

Training. Regarding the maintenance and systems training for covered aircraft, this requirement seems to be open ended. Can the government provide the types and numbers of courses required, and the training subjects?

There are no preplanned training requirements for this PWS paragraph at this time. If identified and needed, they will be separately negotiated through the PCO.

RFP -

Is it the government’s intent that the Contractor will indemnify against all parties while on Main Operating Bases (MOBs); even if an act or omission through negligence is causes by the government or third party (neither the contractor nor their respective subcontractors)? As an example, AF-provided fleet service, fuel servicing, certain third party services, and condition of hangar facilities could all impact safety and security of government assets.

The Air Force requires the contractor to indemnify the government for damages caused by the contractor's acts or omissions. If the facts show that the damage was a result of the contractor's acts or omissions then the government would require the contractor to indemnify it. The question of what constitutes the contractors acts or omissions is going to be dependent on the facts of the situation. It is possible that the damage could actually be done by Air Force personnel but still be caused by the contractor's acts or omission.

Example, if the contractor improperly maintains a piece of government furnished equipment and Air Force personnel cause damage using that GFE, then the damage could be caused by the contractor's acts or omissions.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

RFP Government Property Clause (52.245-1 Government Property (April 2012): The RFP PWS has identified certain assets listed as high value assets that remain GFP when they are removed from the aircraft (PWS 1.18.2.1). Since aircraft parts are predominantly contractor provided and not GFP;

please confirm that contractor spare parts not classified as HVAs can be handled as an exchange item within the confines of an FAA 14 CFR 121 certified parts pool.

Contractor provided parts are not Government HVA items. The original engines, APUs and LGAs delivered with the aircraft are Government HVA and title is not transferred to the contractor when leased/spare assets are provided by the Contractor. FAA CFR 121 controls and decisions to include a certified parts pool exchange items would be based upon approvals and agreements between the offeror and the FAA and would be based upon the offeror’s sustainment strategy.

RFP -

Paragraph 2.3.3 of the Appendix L requires that the attachments identified in Table 2.1 Proposal Organization shall be separately bound. Please clarify which attachments identified in Table 2.1 shall be separately bound.

Each volume must be in a separate binder. Depending on the size of the binder used and the information provided, the Offeror may have to break an individual volume into multiple binders.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

Paragraph 3.3.1.b of the Appendix L requires that Offerors shall complete the attached Proposed Team List (ITO Atch 2.0) including PWS key Points of Contact.

Please clarify if the Proposed Team List is included in the 6-page limit for Subcontracts as specified in Table 2.1 Proposal Organization.

This has been separated in the Appendix L.

RFP -

PWS paragraph 1.17.2 discusses Depot Level Maintenance previously covered in Appendix L paragraph 3.3.2.a. Appendix L paragraph 3.3.2.d is for VIP Aircraft Painting.

Recommend deleting PWS paragraph 1.17.2 from Appendix L paragraph.3.3.2.d.

Nonconcur: Paint is part of PWS paragraph 1.17.2 and thus should not be deleted

RFP -

Appendix L paragraph 3.3.1.b states the offeror shall detail an approach and plan for subcontracting to Small Businesses. Please clarify if the Government requires a Small Business Subcontracting Plan be included as part of the proposal submission.

The Government requires a subcontracting plan be submitted by contractors with their proposal as outlined in FAR 19.704. See Solicitation Clause 52.219-9 Alternate II, FAR 19.705-2(d) and FAR 19.708(a) and (b). Also see FAR 19.702(a)(1). The PWS, Appendix L, and Appendix M will be updated to clarify this requirement.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

Appendix L Table 2-1 lists page maximums for each section and paragraph 2.3.4 states excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

For example, SUBFACTOR

ONE: PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT (PM) has nothing in the page limit column and Program Management Approach has 10 pages. If the offeror were to use one of the 10 pages as an intro to the section and placed it before the Program Management Approach section, would the Government consider this noncompliant?

3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3 are Title Pages only. Paragraph 2.3.6 of the Appendix L clearly states, "Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume section, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal." No information is to be provided here, but in the specific evaluation areas. We will update the table to show (1) page for each of these Title Pages.

RFP -

Appendix L paragraph 3.3.3.c states “Provide an equipment and tools planned list for each operating location by name, part or model number, manufacturer, and quantity in an Excel spread sheet.”

Does the Government want this embedded in the proposal narrative or included as an attachment?

This will be rewritten to establish a page limit of 6 pages on the narrative and to submit the equipment list as an excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet will be page unlimited.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

Appendix L paragraph 3.3.3.a references PWS Table 1-2. Should this be Table 2-1, Performance Service Summary? This table has the actual metrics offerors must meet whereas Table 1-2 shows the how the mission capability metrics are calculated.

Partially concur. Table 1-2 is correct; however, "1.11.3" should read "1.11.3 - 1.11.4.1". The Appendix L and M will be updated.

RFP -

Appendix L paragraph 4.3.2 requires offerors is to provide organizational structure change history, but Table 1-2 doesn't reference this requirement. Is the Offeror required to respond to this Appendix L requirement?

Offerors are required to respond to all requirements in Appendix L and M. The organizational change history is a required data submission and the Appendix L, Table 1-2, will be updated and Appendix M, paragraph 2.3..4.5 will be added to clarify this requirement.

RFP -

Appendix L paragraph 3.3.2.a references PWS paragraph 1.17.6, Engine, APU, and Landing Gear Overhaul/Major Maintenance. Appendix L, Table 1-2, Proposal Organization does not list a call-out for MRO maintenance for engines, APUs, or landing gear. Is it the Government’s intention the Offeror only address aircraft depot maintenance in 3.3.2.a?

High Value Overhaul/Restoration is depot level maintenance. L 3.3.2.a and 3.3.2.a.(1) and M 2.2.2.a and 2.2.2.a.(1) have been updated to clarify the requirement for this information

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

Bidders Library for PWS Attachment 3A, 3b, and 3C does not include the actual task cards. Will the Government provide these cards?

They have been added to the Bidder's library.

RFP -

Can the Government provide the Task Cards electronically to Offerors with the required Boeing Non-Disclosure Agreement and DD Form 2345? Can the Government provide the Task Card Talley sheets electronically?

No. They can only be accessed at the Bidder's Library, No hard or soft copies may be made or distributed.

RFP -

Assuming the Government will provide all offerors electronic tasks cards and tally sheets to be utilized outside the Bidder’s Library as the incumbent, will it also provide an extension of 45 days from the date of release of the electronic task cards and tally sheets to all those bidding this solicitation?

Note: The above 45-day extension does not include any mandatory plant shutdowns for many companies involved in this effort or the period of time between Christmas and the New Year.

The Government will not provide electronic copies. However, we will grant an extension of the RFP due date to allow potential offerors additional time to review the task cards in the Bidder's Library. The new RFP due date will be provided by amendment to the solicitation.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

Does PWS paragraph 1.2.9 list all of the applicable OEMs?

No. As explained at the Pre-proposal conference, this was just an example of some of the OEMs that apply. The individual Offeror's approach to sustainment under the PWS will determine the number and detail of OEM NDAs.

RFP -

Referencing the bilateral agreement between the FAA and Transport Canada dated 5 June 2008 (Revision 1).

Do the Transport Canada Certifications fulfill the FAA requirements for FAR Part 145 found in PWS paragraph

1.2.6 and Appendix L 3.3.2.a? Does the Bilateral Agreement between Transport Canada and the FAA cover these requirements?

The bilateral agreement referenced is titled "IMPLEMENTATION

PROCEDURES FOR

Airworthiness COVERING

DESIGN APPROVAL,

PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES,

EXPORT AIRWORTHINESS

APPROVAL, POST DESIGN

APPROVAL ACTIVITIES, AND

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

BETWEEN AUTHORITIES. It doesn't address certification as a FAA Part 145 MRO. We do recognize parts certification under this bilateral agreement. However, PWS Paragraph 1.2.6 and FAR Part 145 deal with certificated MROs. Any C-check or other major depot maintenance at a foreign facility must comply with all security provisions of the solicitations as well as any FAA requirements/bilateral agreements for Airworthiness and aircraft/component maintenance, repair and/or overhaul.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

Reference - PWS 1.2.6 FAA Equivalency / requirement Question: Can the Contractor use commercial maintenance standards that are equivalent to AFI 21-101

Compliance with AFI 21-101 is a requirement. While many commercial practices meet the intent of the AFI, any specific exception would have to be individually requested through the PCO. While these are Commercial Derivative Aircraft, they are AF military aircraft that must meet AFI 21-101 standard requirements and protocols.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

PWS Para. 1.2.9 states that:

“The Contractor shall obtain and maintain OEM Proprietary Data license agreement(s) for the access and use of OEM proprietary data necessary to execute the PWS.”

b. Question: The cost of OEM data is largely determined by the level of effort and access required to support maintenance requirements.

Consequently, the cost of OEM data assess cannot be accurately determined in advance. Would the Government consider making OEM data rights pricing Cost Reimbursable?

This would result in the lowest price for the Government and eliminate the pricing advantage by OEM Bidders.

No, the Government will not make these a cost reimbursable CLIN.

RFP -

The C-Check Workbook for C-32A (Appendix A, Attachment 9) in the Bidder's Library lists C-Check schedule as Feb 16, Feb 17, and Jan 18 (one per year).

Is this correct.

No, this has been corrected to:

C-32A 98-0001 (8C Depot 24 Feb 16) C-32A 98-0001 (9C Depot 8 Feb 19) C-32A 98-0001 ( 10C Depot 23 Jan 22)

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

If there is a conflict between the C-Check schedules/task list and the Boeing Fleet Maintenance, Modification, and Support Plan, which takes precedence?

The Boeing Fleet Maintenance, Modification, and Support Plan

RFP -

Are the Service Actions in the Boeing Fleet Maintenance, Modification, and Support Plans to be priced in the respective C- Check for specific C-Checks

Not unless the actual Service Action is specifically called out as a listed Task Card or referenced within the Task Card itself.

RFP -

Appendix A, Atch 11, C- Check workbook, in the Bidder's Library lists two 4- C-Checks for AFRC C-40C 5-4613. Should the 29 Jul 22 C-Check for this aircraft be a 5 C-Check?

Yes. It will be corrected to read:

05-4613 (5C DEPOT 29 JUL 22)

RFP -

When does the Government plan to provide the ESS MX schedule and when can we expect to have this GMM-type document? Until the government establishes the maintenance requirement baseline for heavy checks, it is difficult for a depot activity to accurately price the C Checks and other heavy maintenance requirements.

The ESS Maintenance schedule data is available in the Proposal Library under Appendix J, Fleet Maintenance, Modification, and Support Plans. However, these are Boeing Proprietary and interested Offerors requiring access to this part of the bidder’s library must comply with paragraph

2.2.7 of the Appendix L.

The GMM document is still under development. Offerors must use available data in the Solicitation and Bidder's library to develop their proposal. Specific questions may be submitted to the PCO.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

PWS Paragraph 1.2.9:

When will a complete list of OEMs and other third-party vendors be provided by the government in order for the contractor to get ACAs, licenses, agreements, etc.?

We notice some significant omissions of OEM data requirements from this list, such as PATS for auxiliary fuel tanks and Aviation Partners, Inc., for winglet and wing box data. Will meeting this partial list meet the minimum requirements as specified in Appendix M as responsive to the offer?

The Government will not provide such a list as it would be dependent on the individual offeror's sustainment strategy and partnering agreements. The Offeror's response to Appendix M for OEM access/license agreements must support their sustainment strategy.

RFP -

PWS Paragraph 1.3.2: The incumbent has a significant amount of contractor inventory, to include unique mission communication spare parts and test equipment. Will the government assist the winning contractor in obtaining parts and support equipment held by the incumbent at discount prices?

No.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

Since Intellectual Property data licensing fees can cross several CLINs, is there a preferred CLIN that the Air Force would propose for itemized IP licensing fees?

No, there is no specific CLIN for IP data access/licensing fee. It would be based upon the Offeror's individual Business Plan and accounting processes and standards.

RFP -

Is there a limit to the number of participants from each company for the pre-proposal conference?

2 per company per the RFP Clause

RFP -

The review limitations of data room access (Bidder's Library), and the inability to have soft copies of required data to include work card and MEL lists limits reasonable competition. It is not possible to physically transcribe thousands of pages of data within the allotted proposal period, and allow for analysis. This effectively limits competition and favors the incumbent who has soft copy access.

These are the parameters of the data access per the RFP.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

The provided parts list data is missing nomenclature for approximately 12% of the listed parts. As there may be the same parts number for differing parts, the nomenclature is required to ensure correct sourcing and pricing. Can the Government please provide a full parts list to include full nomenclature. If this is not available, will the government move all non-nomenclature listed parts to Over and Above status.

No the non-nomenclature parts will not be moved to Over and Above.

The data provided is what is available and the Offeror must assume the risk if they wish to participate and submit their RFP accordingly.

RFP -

The consumption data has listings for non-airframe and non-aviation items, such as “Dell Laptops”. Will the Government clarify exactly what items are on the aircraft and are covered under the FH CLIN? Will the Government provide language that any parts not detailed and listed as under the FH CLIN will be covered under the Over and Above

CLIN.

All items required to maintain or operate the aircraft/aircraft systems are part of the Flying Hour CLIN unless specifically exempted by the PWS and PWS attachments. The Over and Above CLIN will not be used for this support.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

The Government has not provided an authorized parts list as fitted upon the aircraft.

As this is a unique aircraft, the fit list is non-standard and not possible to forecast.

As the incumbent has this information, can the Government please provide authorized parts list as fitted upon the aircraft by tail number.

No. Available information has been provided.

RFP -

Based on our review of the material provided in the technical library, we could not find documentation defining what a “basic” C- Check is?

There is no "basic" c-check. Each C-Check number for each model has unique task cards associated with that maintenance action.

These are in the C-Check Task Summary in the Bidder's library.

We have now added the actual task cards to the bidder's library for additional data to support proposal development.

02 DECEMBER 2014

REF # QUESTION RESPONSE

RFP -

Will the Government provide C-Check work package actual task cards for each “basic” C-check? This information is critical in order to determine the scope of work tasks performed so that an accurate FFP cost proposal can be prepared. If not, will the Government consider changing the C- Check work package pricing from FFP to CPFF, potentially with FFP labor rates to be applied at C- Check execution? This will eliminate the need for actual task card work packages during the proposal, as well as FFP price changes periodically throughout the contract period as a result of MPD task card alignment changes during revisions?

They are now in the Bidder's Library. The tasked C-Check package will remain Firm Fixed Price.