C-12_CLS_Pre-Solicitation_Conference_Clarifications.docx

Contractor Logistic Support (CLS) for C-12 Aircraft Pre-Solicitation Conference Clarifications

The Government would like to provide the following clarifications in regards to the C-12 CLS Pre-Solicitation Conference hosted on 6 Aug 2015.

Chart 4: Attendance and Ground Rules

Clarification: Below is a list of confirmed companies that attended the Pre-Solicitation Conference:

AAR Airlift Group, Inc.

AAR Corporation AMSI Services International Avenge, Inc.

CACI

Command Technology Inc. (CTI) Dynamic Aviation DynCorp International (DI) Erickson Aviation Greenwich AeroGroup L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace LLC M1 Support Services M7 Aerospace Northrop Grumman Technical Services Pratt & Whitney Engine Services, Inc.

Sabreliner Aviation LLC Stevens Aviation Vector-Hawk Aerospace Western Aircraft Yulista Holding, LLC Zenith Aviation

Note: Due to technical difficulties at the beginning of the conference, some participants may not have been able to confirm their attendance.

Chart 10 – Topics

Clarification: The sub-bullets listed under “Evaluations Factors and Ratings” did not include “Technical Risk.” This was an oversight of the Government.

Chart 17 – Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

Clarification: During the briefing, there was some confusion if the second bullet was an accurate statement. The Government has confirmed that the information provided on Chart 17 is accurate. Refer to Section L for additional information.

Chart 18 – Evaluation Factors and Ratings for Trade-Off Process

Clarification: The sub-bullets listed under Factor 3 Past Performance did not include “Substantial Confidence.” This was an oversight of the Government.

Chart 19 – Evaluation Methodology as Described in the RFP

Clarification: Each of the paragraph references included on this chart were referenced from Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award. Refer to Section M for additional information.

Chart 22 – Technical Ratings Definition

Clarification: The bullet stating “Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government” inadvertently left off the last word of the statement. The bullet should have read “Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement.”

Chart 38 – Past Performance Evaluation Example

Clarification: The yellow blocks located on the “XYZ Corp” row that include “Y” should have referenced “M” for “Marginal” based on the color coding legend.

Chart 58 – Factor 4 – Price

Clarification: The bullet stating “An adequate accounting system as determined by Defense Contracting Management Agency is required” should have stated “An adequate accounting system as determined by Defense Contracting Management Agency is required prior to award.”

Chart 58 – Factor 4 – Price

Clarification: The bullet stating “Under no circumstances shall pricing information/documentation be included outside of the pricing volume in the proposal” should have stated “Under no circumstances shall pricing information/documentation be included outside of the pricing volume in the proposal and the pricing matrix in the contracting documentation volume.”

Chart 63 and 64 – Proposal Organization

Clarification: The Government included a snapshot of the current draft Proposal Organization Table 2.1 located in Section L. The Government acknowledged that there were currently some inconsistencies included in the table. An update to the table will be accomplished prior to the release of the final RFP.

If there are any additional questions and/or concerns regarding the Pre-Solicitation Conference, please submit them in writing to the PCO at melissa.mitchell.7@us.af.mil. Received questions and the corresponding answers will be posted to FBO at our earliest convenience.