8-31-17_Pre-Proposal_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8106-16-R-0012
About this file
This is an excel file which contains all of the industry questions the Government has received about the formal RFP as well as the corresponding answers. Some of these questions and answers were previously posted on 8-25-17, but the Government wanted to provide all of the questions and answers in one convenient location.
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
Sheet1
| C-20 / C-37 CLS Recompete Questions | ||||||
| Draft Contract | ||||||
| CLIN/Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | Answer | |
| Contract: CLINs X657, X711 & X735 & Attachment T, #1 | Contract: All materials, supplies, parts, and | |||||
| components for this CLIN are provided in the Firm Fixed Price Flying Hour CLINs. Attachment T: listed as a CPFH exclusion for "off-wing depot maintenance, repair and overhaul." | There is an apparent conflict with the CLIN description for CLINs X657, X711 & X735 (landing gear overhaul CLINs) and the Attachment T regarding how material is charged. | Per Attachment T, the offeror assumes that the Government does not intend for landing gear material to be priced within the CPFH. Can the USAF please confirm this assumption? Will the CLINs be amended accordingly? | CLIN language for X657, X711, X735 will be updated on amendment 0001 to the RFP. All material is to be priced into the CLIN and is not covered by the Flying Hour CLINs. | |||
| 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. | ||
| Various | Offeror notes that each time the description for a C-37 CLIN is listed, it states “APPENDIX H lists the current CMP cards which will serve as a base-line for adjustment.” Offeror assumes this should be “APPENDIX J.” | Can the USAF please confirm the referenced assumptions and/or make revisions as necessary? | CLIN language will be updated to state correct Appendix J on amendment 001 to the RFP. | |||
| 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. | |||
| CDRL A004 X106 | Subscriptions | CDRL A004 CLIN X106 JEPPESEN NZ Navigational Database Renewal/Ya5 World V3.01 web | CLX106 Reference JEPPESEN Subscription ,We believe is a Honeywell Service | Can USAF please confirm that this is a Honeywell Service? | Confirmed. CLIN X106 will be updated with RFP Amendment 0001 to reflect the correction. | |
| Appendix B - C-20/C-37 GFM | ||||||
| CLIN/Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | ||
| Offeror notes that in the previous program solicitation (2011) APP B, the “as advertised” GFP inventory (spares and GSE) was almost 37,000 line of inventory. Consisting of approx. 3,000 separate lines of C37 GFP plus over 34,000 separate lines of C-20 GFP (parts and GSE).This contract still has both C20s & C37s in place and GSE in place. In the current solicitation, two APP B lists as supplied together only add up to a little over 7,000 lines of GFP (spares and parts). | Is the list as supplied all that is coming with the contract? Or is there more? | GFP list is updated. Reference Appendix B GFP list provided with RFP Amendment 0001 for the updated list. | ||||
| Appendix D - CDRLs | ||||||
| Appendix D | CDRLs | The listed DID data site https://quicksearch.dla.mil/ does not appear to be operational | Can the government provide Current DIDs for the listed CDRLs. | The DID Data Site is operational. The address we supplied is incorrect. The address is http://quicksearch.dla.mil/ . The site is a http and not a https. The correct address is highlighted in the footer of the first three pages of new Appendix D attached to RFP Amendment 0001. | ||
| Appendix G - Pricing Matrix | ||||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | ||
| X629 | RVSM Re-Certification | Variation of CLIN title between Appendices H & G | Offeror notes that CLIN X629 is referred to/titled as "Operation Package 45" on Appendix H, but said CLIN is referred to/titled "RVSM Re-Certification" on Appendix G. | Can USAF please confirm correct CLIN X629 title/designation? | Title will be corrected to reflect same requirement and an updated Appendix H will be attached to RFP amendment 001. | |
| 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. | |
| X720 | 12000 Cycle Initial Inspection | Variation of CLIN title between Appendices J & G | Offeror notes that CLIN X720 is referred to/titled as "DELETED" on Appendix J, but said CLIN is referred to/titled "12000 Cycle Initial Inspection" on Appendix G. | Can USAF please confirm correct CLIN X720 title/designation? (Should it be "RESERVED"?) | CLIN X720 will be updated to be reserved in the updated Appendix G and removed from the RFP. This change will be incorporated in RFP Amendment 0001. | |
| Appendix K - Instructions to Offerors | ||||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | ||
| Appendix K | Table 2.3 / Section 5.5 | Price Volume / Volume Organization | Table 2.3 in the ITO lists the following contents for the Price Volume - Section 1: Title Page, Team List, Cross Reference Matrix, Table of Contents, List of Table sand Figures & Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms: Section 2: General Information, General Instructions, Price Reasonableness, Volume Organization. Section 5.5 Volume Organization lists the following contents for the price volume - Section 1: Rationale for Price Reasonableness, Balanced Pricing, Price Realism, Pricing Information Requirements & Rounding; Section 2: Pricing Support Information, Explanation of Specific Estimating Techniques and Methods, Past Experience Basis of Estimate, Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision, Subcontractor Pricing, Price Assumptions used in Development of Proposed Pricing: Section 3: Rates, GFP/GFE/GFM, CFP/CFE/CFM, Service Contract Labor Standards, Government Field Support Agencies & Other Documentation; Section 4: Appendix G Pricing Matrix. | Can USAF please confirm the Offerors assumption that the Price Volume should be organized IAW ITO Section 5.5 Volume Organization, and disregard contents listed in table 2.3? If not, can the USAF please provide non-conflicting instructions as to the Price Volume's organization? | Appendix K will be administratively corrected. This updated Appendix K will be incorporated in RFP Amendment 0001. | |
| Appendix K | 6.3.7 | Attachments to the Model Contract | ITO titles Attachment E as the "C-20/C-37 Physical Configuration Audit Report". The Attachment E provided with the RFP (released 28 July 2017) was titled "Additional Contract Requirements/Procedures." | Can the USAF please confirm/clarify the correct title/intent of Attachment E as it is to be provided as part of the Contract Documentation volume? | ITO will be corrected to reflect the correct title. All corrections are highlighted in yellow. The updated Appendix K will be provided with Amendment 001 to the RFP. | |
| 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 Attachment J as the "Performance Plan". The Attachment J provided with the RFP (released 28 July 2017) was titled "RESERVED." | Can the USAF please confirm/clarify the correct title/intent of Attachment J as it is to be provided as part of the Contract Documentation volume? | ITO will be corrected to reflect the correct title. All corrections are highlighted in yellow. The updated Appendix K will be provided with Amendment 001 to the RFP. | |
| Appendix K | 6.3.7 | Attachments to the Model Contract | ITO titles Attachment V as the "Base Support Agreement - Pt Mugu". It does not appear that an Attachment V was provided with the RFP on FBO (released 28 July 2017). | Can the USAF please confirm that Attachment V 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 V as noted in Appendix K? | ITO will be corrected to reflect the correct title. All corrections are highlighted in yellow. The updated Appendix K will be provided with Amendment 001 to the RFP. . | |
| 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 | ITO titles Appendix E as "RESERVED". The Appendix E provided with the RFP (released 28 July 2017) was titled "Addenda to FAR 52.212-4." | Can the USAF please confirm/clarify the correct title/intent of Appendix E as it is to be provided as part of the Contract Documentation volume? | ITO will be corrected to reflect the correct title. All corrections are highlighted in yellow. The updated Appendix K will be provided with Amendment 001 to the RFP. | |
| Appendix K | 6.3.7 | Attachments to the Model Contract | ITO titles Appendix R as "Collective Bargaining Agreement". The Appendix R provided with the RFP (released 28 July 2017) was titled "10 Year Maintenance Projection." | Can the USAF please confirm/clarify the correct title/intent of Appendix R as it is to be provided as part of the Contract Documentation volume? | ITO will be corrected to reflect the correct title. All corrections are highlighted in yellow. The updated Appendix K will be provided with Amendment 001 to the RFP. | |
| 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 | Attachment 3.0 | Scenario | Requirements (4): Provide CMP Codes in Project (or equivalent program) for item numbers 2, and 3 only - 4C for C-37. Item 3 is the “Exterior Strip and Paint Aircraft using Air Force non-descript white paint scheme.” | As no CMP codes exist for CLIN X749, item 3, the exterior strip and paint, should Scenario Requirements (4) be revised to read “Provide CMP Codes in Project (or equivalent program) for item number 2 only - 4C for C-37”? | ITO Scenario has been corrected. All corrections are highlighted in yellow. The updated Appendix K will be provided with Amendment 001 to the RFP. | |
| Appendix K | 3.2.3(c)(3) | “Provide an effective method(s) of managing Main Operating Base (MOB) maintenance to meet requirements (metrics) established in the PWS Table 12..” | Table 12 doesn’t appear to exist in the PWS. Should this reference be Table 1-2 “Performance Requirements (Metrics)”? | Yes, the correct table is 1-2. Appendix K correctly reflects this table. | ||
| Appendix K | Attachment 3.0 & 4.0 | Are the spreadsheets required in Appendix K, Attachment 3.0 and Appendix K, Attachment 4.0 exempt from the proposal page count? | Yes, attachment 3.0 and 4.0 are exempt from the 75 page limit. | |||
| Appendix K | Table 2.3 Volume II & 4.3.2 | The proposal organization table lists The “Present/Past Performance Information Sheets,” then later lists “Relevant Contract Narrative” as a separate line item. The instructions for paragraph 4.3.2 state, “For each PPI form, the offeror shall provide a narrative…” This seems to indicate that the narrative should be submitted in the PPI tool. | Does the government intend for offerors to provide two copies of the PPI printouts, to satisfy the requirement for both “Present/Past Information Sheets” and “Relevant Contract Narrative” as listed in the organization table? If not, will the government provide clarification regarding what information specifically should be included for each of these required sections? | No, the Government does not require two copies of the PPI printouts. While the PPI Sheet has a Relevant Contract Narrative section, a separate section detailing the relevancy of their past performance is required in the past performance volume. | ||
| Appendix K, ITO | Table 2.4 | In Table 2.4, Cross Reference Matrix, some of the RFP Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 & FAR 52.212-2 paragraph references do not exist. Specifically, paragraph 3.2.3.f & 2.2.1.f associated with Element 1d; paragraph 3.2.3.g & 2.2.1.g associated with Element 1e; and paragraph 3.2.5.c & 2.2.3.c associated with Element 3b. | Please verify/correct the RFP Addendum to 52.212-1 & -2 paragraph references listed in Table 2.4, Cross Reference Matrix | ITO will be corrected to reflect the correct references. All corrections are highlighted in yellow. The updated Appendix K and Appendix L will be provided with Amendment 001 to the RFP. | ||
| 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 | K.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 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 &T | K.6.3.7 | “The bidders’ library will contain the information from PWS Attachment K ‘Paint Drawings and Paint Evaluation Standards’ and Attachment U ‘Floor Plans.’” The list of attachments provided in Appendix K lists Attachment S as “In Technical Library.” | Will Attachment S be available for viewing in the technical library? If not, will the government consider releasing this document for offerors to review? | Attachment S is currently provided on FedBizOps as a secure document. | ||
| 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 bargaining units, please provide the applicable CBAs. Are you anticipating 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. | ||
| Appendix K, ITO | K 3.2.3.c | "…in accordance with Gulfstream Maintenance Manual Chapter 5," | Where can a copy of Gulfstream Maintenance Manual Chapter 5 be obtained? | Utilize commerical industry practices to obtain the commerical Gulfstream Maintenance Manual Chapter 5. | ||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | ||
| Appendix M. | Rates | Offeror notes that Appendix M - FL Wage Determination is not the most recently published. A later version (#2015-4572 Rev 1 dated 01/31/2017) has been posted and some rates were increased. I.e. - 01410 - Supply Technician was $21.10 now $23.03; 23022 - Aircraft Mechanic II was $26.29 now $28.79; 23023 – Aircraft Mechanic III was $27.60 now $30.03 | Can the USAF confirm that offerors should utilize the latest (most up to date) wage determinations - for all states and job categories - when preparing their price proposals? | Confirmed. Offerors will utilize the latest version of the wage determinations to prepare their proposal. The newest version of the wage determinations will be provided as Appendix M, Appendix N, and Appendix P with RFP Amendment 0001. | ||
| 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. | |
| Appendix H | X630, X642, X643, X644, X647 & Page 2 Matrix | Offeror assumes the following: X630 should be reserved |
X642 should be reserved and X643 should be an engine midlife X644 should be an engine overhaul X647 should be a weight and balance
| The matrix on page 2 is missing X667 | Can the USAF please confirm the referenced assumptions and/or make revisions as necessary? | Appendix H has been updated to correct the administrative errors. The updated Appendix H will be attached to RFP Amendment 0001 and all corrections will be highlighted in yellow. | |
| Appendix J | CLINs X752,753,755 | Offeror assumes the following: X752 should be reserved |
X753 should be reserved
| X755 should be reserved | Can the USAF please confirm the referenced assumptions and/or make revisions as necessary? | Appendix J has been updated to correct the administrative errors. The updated Appendix J will be attached to RFP Amendment 0001 and all corrections will be highlighted in yellow. | ||||
| 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 | ||
| P. 4-6 | Contractor Privileges | Offeror notes the following TESA/TR benefits offered to NATO supporting employees that were on the prior solicitation’s NAS Sigonella BSA has been removed from this BSA. (a) POV vehicle registration & licensing and (b) exemption from host country taxation. This will represent a significant cost impact to be passed onto the Government, especially the host country taxation. | Is it the Government intent to remove these benefits from employees at the NAS Sigonella location? | The removal of these items was in error. The updated Attachment P to Appendix A outlines the correct Base Support Agreement for Sigonella, IT. This updated Attachment P to Appendix A will be posted with RFP Amendment 0001. | ||
| P. 4-6 | Contractor Privileges | Offeror notes, some Base support elements that were in the prior solicitation’s NAS Sigonella BSA were removed from this BSA. Based on previous experience, this will create new challenges that must be priced at that location. |
• Prior BSA defined minimum sizes for hangar, offices, shop, Cages, parking etc. This BSA only offers space as deemed adequate.
• The prior BSA offered non-interference back shop access to Back shops; Electrical, welding/machine, NDI, Hydraulics, GSE, Cal Lab, Life Support, Battery, Tire/Wheel shops, However these have all been removed from this BSA.
• The prior BSA offered aircraft Latrine servicing vehicle, This BSA does not.
| Is it the Government’s intent, at Sigonella, to reduce Hangar, offices, shop space & parking and to remove back shop support on a non-interference basis and remove latrine servicing of the aircraft at the NAS Sigonella location? IF so, will the contractor be required to propose these as needed? | The removal of these items was in error. The updated Attachment P to Appendix A outlines the correct Base Support Agreement for Sigonella, IT. This updated Attachment P to Appendix A will be posted with RFP Amendment 0001. | |||
| 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 Safety Appendix C. As stated in Appendix C "while performing work on assigned aircraft at a military or civilian site" the Contractor is "subject to Safety Requirements as directed by Host Nation and Base Agencies while performing duties under FAA FAR Part 91 and FAR Part 145". Please reference individual BSA's for additional information 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 negotiated on a "case by case basis." The contractor shall provide all parts in the time needed to meet the performance requirements of the PWS. | |
| 4.13.2 | USA/USN | 4.13.2 USA/USN “The CLS Contractor shall be responsible for all maintenance of MCS systems at full CLS sites. The Contractor shall provide required LRUs to support MCS in the COMBS. The Contractor shall provide support for this system to include but not limited to accountability, inventory, packaging, shipping, and safeguarding of all spares associated with the system. The Contractor shall be responsible for repair and replacement of system spares.” | This statement refers to USA and USN, however we are aware the USN also has some Navy Unique JEMPRS-NT type equipment installed that is Navy Supplied and in fact was addressed in the prior solicitation's PWS. And seems to be referenced in this PWS, in section 4.2.5.1. | Is this Navy JEMPRS MCS equipment still used on these aircraft and if so, will they be supplied by the Government and therefore excluded via Attachment T? | Yes, Navy JEMPERS MCS equipment is still used. Navy Senior Leadership Communication-Aircraft (NSLC-A) parts that are excluded have been updated and highlighted in the corrected Attachment T which will be posted with RFP Amendment 0001. NOTE: The Contractor is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of all MCS on all aircraft, however, on USAF C-37 certain MCS items are excluded per attachment T. In addition, certain NSLC parts listed are also excluded in Attachment T for USN. | |
| END OF QUESTION LIST |
| 5.3 | Deployment and/Contract Field Teams (CFT) | MOB personnel supporting deployments or field teams shall receive only travel, per diem, and other pays applicable per Attachment E paragraph 6. | Attachment E paragraph 6 pertains to Base Support. | The Offeror assumes that PWS 5.3 should refer to Attachment E paragraph 5, "Payments for Travel and Per Diem." Can the USAF confirm this assumption? | Removed paragraph 6 reference from PWS. Updated Appendix A PWS with corrections highlighted will be attached to RFP Amendment 0001. |
| PWS | PWS Par 5.2.9 | The last bullet in this paragraph refers to Navy VX-30 Telemetry System/ACTS. The range support aircraft references were removed from other areas of the PWS. | Please verify the last bullet in PWS paragraph 5.2.9 remains a valid requirement. | Removed paragraph 5.2.9 reference from PWS. Updated Appendix A PWS with corrections highlighted will be attached to RFP Amendment 0001. | |
| PWS | PWS Par 5.4.3.1; 5.4.3.4; 5.4.4.2; 5.5.3 | PWS Paragraphs 5.4.3.1; 5.4.3.4; 5.4.4.2; and 5.5.3 refer to an acronym "PO" that is not in the acronym list. | Please define the acronym "PO" as used in the referenced paragraphs" | Program Office (PO). PWS paragraphs which referenced PO have been corrected to read Program Office. Updated Appendix A PWS with corrections highlighted will be attached to RFP Amendment 0001. | |
| 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 will be is 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. | |
| PWS | 3.1.6.1 | The PWS states the Mission Essential Contractor services plan is to be submitted with the proposal. | Is this plan page limited? Will the government confirm contractor format is acceptable? | Mission Essential Services Plan shall be part of the 75 page technical evaluation limit. Government confirms contractor format is accetpable as long as it satisfies the PWS references listed in the instructions to offerors. | |
| 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 receive 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, real-time 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. |
| Appendix K | 3.2.3.c.2.i | How do you want the 24 x 36 "Depot Schedule" submitted as it exceeds binder size? | Appendix K has been administratively corrected and the Microsoft Project requirement is now to be provided on 11x17 paper not 24x36. The updated Appendix K will be provided with RFP Amendment 0001. | ||
| Will the Pre-Proposal Conference Attendee list be posted on FedBizOps? | No. |
END OF QUESTIONS
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .