DRAFT_RFP_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

FA8106-15-R-0007

DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

31 July 2015

DRAFT

RFP

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-1 Can you advise whether you will hold an industry day and also a targeted release day for the live solicitation?

Industry Day was previously accomplished May 2014.

Please see previous FBO posting C1211D0002 for Industry Day information.

Solicitation is anticipated to be posted mid Nov 2015. Any change in schedule will be updated to FBO at FA8106-15-R- 0007.

1-2 List of Items, Schedule of Requirements, Scope of Work, Terms of Reference, Bill of Materials required.

All documents can be obtained on FBO at FA8106-15-R- 0007.

1-3 Soft Copy of the Tender Document through email. All documents can be obtained on FBO at FA8106-15-R- 0007.

1-4 Information about the Tendering Procedure and Guidelines. All documents can be obtained on FBO at FA8106-15-R- 0007.

1-5 Estimated Budget for this Purchase. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to determine estimated budgets for this requirement.

1-6 Any Extension of Bidding Deadline? All deadlines and/or extension information will be published on FBO at FA8106-15-R-0007.

1-7 Any Addendum or Pre Bid meeting Minutes work scopes? All releasable documents can be obtained on FBO at

FA8106-15-R-0007.

1-8

Concerning the draft RFP, page 87 request for attendees. There is a deadline to submit attendees names for the pre-bid/pre-proposal conference that has a TBD date. Is it the intent of the Air Force to receive names before the 31st?

If so, is there a limit to how many people can attend per company? Can you please provide an estimated date this may be held at Tinker?

The Government has determined there is no longer a need for a pre-bid/pre-proposal conference. The RFP will be updated to remove this clause.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-9

Section H, Item H-1 outlines the small business subcontracting requirements to large business to include potential negative impacts for failure to meet the requirement, but does not outline any incentives as the clause implies.

Would the government consider adding contract incentive fees for exceeding the small business requirements?

H-1 identifies both positive and negative impacts for small business subcontracting requirements. The Government is not considering adding contract incentive fees for exceeding the small business requirements.

1-10

Section I, 52.242-4:

IAW FAR 42.703 the Certification of Final Indirect Cost should not be required at this point under this competitive contract procurement.

Would the government consider removing the Certification of Final Indirect Cost FAR clause at this point?

Due to the solicitation containing cost reimbursable CLINs, the Certification of Final Indirect Costs clause, 52.242-4, will not be removed from the solicitation.

1-11

Section I, 252.215-7009:

IAW FAR 215.408 (5) a Proposal Adequacy Checklist should not be required under a competitive solicitation that does not require submission of certified cost or pricing data.

Would the government consider removing FAR 252.215-7009 at this point based on the requirements of this solicitation?

The RFP will be updated to remove this clause.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-12

PWS Para 1.14 Quality Program states: “The Contractor shall provide and maintain a Quality System that complies with the requirements of International Standard ISO 9001-2008, Quality Management Systems Requirements. The Contractor shall develop, maintain and deliver a C-12 Management Plan which includes the Quality Program IAW CDRL A010.

The Contractor shall develop a Quality Assurance (QA)/Control Program that is ISO 9001:2008 compliant, certified and registered and in compliance with AFI 10-220IP. …” Table 2-1: Item SS-23 states:. “QA Follow-Up - The Contractor shall develop a Quality Assurance (QA)/Control Program that is ISO 9001:2008 compliant, certified and registered and in compliance with AFI 10-220IP.”

A. Is it the Government’s intent for the offeror to be ISO 9001:2008 certified/registered at the company-level, and ensure the USAF C-12 program is compliant? or B. Is it the Government’s intent for the offeror to be certified/registered at both the corporate and program levels?

It is the Government’s intent for the offeror to be ISO 9001:2008 certified/registered at the company-level, and ensure the USAF C-12 program is compliant.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-13

PWS Para 1.4.8. Survival and Life Support Equipment states: “The Contractor shall maintain the survival kits, including procurement of flares, and life support equipment IAW vendor instructions and IAW FAA FAR Part 145. The Contractor shall maintain documentation IAW FAA FAR Part 135, annotating required inspections and maintenance actions accomplished.

NOTE: The Government will perform life support and survival equipment inspections at Elmendorf AFB and Yokota AB.”

Discussion: The survival kits and life support equipment component maintenance manuals do not require special tools or equipment to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance or inspections on the ALSE that normally equipped site maintenance would have on hand. There are no special repair station procedures or processes required to perform these duties.

A. Is it the Governments intent to require sites to maintain an FAA repair station (Part 145) certificate to perform routine preventive maintenance, preservation and inspections on survival kits, flares and life support equipment?

B. Is it the Governments intent to require life support, survival kits and flares to be inspected in accordance with 14CFR135.429(c)?

A. It is not the Government’s intent to require sites to maintain FAR Part 145 certifications. The PWS will be updated to clarify requirements.

B. It is the Governments intent that the Contractor maintain the documentation IAW FAA FAR Part 135 as referenced in PWS Para 1.4.8. Inspections shall be performed IAW with vendor instructions.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-14

RFP Atch 4, ITO, Section L, Para 2.3.3, Table 2.1:

Reference: Attachment 4 – Instructions to Offerors (ITO); Section L, Section 2.3.3, Table 2.1 Proposal Organization

Discussion: For Volume II, Factor 3 – Past Performance, Table 2.1 does not seem to correlate with the ITO instructions provided in paragraphs 4.0 through 4.5. The Table identifies:

a. ITO Paragraph 4.1.2, Present/Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS) (See Attach 1.1), Unlimited pages

1) ITO paragraph 4.1.2 states, “Each Offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Attachment

1.1 of the ITO.

2) ITO Attachment 1.1 contains instructions for using/populating the Past Performance Information (PPI) tool.

3) Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS) are not included or required for this solicitation, since use of the PPI tool is mandated.

b. ITO Paragraph 4.3.1, Relevant Contract Narrative, Max 5 pages per contract

1) ITO paragraph 4.3.1 does not exist

2) ITO paragraph 4.3 Relevant Contracts states, “Request each PPI contract (or effort) not exceed a target of eight (8) pages, which includes the relevant contract narrative.”

a.1 Updated table to clarify content requirements, page count restrictions, and reference paragraph locations.

Updated paragraph 4.1.2 for clarity.

a.2 No response required.

a3. Table 2.1 and paragraph 4.1.2 have been updated. IAW Attachment 1.1 under title “Printing Reports and Submitting PPI Tool” paragraph 4: ” 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.”

b.1 Removed paragraph reference for 4.3.2 and updated with correct reference for contract narratives (4.3.1 was not referenced in original document).

b.2 Corrected page count.

b.3 Corrected paragraph reference for contract narrative.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-14 Cont’d

3) ITO paragraph 4.4 PPI Relevant Contract Narrative states, “Offeror shall provide a narrative explaining what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relates.

c. ITO Paragraph 4.3.3, Roadmap, 2 pages

1) ITO paragraph 4.3.3 does not exist. ITO paragraph 4.5 Organizational Structure Change History states, “To facilitate this relevancy determination, Offerors shall include a “roadmap” describing all such changes in the organization of the Offeror’s company.”

Will the Government consider revising Table 2.1 as shown below to correlate with the ITO instructions pertaining to Factor 3 – Past Performance (paras 4.0 – 4.5)?

1)Reflect the correct ITO paragraph numbers 2)Delete the requirement for PPIS and combine the requirements of ITO paragraphs 4.1.2, 4.3, and 4.4.

Please see Recommendation 1 below:

c.1 Corrected paragraph reference for “roadmap” and updated table entry to align with paragraph title.

1) See Government response to 1-14 a.1.

2) See Government response to 1-14 a.3.

Recommendation 1 II 4.0 Factor 3 – Past Performance 4/1 Unlimited

2.3.1 Title Page 1

2.3.2 Team List (See Attach 2.0) Unlimited

2.3.8 Table of Contents Unlimited

2.3.9 List of Tables and Figures Unlimited

2.3.10 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Unlimited

4.1.3 Consent Letter (See Attach 1.4) Unlimited

4.1.3 Client Authorization Letters (See Attach 1.5) Unlimited

4.2.2 Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See Attach 1.2) Tab Only 4.1.2, 4.3

& 4.4 Past Performance Information (PPI) and Relevant Contract Narrative (See Attach 1.1)

Max 8 pages per contract

4.5 Roadmap 2

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-15

RFP Atch 4, ITO, Section L, Para 2.3.3, Table 2.1:

Discussion: For Volume III Factor 4 – Price, Table 2.1 incorrectly references ITO paragraph 5.7 as Volume Organization, whereas it is actually paragraph 5.12.

Comment: Request the Government amend Table 2.1, Volume III, to correctly reference paragraph 5.12 vice 5.7.

The paragraph references within Table 2.1 have been updated

1-16

RFP Atch 4, ITO, Section L, Para 5.12

Discussion: Paragraph 5.12, Volume Organization, does not identify in which sections the Government desires offerors to address the following ITO requirements:

5.7 Government Furnished Property/Equipment/

Material/Facilities (GFP/GFE/GFM/GFF)

5.8 Contractor Furnished Property/Equipment/ Tooling/Material

(CFP/CFE/CFT/CFM)

5.9 Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision

5.10 Other Documentation

5.11 Submission of Price Models

Question: Where does the Government desire offerors to address ITO paragraphs 5.7 through 5.11 within the Volume Organization specified in paragraph 5.12?

Table 2.1 updated to include correct placement of all requested Pricing information.

Paragraph 5.12 deleted.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-17

RFP Atch 4, ITO, Section L, Para 2.3.3, Table 2.1:

Discussion: For Volume IV, Contract Documentation, Table 2.1 does not seem to correlate with the ITO instructions provided in paragraphs 6.0 through 6.3.7.

a. Table 2.1 reference 2.2.1, Title Page (SF1449) does not seem to pertain to this solicitation.

1) The paragraph reference for the title page for this solicitation is 2.3.1

2) This solicitation is issued on an SF33 vice an SF1449

3) Paragraph 6.1.1, Solicitation/Contract Form (Section A) of this solicitation specifically requires submission of the signed SF33

b. Table 2.1 reference 2.2.2/3.2.3/7.3.4, Team List, Arrangements, LOI, Resumes, etc does not seem to pertain to this solicitation

1) The paragraph reference for Team List for this solicitation is 2.3.2

2) Paragraph 3.2.3 cited pertains to Program Management in the Technical Volume

3) Paragraph 7.3.4 does not exist

4) There is no direction concerning Arrangements, LOIs, or Resumes within ITO paragraphs 6.0 – 6.3.7

c. Table 2.1, reference 6.1, Model Contract (Sections A-J)

1) ITO paragraph 6.1, Model Contract/Representations and Certifications specifically references Sections A through K, vice A-J

d. Table 2.1 specifically references ITO paragraphs 6.1 and 6.1.4, but does not reference paragraphs:

6.1.1, Solicitation/Contract Form (Section A)

6.1.2 Supplies or Services and Costs/Prices (Section B)

6.1.3 Contract Clauses (Section I

a.1. Updated paragraph references for title page within table 2.1.

a.2. Removed “SF1449.”

a.3. No response required.

b. Updated table 2.1 to list the correct documents.

b.1. Corrected paragraph reference for Teaming Partnership.

b.2. Paragraph 3.2.3 is the correct paragraph for the respective requirements for LOIs and resumes.

b.3. Removed reference to 7.3.4.

b.4. Updated correct references for Teaming Partnerships, Resumes, and LOIs. Removed redundant reference to teaming arrangements.

c.1. Separated sections A-K for clarity within Table 2.1.

d. Added correct references for each section within Table 2.1.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-17 Cont’d

e. Table 2.1 does not include ITO paragraph 6.3.7, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Will the Government consider revising Table 2.1 as shown below to correlate with the ITO instructions pertaining to Volume IV, Contract Documentation (paras 6.0 – 6.3.7)?

See Recommendation 2 below.

e. Added Small Business Subcontracting Plan from para 6.3.7 to Table 2.1. Added pricing matrix and removed section B reference. Separated other Contract sections

Table 2.1 has been updated based on the Government’s changes.

Recommendation 2 IV 6.0 Contract Documentation 2/1 Unlimited

2.3.1 Title Page Unlimited

2.3.2 Team List (See Attach 2.0) Unlimited

2.3.8 Table of Contents Unlimited

2.3.9 List of Tables and Figures Unlimited

2.3.10 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Unlimited

6.1 Model Contract/Representations and Certifications Unlimited

6.1.1 Solicitation/Contract Form (Section A) Unlimited

6.1.2 Supplies or Services and Costs/Prices (Section B) Unlimited

6.1.3 Contract Clauses (Section I) Unlimited

6.1.4 Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of

Offeror (Section K) Unlimited

6.3.1- 6.3.4

Contract Information Unlimited

6.3.5 Attachments to the Model Contract Unlimited

6.3.7 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Unlimited

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-18

RFP Atch 4, ITO, Section L, Para’s 5.2 and 6.3.7

a. Paragraph 5.2, General Instructions, states: “Pricing information in Section B is the only Price information that shall be included in Contract Documentation (Volume IV).”

b. Paragraph 6.3.7, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, specifies that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be a component of Volume IV, Contract Documentation

Discussion: The Small Business Plan, by its very nature, must include dollar values in terms of Total Contract Value (TCV), Total Subcontract Value (TSV), and dollar values/percentages allotted to Large Businesses, Small Businesses, and the various categories of Small Business concerns (i.e. SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB)

Will the Government consider revising the last sentence in ITO paragraph

5.2 to include the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and read as follows?

“Pricing information in Section B and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is the only Price information that shall be included in Contract Documentation (Volume IV).”

The following language “…the Small Business Subcontracting Plan” has been added to paragraph 5.2.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-19

RFP Atch 4, ITO, Section L, Para’s 3.2.3.a, 2.3.7, PWS 1.9.2

a. Paragraph 3.2.3.a states: “The proposal must include resumes that meet the requiremetns of paragraph 1.9.2 of the PWS, letters of intent, and proposed location for each site lead”

b. Paragraph 2.3.7, Cross Referencing, states: “Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted when its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.”

c. PWS paragraph 1.9.2 lists the Key Personnel for this solicitation as:

Program Manager, Director of Maintenance, Avionics Manager, and Site Lead Mechanics.

Discussion: The scope of this contract covers 19 individual sites, with a site Lead/Manager at each site. Therefore, per PWS 1.9.2, there will be a total of 22 Key Personnel, with required resumes and letters of intent for each. This would eat-up at least 44 pages (more if the 1.5 line spacing requirement applies to resumes and letters of intent), of the volume I maximum page count of 90 pages.

Will the Government consider the following?

a. Revise ITO paragraph 3.2.3.a to allow offerors to provide the Resumes and Letters of Intent for the Key Personnel identified in PWS 1.9.2 as an attachment or annex to Volume I, Technical, and outside the page count specified in in Table 2.1.

b. Revise ITO paragraph 2.4.1 to allow single spacing for Resumes and Letters of Intent.

a. Paragraph 3.2.3 has been updated to clarify appropriate location of resumes within proposal. LOI and resumes are not included in 90 page restriction of technical volume.

b. Resumes and LOIs do not have page restrictions; offeror shall abide by page formatting specified in paragraph 2.4.1.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-20

PWS Para 1.9.2.4 and 1.9.2.4.1.1:

a. PWS Paragraph 1.9.2.4, Site Lead Mechanic

b. PWS Paragraph 1.9.2.4.1.1, (Yokota Only) Site Manager

Discussion: Paragraph 1.9.2.4.1.1 identifies a position of Site Manager for Yokota.

Does the Government consider the Position of Site Manager specified in PWS paragraph 1.9.2.4.1.1 for Yokota only, synonymous with the position of Site Lead at the other locations?

The PWS will be updated to reflect the correct position title.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-21

PWS Para 1.25.7:

PWS Paragraph 1.25.7, Contractor Flight Support, states: “The Contractor shall provide GFR approved flight crews for repositioning Contractor possessed aircraft or as directed by the PCO.”

Discussion: We were unable to locate workload data within the Draft RFP documents, pertaining to this requirement.

A. What is the expected workload associated with Contractor Flight Support required by PWS 1.25.7?

B. Is the Government or Contractor responsible for ferrying aircraft to/from the assigned locations and the Contractor’s Depot/ACI facility?

C. At what point is the aircraft transferred to the possession of the Contractor (DD Form 250)? At the Depot/ACI facility?

D. Since PWS paragraph 1.25.7 specifies “Contractor possessed aircraft”, is this requirement limited to FCFs following ACI and any repositioning required during the Depot, ACI, and Strip & Paint processes?

A. All items under PWS Paragraph 1.25 are Over and Above efforts and are only accomplished at the direction of the

PCO.

B. The Government is responsible for ferrying aircraft to/from the assigned locations and the Contractor’s Depot/ACI facility.

C. The aircraft is transferred to the Contractor’s possession when the aircraft arrives at the depot facility or when special circumstances are negotiated by the PCO and Contractor.

D. The PWS will be updated to clarify the requirement.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-22

PWS Appendix I:

Discussion: The PWS file provided with the 17 July 2015 Draft RFP contains Appendix I – Government Furnished Property. This page apparently consists of 5 embedded/attached .pdf files (Serialized Materials, Non-Serialized Materials, Serialized Equipment, Non-Serialized Equipment, and Engines). These files must have lost their link during the publication process because we are unable to open these files, and Adobe does not recognize them as attachments.

Will the Government please provide the intended Appendix I files to offerors in a readable format?

The Government will provide this information to FBO at

FA8106-15-R-0007.

1-23

PWS Appendix I:

IAW Pratt & Whitney Maintenance Manual ATA 72-00 Table 601 Section 2, a Borescope Inspection is required at each fuel nozzle inspection.

Note: We are unable to open the embedded documents within PWS Appendix I, to verify the Government furnished equipment.

Can the Government confirm that there is sufficient Government-Furnished Borescope equipment available to meet this requirement?

Government Furnished Property (GFP) listing will be uploaded to FBO at FA8106-15-R-0007. The contractor is responsible to provide any support equipment necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS.

1-24 When is the AF C-12 CLS Industry Day and Site Visit scheduled? What is the location of the operational site visit? Will there be an opportunity for a 1-on-1 session between the Air Force and Industry during both/either?

The Government’s C-12 CLS Industry Day and one-on-one sessions were conducted on 8 May 2014. The Government does not intend to host site visits for this requirement.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-25 What is the milestone schedule for the AF C-12 CLS acquisition FA8106- 15-R-0007, to include RFP release date, proposal due date, contract award date, and new contract start and end dates?

The tentative milestone schedule includes:

RFP Release Nov 2015* Proposal Due Date Jan 2016* Contract Award Date Dec 2016* New Contract Start and End Dates Jan 2017 – Jun 2026*

- (IAW 52.217-8, PoP could be extended to Dec 2026*)

*Note – Dates are subject to change at any time.

1-26 What is the end date of the current CLS contract FA8106-11-D-0002, in light of the potential Interim C-12 CLS acquisition FA8106-15-R-0012?

Refer to FA8106-15-R-0012 on FBO for the correct point of contact (POC). Any updates regarding FA8106-11-D-0002 will be provided, at their discretion, by the POC as notated.

1-27

How is PWS 1.2.3, Delayed Discrepancies, handled at the start of the contract? What if the physical audit shows there are more than 10 discrepancies on any given aircraft at contract start? How is that NMC status and resulting Payment Reduction addressed per 1.2.2.?

PWS paragraph 1.24.1 has been updated. Any discrepancies identified that would exceed the requirements of PWS Paragraph 1.2.3 at contract start will be addressed by the PMO on a case-by-case basis.

1-28 In PWS 1.4 the note states “Some sites dictate special vehicle requirements per the Dept of State.” What are the actual sites and their respective vehicle requirements?

It is the Contractor’s responsibility to determine DoS vehicle requirements.

1-29 Per PWS 1.4.2, does the Government have predetermined recommended spares listing by location?

It is the Contractor’s responsibility to determine the recommended spares listing. The Government is not responsible for this listing.

1-30 Per PWS 1.4.2.1, do each of these locations currently have spare propellers in stock today and are they completely built up (ready for install)? Does the Government own these spare propellers?

GFP listing by site location will be provided to FBO at

FA8106-15-R-0007.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-31 Per PWS 1.4.4, is the required IUID marking being done on the current contract, or is this a new requirement? Yes, IUID is accomplished on the current contract.

1-32

PWS 1.4.6 states the USG reserves the right to purchase contractor furnished spares, all support equipment and tools at any time. Has this action occurred on the previous or current contract, and if so exactly what was purchased?

What type of contract action is used for this purchase – FP, CR, O&A, or other negotiated contract line item?

This action has never occurred on the previous contracts. If, in the future, this action would be negotiated between the Government and the Contractor.

1-33 Under PWS 3.4.4 Property Management System, is the prime required to have a DCMA Approved Property System?

Yes, the Prime is required to have a DCMA Approved Property System.

1-34

In C.2, CLIN X004 Propeller Overhaul, please clarify that the firm-fixed unit price includes all material cost associated with the overhaul of the propeller. For example if the hub or all blades have to be replaced is this cost to be factored into the FFP? If they are not, please identify the proper CLIN for pricing these items?

Yes, all material necessary to return the prop to serviceable condition shall be included into the FFP cost of this CLIN.

1-35

In C.2, X006 Engine Overhaul, please clarify the Government’s intent of the language “On Condition”? Please define “on condition”. Is there a list of components or criteria that the Government utilizes in determining what is considered “On Condition” versus “Mandatory”?

The Government does not have a list of components or criteria in determining "On Condition" and is based on criteria established in accordance with OEM manuals. "On Condition Parts and Material" has been defined by the Government in Appendix B - Definitions of the PWS.

1-36

How long is the phase-in period at the start of the contract? PWS 1.24.1 requires a “one year phase-in orientation plan. But Sec L, 5.2.2 states the base year consists of a one-year Basic Period (Phase-In period) and a ten

(10) month Option Period. Is the Phase-In period two (2) months or one (1) year?

The phase-in period is one year. The first option period is 10 months.

Offerors must ensure all required proposed pricing is provided as described in Section L, paragraph 5.2.2.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-37

Section F.1 Period of performance:

What is the anticipated acquisition schedule and expected transition start date?

The tentative milestone schedule includes:

RFP Release Nov 2015* Proposal Due Date Jan 2016* Contract Award Date Dec 2016* New Contract Start and End Dates Jan 2017 – Jun 2026*

- (IAW 52.217-8, PoP could be extended to Dec 2026*)

*Note – Dates are subject to change at any time.

1-38

Section I:

52.222-17 Non displacement of qualified workers: Are there any current collective bargaining agreements in place with the current workforce?

Yes, there are CBAs at Andrews AFB and Elmendorf AFB.

1-39

Section I:

52.222-41 Service contract labor standards is included. Will the USG provide Wage Determinations applicable to this contract?

The Government will provide Wage Determinations for CONUS locations. Wage Determinations will be provided to FBO at FA8106-15-R-0007.

1-40

Attachment 4, Section L:

Table 2.1 includes requirements for Vol. IV Contract Documentation, “Team List, Arrangements, LOI, Resumes, etc” and references RFP 2.2.2/3.2.3/7.3.4. However, section L.3.2.3 (a) shows that resumes are part of the Technical Volume, subfactor 1 Program Management. Please clarify placement of resumes and LOIs.

Resumes and LOIs are part of the technical volume, however, they will not count towards the 90 page count restriction.

Resumes and LOIs shall be placed within the proposal as directed in Table 2.1. Note added to paragraph 3.2.3 to further clarify.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-41

Attachment 4, Section L:

Table 2.1 of Section L, needs to be corrected in several places. For example, the references to sections 2.2.2 (not relevant in this context) and 7.3.4 (does not exist) appear incorrect, and the Vol III entries only refer to 5.0, 5.2, and 5.7, whereas other sections such as 5.5 and 5.6 have content requirements.

We suggest Table 2.1 be carefully reviewed and updated for correctness and completeness, as it is an important guideline for proposal content.

Table 2.1 has been updated and all references corrected.

1-42

Attachment 4, Section L:

Table 2.1 of Section L does not provide a title for Volume I. Since the other volumes do have titles, we suggest providing a title for Volume I will contribute to proposal format consistency.

A title has been added for Volume I.

1-43

Attachment 4, Section L:

Section 3.2.7 Technical Risk states: “The Offeror shall address Technical Risk associated with those aspects of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach for Factor 1: Technical, Subfactor 1: Program Management, Subfactor 3: Supply Support, and Subfactor 4: Transition.” Subfactor 2 Maintenance (L 3.2.4) is not included in the list for Risks, and we believe this is an oversight.

The Government is not considering risk for Subfactor 2:

Maintenance.

1-44

Attachment 4, Section L:

Section 4.3 states - “Request each PPI contract (or effort) not exceed a target of eight (8) pages, which includes the relevant contract narrative.” However, section L page 5, Table 2.1 includes - 4.1.2, Present/Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS) (See Attach 1.1), Unlimited (pages) and 4.3.2, Relevant Contract Narrative, Max 5 pages per contract. Could you please clarify the Past Performance pages counts? Also, there is no section 4.3.2 or

4.3.3 in the draft as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 has been updated to reflect the correct page counts and made consistent with the respective paragraphs of the document.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-45

Attachment 4, Section L:

Section 5.12, page 21 under section 4 states “Pricing Matrix (Attachment 5) with all required pricing information completed.” Please provide this attachment as it is not included with the Draft documents.

The Government will provide this information to FBO at

FA8106-15-R-0007.

1-46

Draft PWS:

The PWS refers to CDRLs throughout the document; however, they are not provided. Request that draft CDRLs be provided for review.

The Government will provide this information to FBO at

FA8106-15-R-0007.

1-47

Draft PWS:

1.3.5 Aircraft launch and recovery: what is the historical percentage of days per site where the aircraft launched and recovered in greater than a 10 hour period?

At the AFMC and PACAF sites, the historical percentage of days per site where the aircraft launched and recovered in greater than a 10 hour period is approximately 20%. At the DIA/DSCA sites, the historical percentage is less than 5%.

These are estimates only and can change due to mission requirements.

1-48

Draft PWS:

1.5.3 Heavy maintenance: is the contractor at liberty to perform all heavy maintenance at CONUS facilities?

Yes, the minimum requirement is for one CONUS facility for heavy maintenance.

1-49

Draft PWS:

1.5.3 Heavy maintenance: Is the contractor or the USG responsible for ferrying the aircraft to and from heavy maintenance?

The Government is responsible for ferrying the aircraft to and from heavy maintenance.

1-50

Draft PWS:

1.4.4.2. Please clarify if the contractor is responsible for repairing “Simulator” components.

The Government will provide updated wording to remove “simulator” from the PWS paragraph.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-51 Draft PWS:

1.8 & 1.13.3.1: Is any additional insurance required here?

The contractor is responsible for determining level of insurance for their operations required to meet PWS requirements.

1-52

Draft PWS:

1.15.2: Is there a minimum level of cycles left for engines before shop visit when the contractor takes over?

No. Historical engine overhaul and remaining cycle data will be made available. All engine overhauls that require a shop visit will be covered as an Over and Above effort.

1-53

Draft PWS:

1.15.5, pg. 23:

-Will MIS client equipment need to be provided?

-Will MIS data center facilities be provided?

-Can the MIS data center be hosted in contractor facilities?

-Will interfaces to external Government systems be required (beyond a website via the Internet)?

-What program cost reporting will be required to be maintained within the MIS?

-Are there any specific software applications required within the implemented MIS?

The MIS is a contractor managed and maintained system. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to propose a system to meet the requirements of the PWS. PWS paragraph 1.15.6 identifies requirements for program cost reporting.

PWS has been updated to remove the requirement for cost reporting within MIS.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-54

Draft PWS:

1.24.1, pg. 25:

-What existing data will need to be migrated from the incumbent?

-What is the size and scope of the incumbent’s historical data to be migrated?

The incumbent contractor shall provide Microsoft Office compatible digital maintenance data from their maintenance information system in regards to USAF C-12 maintenance.

This data can include logs, records, inventory, configuration information, etc. Paper copies of 781’s, engine maintenance logs, prop maintenance logs, parts serviceability tags, etc.

shall be provided at each site or with aircraft.

The size of the data cannot be determined at this time.

1-55

Draft PWS:

1.25.13 Facilities: can the USG provide hangar lease information for the sites that require hangars as CFE?

It is the Contractor’s responsibility to gather any information required for leasing of hangars as identified in Appendix E.

1-56

Draft PWS:

PWS Appendix I page 68 Government Furnished Property: Five (5) files show as embedded icons but do not open documents - Serialized Materials, Non-Serialized Materials, Serialized Equipment, Non-Serialized Equipment, Engines. Request these be provided for draft review prior to final RFP.

The Government will provide this information to FBO at

FA8106-15-R-0007.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-57

PWS 1.6. Engine Maintenance.

The Contractor shall provide for all labor, services, equipment, tools, facilities, lubricants, parts and materials, packaging and shipping to accomplish replacement, overhaul and repair of scheduled and unscheduled engines and accessories. The Contractor shall submit a teardown analysis report and specification build-up sheet for each engine following a Hot Section Inspection (HSI) and Overhaul (TBO) IAW CDRL A009 and a projected engine maintenance schedule IAW CDRL A008.

1. Which parts are included in “accomplish replacement, overhaul and repair”?

2. If the Government wants a FFP for unscheduled maintenance, can the Government provide history of unscheduled engine events for these aircraft?

1. All parts are included in the replacement, overhaul, and repair. The Contractor is responsible for providing all parts in regards to aircraft and engine maintenance.

2. The Government is not requesting a FFP for unscheduled engine maintenance. The on-aircraft engine maintenance is covered under the FFP base ops CLIN and includes all items that can be replaced/repaired on the aircraft. Engine O/H are covered under CLIN X006, X007, X012, and X017. Each CLIN provides a description of what costs are allowable. A historical parts usage listing will be posted to FBO.

1-58

PWS 1.8. Defensive System Maintenance.

The Contractor shall perform all required maintenance on the Defensive System to include scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, repairs, inspections, flare storage/buildup, flare loading/downloading and operational testing. The Contractor personnel shall be properly trained and certified for safe and secure handling and storage of Ammunition and Explosives (A&E) in accordance with AF directives. The Contractor shall develop an Explosive Safety Program IAW Air Force Manual (AFMAN) 91-201.

1. Which aircraft have defensive systems/ do all aircraft have defensive systems?

Five aircraft have the defensive system installed. A configuration listing will be posted to FBO.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-59

PWS 1.25.12. Contractor Dependent Schooling.

Contractor shall submit a proposal for each OCONUS site where Contractor dependents require Government approval for schooling.

The Government will require documentation to show the costs of enrollment for each child (by site) for each FY.

1-60

Attachment 4, Section L:

Section 3.2.3 (d) under Subfactor 1: Program Management in Volume I requires: An approach and plan for subcontracting to Small Businesses for each option year ….Section L, 6.3.7 also addresses a Small Business Subcontracting Plan required in Volume IV. We suggest limiting the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to one location in the proposal.

The Government is requesting documentation for two separate purposes. The information in Section L: Section

3.2.3 is requested to evaluate small business participation requirements as stated in clause H-1 and will be considered in determining the appropriate technical rating to be applied.

The information in Section L, 6.3.7 is requested to ensure the small business subcontracting plan required by FAR clause 52.219-9 is provided. Note two separate plans are required for submission/evaluation in appropriate volumes as specified.

Also, please review clause H-1 as the reporting requirements have been updated.

1-61

When can Industry expect to see a change to AF C-12 CLS PWS Table 2.2?

There are discrepancies between Table 2.2 PWS references and the actual Section L paragraph references to the PWS. It appears in all cases that the Section L paragraph was correct. Here are the specific changes:

Element 1a – Change PWS paragraph 1.16 to 1.15 Element 1b – Change PWS paragraph 1.15 to 1.14 Element 1c – Change PWS paragraph 1.26.6 to 1.25.6 Element 2a – Change PWS paragraph 1.26.3 to 1.25.3 Element 4a – Change PWS paragraph 1.25.1 to 1.24.1 Element 4b – Change PWS paragraph 1.14 to 1.13

Also, the second paragraph of 3.2.4 should have “b)” in front of the narrative.

The Government is working to release an updated draft PWS to FBO under FA8106-15-R-0007.

References to PWS paragraphs in Section L, Table 2.2 “Cross Reference Matrix” have been updated accordingly.

Paragraph 3.2.4 has updated the formatting to include “b)” in front of the second paragraph.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-62 Names of countries that will be eligible to participate in this tender.

The Government has included language in Section M – Evaluation Criteria for Award, paragraph 1.6 titled “Supplemental Responsibility Requirements.” In addition, a copy of the draft DD 254 will be posted to FBO under

FA8106-15-R-0007.

Vendors that can meet the requirements as defined within the solicitation and associated documentation may be eligible to participate in this requirement. Contractor responsibility for award will be made in accordance with FAR Part 9.

1-63

Section H, Item H-1 identifies 20% of the total contract value to small businesses as the requirement. Item H-1 identifies to industry a 20% small business subcontracting requirement which does not apply to potential small business prime bidders. The 20% is to be calculated on the total contract value and only applies to first-tier subcontractors.

Due to the fact that most of the services are to be performed OCONUS, would the Government consider adjusting the requirement to 20% of services performed CONUS or 20% of the total subcontracted value?

The Government has made an adjustment to the requirement as described in special clause H-1 titled “Small Business Subcontracting Requirement and Incentives.” The requirement now mandates at least 10% of total contract value be subcontracted to small businesses.

Please review the clause in its entirety as there were other changes made in relation to the reporting requirements.

1-64

Section H, Item H.4 Indemnification of Government assets appears to require a higher level of indemnification than is required by FAR 252.228- 7001 Ground and Flight risk and 52.245-1 Government Property clauses.

Would the government consider removing or clarifying the applicability of this indemnification? The Ground and Flight Risk and Government property clauses already address the loss or damage of Government items.

The Government will review the clauses, Section H, item H.4 “Indemnification of Government Assets”, DFARS 252.228- 7001 and FAR 52.245-1 and revise the RFP accordingly to ensure it is clear when each clause applies.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-65

Section H, Item H.4 Indemnification of Government assets appears to require a higher level of indemnification than is required by FAR 252.228- 7001 Ground and Flight risk and 52.245-1 Government Property clauses.

Would the government consider adjusting H.4 to clarify this indemnification is only applicable to services performed at locations not identified in the solicitation? For example a contractors facility.

The Government will review the clauses, Section H, item H.4 “Indemnification of Government Assets”, DFARS 252.228- 7001 and FAR 52.245-1 and revise the RFP accordingly to ensure it is clear when each clause applies.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-66

RFP Atch 4, ITO, Section L, Para’s 2.3.5 and 2.3.7:

a. Paragraph 2.3.5, Page Limitations, states: “Each page shall be counted except the following: blank pages, title pages, tables of contents, tabs, indexes, glossaries, and those noted in the Proposed Organization Chart as unlimited.”

b. Paragraph 2.3.7, Cross Referencing, states: “The Offeror shall complete the cross-reference matrix provided in Table 2.2 that will indicate the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item. The Offeror cross reference matrix shall include the proposal reference information as it relates to the instructions, PWS contents, RFP sections, contract line item number (CLIN), contractor data requirements list (CDRL) references (if applicable), and the corresponding proposal paragraph in the section which addresses the reference item as part of Volume I –Technical; Volume II – Past Performance; Volume III –Price.

Discussion: ITO paragraph 2.3.7 requires a completed Cross Reference Matrix to be submitted as part of Volume I – Technical, Volume II – Past Performance, and Volume III – Price. ITO paragraph 2.3.5, however does not specifically exclude the required cross reference matrices from the page counts, nor does it identify the Cross Reference Matrix in Table 2.1, Proposal Organization, for Volumes I, II, and III.

A. Will the Government consider identifying the required Cross Reference Matrix as excluded from volume page counts in ITO paragraph 2.3.7?

B. Will the Government consider adding “2.3.7, Cross Reference Matrix, Unlimited” within Table 2.1, Proposal Organization, in the sections for Volume I, Technical, Volume II, Past Performance, and Volume III, Price?

A. Designated the page count as “unlimited” for the Cross Reference Matrix for each volume.

B. Added Cross Reference Matrix to Table 2.1 for each of the volumes.

QUESTION

REF #

QUESTION RESPONSE

1-67

Attachment 4, Section L:

Section 3.2.3 (d) under Subfactor 1: Program Management, Small Business Subcontracting: We request the Government consider 20% SB of total sales “less the PMO” as the SB goal.

The Government has made an adjustment to the requirement as described in special clause H-1 titled “Small Business Subcontracting Requirement and Incentives.” The requirement now mandates at least 10% of total contract value be subcontracted to small businesses.

Please review the clause in its entirety as there were other changes made in relation to the reporting requirements.

1-68 The Government, on pages 9 and 10 of Section M, 2.4.2.2, more narrowly defines the "elements" within Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity, presenting three sub-elements under each in descending order of relevancy.

Notwithstanding the Government's acknowledgement in this section that it "may or may not" utilize these elements, will the Government apply these elements against all past performance that it deems assessable? In other words, if an Offeror's past performance met the assessment criteria (including qualifying subcontractor past performance), will the Government conduct an assessment against this past performance using the elements/sub-elements identified on pages 9 and 10? If "yes", then there are concerns about the ability of Offerors other than the incumbent contractor, to be able to provide a "Very Relevant" score for its past performance. Further, is it the Government's intent - that it will value the first elements under scope, magnitude, and complexity (e.g., under "Scope: 1. C-12 maintenance") above the other elements and that this is congruent with its overall acquisition strategy?

The definitions/examples of scope, magnitude and complexity as outlined in para 2.4.2.2 of Section M, Evaluation Criteria for Award will be used in determining relevancy as it relates to the similarities between a given past performance effort and the C-12 requirement. All three factors will be considered together when determining relevancy. An incumbent contractor may or may not have a competitive advantage by virtue of being an incumbent;

however, incumbency would still not entitle an Offeror to receive preferential treatment over its competitors. The mere existence of a prior or current contractual relationship does not create an unfair competitive advantage. Offerors may be able to provide multiple past performance examples that, in the aggregate, demonstrate essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort and complexity.