Questions_and_Answers__7-_Solicitation.doc

Questions and Answers #7

SOLICITATION – FA8106-14-R-0004

Question #1: Appendix D, Section 2.2.1 states: “The Title Page of each volume must show solicitation number, name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror and electronic e-mail address if available.” A “Title Page” is not listed for Volume III: Price in Table 2.2.

Contractor requests that a 5.1 “Title Page” be added as the 1st item for Volume III- Price Volume (FACTOR 3) in Table 2.2 and that the subsequent parts of the Volume be re-numbered.

Answer: Title page is not needed, but can be included as part of the General Information section of the proposal in Pricing Volume. Renumbering will not be necessary.

Question #2: Appendix D, Section 2.2.2 states: “A Team List of the Offeror’s primary Point of Contacts (POCs) shall be submitted in each volume using the format shown in Attachment 2 of the ITO.” Volume III: Price as listed in Table 2.2 does not require a Team List. Contractor requests that a 5.2 “Team List” with a page limit of 5, be added as the 2nd item listed for Volume III-Price Volume (FACTOR 3) in Table 2.2 and that the subsequent parts of this Volume be re-numbered.

Answer: Team List is not needed for the Pricing Volume; however, a team list can be added as part of the General Information. Renumbering will not be necessary.

Question #3: Appendix D, Section 2.2.8 states: “The Offeror shall complete the cross-reference matrix provided in Table 2.2.8 below which will indicate the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item.” Furthermore, Q&A #5 states “A Correlation Matrix should be placed in each volume.” The Table 2.2.8 “Correlation Matrix” is structured to show compliance for the Technical Volume I per the ITO Factor 1 and Sub-Factors 1-4 as listed in Appendix D paragraphs 3.2.1 through 3.2.6. There is no way to utilize this Correlation Matrix with Volume II – Past Performance, which is submitted via the government PPIT (tool). Likewise, the PWS/Appendix D/E paragraphs as listed in the correlation matrix are not relevant to Volume III Price, nor to Volume IV – Contract Documentation.

Recommend the government require that Table 2.2.8 “Correlation Matrix” be submitted only with the Volume I – Technical (FACTOR I) where the PWS and ITO reference correlations are relevant and useful. Also recommend that Table 2.2.8 be re-labeled “Technical Correlation Matrix” and the last Column of the Table be re-titled to read “Technical Volume Subfactor, Paragraph, and Page #.”

Answer: The Government agrees with placing the Correlation Matrix in the Technical Volume only; however, no changes will be made to the Matrix itself. The ITO will be amended.

Question #4: Request clarification of the order of items per Appendix D, Table 2.2, Volume IV: Contract Documentation. The 2nd item “Title Page” lists the SF1449 in parenthesis implying the SF 1449 is the “Title Page”. However, further down in Table 2.2 for this volume, (Ref: ITO Paragraph 6.1 Model Contract (Sections A-J)) is listed as item #7. This Model Contract Section A-J would typically include/start with the SF1449 form.

Contractor requests that “(SF1449)” be removed as a notation to the item #1 words “Title Page”, and be inserted to the 7th item changing wording to “Model Contract (Sections A-J beginning with SF1449)” thus leaving the SF1449 form itself to be submitted as part of this item 7 which is a more appropriate ordering of artifacts to include in the organization of the Contract volume.

Answer: Government agrees to remove (SF1449) for clarification. The title page refers to 2.2.1. of the ITO. The Table will be amended.

Question #5: Appendix D 2.2 for the 6th item (Ref: ITO para 3.2.2/6.3.4) calls for “Team List, Arrangements, and/or Letters of Intent”. This is a duplication with the 2nd item for this Volume (Ref: ITO Para 3.2.2) “Team List (see Attach 2.0)”.

Contractor Recommends that the Team list remain as the section item #2 submitted after the Title page in this volume, and that the item # 6 ITO reference to paragraph 3.2.2 be removed along with wording for the item description to be changed to “Company Name, Address/Location, Identifying Codes Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent” which captures the intent and content of Appendix D ITO paragraph 6.3.4.

Answer: The Government will not remove this requirement in its entirety nor change the item description. The Government will however, only require Letters of Intents for the 6th item. The ITO will be amended.

Question #6: Volume II – Past Performance, Item #3 “Present/Past Performance Information (PPI) and Relevant Contract Narrative (See Attach 1)” seems to have incorrect ITO Paragraph References. The Appendix D Reference for this item should be IAW ITO Paragraphs 4.3 and subsequent paragraphs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 NOT 5.1 which describes the instructions for Volume III - Price.

Recommend Column 2 of Table 2.2, Vol III, Past Performance be corrected for this item #3 to reference ITO paragraph 4.3 instead of 5.1.

Answer: See Questions and Answers # 6 and Amendment 0003 Question #7: Item #3 (Ref:5.1) “Present/Past Performance Information (PPI) and Relevant Contract Narrative (See Attach 1.1)” has a Max page limit of 13 pages per contract. However, further down, Item #7 “Relevant Contracts” has a Max page limit of 5 pages per contract.

Which is the correct page limit for Relevancy by contract, 13 or 5? OR is page limitations for relevant narratives a function of the PPIT (Tool printout) itself?

If so, recommend that the 7th item in Table 2.2 “Relevant Contracts” be deleted from this volume organization entirely.

Answer: The Past Performance Information along with the Relevant Contract Narrative, Para 4.3.2, should not exceed 13 pages per contract. Relevant Contracts Information has a max limitation of 5 pages per contract. Page limitations are set by the Government, see Note 3 of para 4.3.1.

Question #8: Appendix D - ITO Attachment 1.1 Past Performance Information (PPI) for Offerors, page 24, states: “Offerors must use the PPI Tool…..in order to electronically submit the PPI Portion of the Past Performance volume IAW the RFP. Further instructions for printing the PPI portion of the Past Performance volume are also found on pages 30-31 which instruct the offeror to print sections out of the volume as the hard copy submittal. Per instruction under “Printing Reports and Submitting PPI Tool, Item #4 on page 31 of this instruction states: “Hard copies of the pages generated from this tool shall be used in the hard copy of the past performance volume subject to the limitations outlined in this RFP and should be Tab 1 of the Past Performance Volume.”

Can the contractor assume that this printout resulting from the completion of step/item #4 under Printing Reports and Submitting PPI Tool” satisfies the compliance to the third item on Table 2.2 for Volume II Past Performance, which is titled: “Present/Past Performance Information (PPI) and Relevant Contract Narrative (See Attach 1.1)” and once completed and printed is in fact the Tab 1 referred to in item #4?

Answer: Yes, it satisfied the compliance with the third item and yes it is the Tab 1 referred to in item #4. .

Question #9: Appendix D - Table 2.2 – Volume II – Past Performance, item #6 (Ref: ITO Para 4.2.2) indicates that the “Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See Attach 1.2)” should have “TAB ONLY” in this volumes binder submittal.

Is this the intent to have a Tab only as item #6?

Answer: Yes Question #10: Additionally, ITO Attachment 1.2 “Present/Past Performance Questionnaires” requires the bidder to complete Section 1 of the questionnaires and prepare cover letters for each program questionnaire IAW Attachment 1.3.

Can the government confirm that regarding the volume content for the Past Performance Questionnaires compliance is met with only a Tab submittal, and that there is no requirement for submittal of either the Questionnaire Cover letters or Section 1?

Answer: Confirmed only a Tab submittal is required for the Questionnaires and Cover letters.

Question #11: Appendix D, Section 2.2.4 states: “Offerors shall submit volumes with the following file names: Volume 1 – Technical.doc, Volume II – PastPerf.doc, Volume III –Price.doc, and Volume IV – Contract.doc.” implying that one .doc file for each volume is desired. Additionally, Appendix D Section 2.5 states: “Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including sub-factors, required plans, exhibits, appendices, and attachments, if any.” This is a more conventional and usable approach which allows front matter to be separated from the Factor/Subfactor Narratives and Descriptive sections of the offer.

Due to the probability of some file sizes being extremely large and containing both TOC, appendices and other tables within a single file can be cumbersome; Contractor requests that multiple files (as needed) be allowed per volume. Answer: The Government is not aware of the State of Colorado Laws. Recommend Offerors contact the Department of Labor any questions regarding Service Contract Labor Standards or Collective Bargaining Agreements.

Answer: Folders with multiple files are allowed. The file name referenced is an example of how to name files with a folder.

Question #12: Appendix D, Section 2.1.8 states: “Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted…… addressed to the CO at the address shown in Section A of the model contract/solicitation...” which conflicts with the address per Appendix D, Section 2.6 Distribution that instructs: “Proposals shall be addressed to the Contracting Officer (CO) and mailed to:

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AFLCMC/WLKLA ATTN: Shirley Harmon

3001 Staff Dr, STE 1AD2 103C

Tinker AFB OK 73145-3020

Telephone: 405-734-6507

Fax: 405-739-5451

Shirley.Harmon.1@us.af.mil”

Minor differences (STE and zip) are in both. Which is the correct mailing address?

Answer: Use the address in section 2.6 of the ITO.

Question #13: Appendix D, Table 2.2 is missing a Table of Contents (TOC), Ref ITO para 3.2.2, for Volume II Past Performance and Volume III Pricing. No TOC in Volume II is understood as it is a PPI printout plus appendices. Is it the intent to exclude a TOC from one or both volumes?

Answer: Please put a Table of Contents in each volume.

Question #14: Appendix D, Table 2.2 does not have a Teaming List as a front-matter item for Volume III- Price. Please confirm that is the intent.

Answer: Confirmed. That is the intent.

Question #15: The excel format of the TEP, AppendixFPricingMatrixAmendment0002.xls, has unit values specified as “HR” for each CLIN 0012 AC and the RFP definition of CLIN 0012 states: “This CLIN only applies to labor cost above an employee's regular salary. This CLIN shall not include regular salary for individuals nor travel costs.”

Is the intent to capture for this cell to display the overall hourly Deployment/Overtime (OT) Rate for work which includes straight time plus overtime differential, or should the rate provided in the TEP for this cell for this CLIN represent ONLY the rate for the premium time alone? For instance, if a mechanic rate is normally $100 as straight time salary, should CLIN 0012 reflect a total OT rate of $150 or just the $50 premium rate?

Answer: The rate should reflect the hourly rate for cost above an employee's regular salary.

Questions #16: The definition for CLIN 0003 states: “The contractor shall provide all FAA certified towing aircraft, tow pilots, towing equipment, scheduling, travel and all other actions necessary to support the flying requirements in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.27.1-3, except for related management costs which are included in CLIN 0002.” CLIN 0002, however, does not include any management related costs, and is for Aircraft Support Services (i.e. Maintenance and Inspection Labor). Should Tow related management services provided by the Lead Tow Pilot be included in CLIN 0003, CLIN 0002, or CLIN 0008?

Answer: All costs associated with tow support services should be priced under CLIN X003.

Question #17: PWS Paragraph 1.20.3 (a-j.) requires the expeditor to have a presence on the flight line during performance of maintenance as well as ensure USAF and FAA maintenance standards are complied. This may require both an IA and A&P signature. Per Question 9 the requirement for the expeditor to have an A&P license was eliminated. Is this realistic since the expeditor may also act as an IA with signature authority?

Answer: This is a performance-based requirement. Best business practices should be used to ensure the requirements of the contract will be met. How the Offeror chooses to utilize the Expeditor is up to the Offeror.