8-25-17_Pre-Proposal_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8106-16-R-0012
About this file
This is an Excel spreadsheet with some of the questions industry has asked since release of the RFP and their corresponding answers. There are additional questions and answers the Government will be posting as soon as possible. Continue to monitor FBO for those questions and answers.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 88 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
8-25-17 FBO Posting
| C-20 / C-37 CLS Recompete Questions | |||||
| Draft Contract | |||||
| CLIN/Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | Answer |
| DFARS Clause 252.246-7008 | Sources of Electronic Parts | The offeror currently complies with FAA Order 8120.16, Advisory Circular (AC) AC 21-29B as required. | Will USAF accept FAA Order 8120.16, Advisory Circular (AC) AC 21-29B in lieu of the DFAR clause? | All clauses in the RFP will be required to be followed. | |
| X001 | Data | Exhibit A - (Unlimited Rights) | Offeror contends that any CDRL containing financial information or proprietary design data/ process shall not be released with "Unlimited" rights. | Can the USAF confirm that data rights shall be negotiated and incorporated into the contract with said rights designated appropriate to proprietary data? | Data will be handled as outlined in the contract, no exceptions. |
| General | Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) | Would the Government provide copies of any CBA’s on the current program? | There are no CBA's on the current contract. | ||
| Appendix B - C-20/C-37 GFM | |||||
| CLIN/Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | |
| Appendix B - GFP / GFM | Is the list as supplied all that is coming with the contract? Or is there more? | The Government is aware of additional items and is currently working on the issue. | |||
| Appendix D - CDRLs | |||||
| Appendix G - Pricing Matrix | |||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | |
| X645, 646, 752, 753 | RESERVED | Change from draft pricing matrix to final pricing matrix | In the draft pricing matrix, depot induction requirements were to be priced in CLINS X645, X646, X752 & X753. These CLINS have been subsequently removed and labeled as "reserved" in the final solicitation. | Can USAF please confirm which CLIN the depot induction tasks are supposed to be priced into? | Induction tasks outlined in the RFP are captured under the Program Management CLINs. |
| Appendix K - Instructions to Offerors | |||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | |
| Appendix K | 6.3.7 | Attachments to the Model Contract | ITO titles Attachment G as the "C-20/C-37 Aircraft Information". It does not appear that an Attachment G was provided with the RFP on FBO (released 28 July 2017). | Can the USAF please confirm that Attachment G was not provided as part of the RFP, AND it shall not be required as part of the Contract Documentation volume? IF it is to be provided, can the USAF please release Attachment G as noted in Appendix K? | Attachment G was provided. It is listed as Aircraft & Engine Information on FBO, but when opened it is titled Attachment G. |
| Appendix K | 6.3.7 | Attachments to the Model Contract | ITO titles Appendix B as the "GFP/GFE". It does not appear that an Appendix B was provided with the RFP on FBO (released 28 July 2017). | Can the USAF please confirm that Appendix B was not provided as part of the RFP, AND it shall not be required as part of the Contract Documentation volume? IF it is to be provided, can the USAF please release Appendix B as noted in Appendix K? | Appendix B was provided. It is provided as two documents. One titled Final GFP C-20 and the other titled Final GFP C37. Both documents are dated as 7-25-2017. |
| Appendix K | 6.3.7 | Attachments to the Model Contract | The Offeror notes that non-altered/modified attachments and appendices listed total over 3,500 pages when printed. | Would the USAF consider allowing non-altered/modified attachments and appendices be incorporated into the contract by reference and listed under the "List of Documents, Exhibits or Attachments" section of the contract, in order to avoid unnecessary resource waste (i.e. excess paper & binding materials)? | No. |
| Appendix K, ITO | K. 3.2.3(a) | Appendix K 3.2.3(a) is to provide a mission essential services plan per PWS 3.1.6.1, PWS 3.1.6.1 states - "The plan shall be submitted with the contractor's proposal", However Appendix K gives no instructions on page allocation for a submitted plan. | Is it the government's desire to have Mission Essential Services Plan submitted with the proposal and if so is it an attachment to the technical response or is it part of the 75 page limit. | The Mission Essential Services Plan shall be part of the 75 page technical evaluation limit. | |
| Appendix K, ITO | K. 3.2.3(b) | Appendix K 3.2.3(b) is to provide signed letters of intent with OEM, Engine Maintenance and subcontractors. However Appendix K gives no instructions on page allocation for these agreements. | Is it the government's desire to have signed agreements submitted with the proposal and if so is it an attachment to the technical response and not part of the 75 page limit. Do the signed agreements have a page limit? | The signed letters of intent are to be included as part of the proposal. The signed letters of intent are not to be included in the 75 page limit, no page limit. | |
| Appendix K, ITO | K.3.2.6 | The Instructions for CDRL A002 Phase-In Plan require a separate Table of Contents for that plan | Can the Table of Contents for the PH Plan be incorporated into the Technical Volume | Reference the following two answers. The Government will require the actual CDRL plan 15 days after contract award. | |
| Appendix K, ITO & PWS | K 3.2.6 / PWS Par 2.1 | Section K.3.2.6 requires with the proposal a Phase In Plan IAW CDRL A002 with the proposal. PWS 2.1 requires the Phase In Plan (CDRL A002) 15 days after contract award. | Is there a difference in the plan required by those two requirements? If so what is that difference? If so, when is the formal Phase-In Plan, IAW CDRL A002, due to the government? | 3.2.6 states; "As a minimum, the approach shall provide……Provide an approach to ensure a smooth phase-in". The "approach" for the phase-in plan shall be evaluated to ensure the Offeror includes/understands the identified requirements in PWS 2.1 through 2.8. The Government requires the actual CDRL plan 15 days after contract award. | |
| Appendix K & L | K.3.2.6.a / L.2.2.4.a | Section K 3.2.6.a requires an approach for smooth phase-in, meeting the listed PWS requirements to include the how and associated risks. The linked paragraph in Section L, L.2.2.4.a, evaluates a milestone schedule with critical path marked. The Instructions to offerors doesn't mention a milestone schedule but the evaluation factors appear to require one. | Is a Milestone Schedule with Critical path required. If required, can it be considered outside the page count as it will require significant space. | The "approach" to developing a Milestone Schedule with Critical paths will be evaluated. Effectively identifying possible risks and providing feasible mitigation in this approach will be evaluated. The actual Phase-in plan is required 15 days after award. This "approach" shall be part of the 75 page technical evaluation. | |
| Appendix K &T | 6.3.7 | Offerors are instructed to provide attachments to the model contract. The list includes Attachment K, Attachment S and Attachment U, which are listed as “In Technical Library.” Appendix T states that “The laptop will be set up to allow “READ ONLY” access. No photos or copies of the information will be allowed.” | Does the government intend for the offeror to provide a tab only for each of these sections and list them as “In Technical Library”? Or does the government anticipate releasing these sections to offerors so they may include them as attachments? | For the Attachments to the PWS and the Appendices of the RFP that are listed as “In Technical Library” the Government does not require the offeror to provide the document. Instead a tab with a sheet of paper that states “Document in Technical Library” will meet the Government requirement. However, Attachment S is provided on FedBizOps as a secure attachment. This document should be incorporated in an offerors’ proposal. | |
| Appendix K, ITO | K. 3.2.3.e.2 | No Collective Bargaining Agreements were issued with the RFP. However the ITO asks offerors to address managing an organized workforce and a plan for strike mitigation. | If there are any collective baragining units, please provide the applicable CBAs. Are you anticiapting that the workforce will organize? If not, please explain the purpose of this requirement. | There are no CBA's at this time. 3.2.3.e.2 is not solely evaluating the management of an organized work force. However, CBA's have occurred in supporting this requirement in the past and the Government needs to ensure the prime has a plan in place if this occurs again. | |
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | |
| Appendices L-Evaluation Criteria | |||||
| Appendix L | L.2.3.2.2 | Evaluation of Past Performance Relevancy appears to be broken down into sections corresponding to the four technical subfactors with the ability for multiple evaluation criteria across the subfactors for any single PP citation. | Does a relevancy or non-relevancy in one subfactor of a PP effect the other subfactors? Will submission of very relevant PP in one or multiple subfactors be considered as VR if on another PP citation that subfactor was considered not relevant (e.g. use of a specific Depot)? | The relevancy in one subfactor does not affect the relevancy in other subfactors. For instance, a contract may be rated Very Relevant (VR) in Subfactor 1 Program Management based on an offeror performing all functions within SF1, and the same contract may be rated Somewhat Relevant (SR) in Subfactor 2 Supply Chain Management, based on an offeror performing only some of the functions within SF2. |
Other considerations for relevancy are Scope and Magnitude. There are no specific relevancy ratings for Scope and Magnitude. They are considered as part of relevancy within the subfactors. For instance, an offeror may submit a contract for evaluation where the offeror performed all supply chain management functions in relation to subfactor 2. However, if the contract was for 10 aircraft at a single location, the Subfactor 2 Supply Chain Management relevancy rating for that contract may be Relevant (R) or Somewhat Relevant (SR) based on the smaller magnitude when compared to the C-20/C-37 requirement.
Relevancy ratings for one contract are not affected by the relevancy ratings for other contracts. Contract relevancy ratings are not averaged for an overall relevancy rating. Each contract receives relevancy ratings compared to how that particular contract relates to the C-20/C-37 requirement. Relevancy ratings for one contract are not affected by the relevancy ratings for other contracts. Contract relevancy ratings are not averaged for an overall relevancy rating. Each contract receives relevancy ratings compared to how that particular contract relates to the C-20/C-37 requirement.
| Appendices H & J - Depot CMP codes | |||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | |
| CLIN No. | Firm Fixed Price CLINs for C-20G | Landing gear overhaul CLIN for the C-20G is either missing or not needed. | Is it the Government's intent to not have a 5000 cycle landing gear overhaul CLIN for the C-20Gs, as is the case for the C-20F and the C-37s? | A CLIN will not be added, the effort will be negotiated on a case by case basis. | |
| Attachment T - Exclusion List | |||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | |
| #8 | Major Structural Airframe Items | Item 8 is written to MSG-3 aircraft only (USAF/USN/USA C-37). It uses MSG-3 only manuals and terminology regarding the "Major Structural Airframe Items" exclusions. The Army C-20F is not MSG-3, and does not have the same terminology in its manuals. | Would the Government please clarify if the intent is to have the contractor price into the FH rate the replacement of major structural Airframe items for the Army C-20F or would the Government rather clarify that this exclusion will also apply to the Army C-20F using the methodology in the GIV MSG-3 AMM & SRM? | Items in Attachment T are applicable to all aircraft. #8 applies to USA C-20F MSG-3 and Non-MSG-3 aircraft (Life Limited Components). | |
| Attachment P - BSA Navy - Sigonella | |||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | |
| PWS | |||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | |
| 2.1.7 | MOB Ground Operating Procedures | "Develop GOP procedures I/A/W best commercial practices." The same paragraph then requires complying with all Host Base Requirements. Several questions have been asked if Host Base procedures must be followed to which the government has responded; "host base requirements vary from base to base"; Additionally, Appendix C states "The contractor shall maintain the fleet I/A/W part 91 Best Commercial Practices". | The APPENDIX C, section II, references multiple Airforce Instructions (AFIs). This is all conflicting guidance. The offeror is aware that Base Procedures invoke AFIs, and AFIs standards are far beyond best commercial practices and add significant manpower requirements. | Will the USAF |
(a) confirm Appendix C SECT I, Para A-2 - guidance "develop a safety plan per the SUBJECTS listed in SECT II", refers to ONLY the subject, and NOT to the referenced AFI's nor their content?
| (b) Either remove this last section of PWS 2.1.7 " at a minimum, comply with all host base requirements applicable to these GOPs actions" OR provide the Host Base Requirements to all offerors, so offerors can make a fair assessment of all the additional labor/headcount and associated added cost requirements for each base? | The Government stands by its previous answer "host base requirements vary from base to base"; in order to perform contract services on a military installation the Contractor must follow base requirements applicable to Ground Operating procedures. Some but not all of these procedures are outlined in SafetyAppendix C. As stated in Appendix C "while performing work on assigned aircraft at a military or civilain site" the Contractor is "subject to Safety Requirements as directed by Host Nation and Base Aagencies while performing duties under FAA FAR Part 91 and FAR Part 145". Please reference individual BSA's for additonal infornmation on host base requirements. | |||||
| 3.3.1 | Quality Program Requirements | The Contractor shall provide and maintain a Quality System compliant with International Organization for Standardization ISO 9001:2008 quality standard. | This paragraph requires compliance with ISO 9001:2008. Offeror notes that compliance with AS9100/9110 was in the DRFP, but removed from the final RFP. | As AS9100/9110 is the growing industry standard, will the USAF allow the awardee to be compliant with AVIATION INDUSTRY STANDARD AS9100/9110 as an alternate quality system? | The Contractor shall provide and maintain a Quality System IAW PWS requirements. The Contractor must maintain compliance with ISO 9001:2008. If the Contractor has alternative quality systems in addition to this requirement, it is up to that Contractor to maintain and support the minimum requirements outlined in ISO 9001:2008. | |
| 4.12 | Flying Hour (FH) Coverage | The Contractor shall supply all materials, consumables, parts, and components to meet PWS requirements as part of the FH rate unless specifically excluded in Attachment T. | While the 1st sentence in 4.12 clearly excludes these high dollar items from CPFH rates, it is not clear if this exclusion also provides relief from associated supply performance. For offerors, it would be extremely expensive to procure and place a supply of all these large, high dollar items (i.e. Engines, Nacelles, APUs, Landing Gear etc.), at every site, in anticipation of a potential demand. Offerors also cannot predict or control the supply of Attachment T items that are provided outside of their control such as base Supply for DIRCM or LAIRCM parts. | Are offerors required to include in our pricing, the cost to procure and place these high dollar excluded items at the sites, or will relief to the supply time be granted if and when a demand for an excluded item is placed? | Nacelles (nose cowl, fan cowl doors, fixed cowl, and thrust reverser) have been included in Attachment T to be ngotiated on a "case by case basis." The contractor shall provide all parts in the time needed to meet the performance requirements of the PWS. | |
| PWS | PWS Par 2.6 | Checkpoint Item d. Export License verification. | Will the Government provide a list by part number, nomenclature, and OEM of all current International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) controlled items on the C-20/C-37 fleets and any other items for which export license verification will be required? | No, the Contractor is responsible for Export license verification and adhering to ITAR requirements when transporting parts. | ||
| PWS | PWS Par 4.7 | The first sentence states: "The contractor shall calibrate, store, repair, and maintain SE: special tools and equipment." This is a subparagraph under 4.0 COMBS responsibility. | Please clarify the contractors responsibility for maintaining support equipment for the Air Force COMBS site at JBA? Specifically, there is a separate contract to maintain the USAF aircraft at JBA. Does that contractor have the responsibility for maintaining the SE used to support the fleet, or does the COMBS contractor maintain the SE? | The successful offeror willl be responsible for maintaining all GFE and GFP listed on this contract. | ||
| PWS | Section 4.14 | The COMBS representative shall work a standard week (Monday through Friday) | Would the Government please define “Standard week” for the Coast Guard requirement at Reagan Nation Airport? | The Contractor shall supply a COMBS representative experienced in the Contractor’s logistics supply system as stated in Para 4.1.1 and 4.14 (USCG) of the PWS. AS described in the PWS "standard work week (Monday through Friday)". It is up to the Contractor to provide further requirements for their personnel in order to meet PWS requirements. | ||
| PWS | Section 4.14 | The COMBS representative shall work a standard week (Monday through Friday) | Would the Government please define “Standard week” at each Main Operating Base? | A "Standard week" is not defined at each Main Operating Base because the Contractor shall support personnel as stated in Para 4.1.1 for COMBS and 5.2.1 for MOB Maintenance of the PWS. It is up to the Contractor to provide further requirements for their personnel in order to meet PWS requirements. | ||
| Post Solicitation Conference | ||||||
| Post Solicitation Conference | When do you decide to cross the threshold that decides what is acceptable or unacceptable on the technical factor? | Technically unacceptable proposals will be based on information outlined in Appendix L, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors for Award. | ||||
| Post Solicitation Conference | How often a contract is awarded without discussion? | It is somewhat rare, however the Governments intention is to award without discussions. | ||||
| Post Solicitation Conference | Will the contractor honor the price for the final year on the last option (extension of services)? | Yes, the contractor will have to honor the price of the final year if an extension of services is exercised. | ||||
| Post Solicitation Conference | In reference to the Gov CLIN - Andrews maintenance. Has that changed? What is the status? | The Air Force aircraft at Andrews AFB will recieve partial Contractor Logistics support. This means the day to day line maintenance will be handled by another contract at this time. However, the Government reserves the right to add and remove work as determined necessary which will be handled on a case by case basis. | ||||
| PWS; ITO | Section 3.15; Section 3.2.3.d | Post Solicitation Conference | PWS 3.2.11 requires a monthly reconciliation, etc. Which is customary. The daily funds status would not fluctuate that much. | Please clarify on a FFP contract, what is the purpose of daily, realtime funds accounting status. Is the requirement to provide updates when they change only? Due to O&A etc.? | The Government has multiple aircraft located worldwide which are supporting multiple Department of Defense agencies on several different task orders. The funds tracking can become complicated quickly. The daily funds tracking helps ensure funds are being applied correctly and ensures O&A funds are being tracked and monitored appropriately. | |
| Will the Pre-Proposal Conference Attendee list be posted on FedBizOps? | No. | |||||
| END OF QUESTIONS |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .