Final_Q&A's_from_Draft_RFP_-_FBO_Posted_7-26-17.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 89 KB Posted
- Attached to
- C-37 & C-20 Contractor Logistics Support Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8106-16-R-0012
About this file
This excel spreadsheet provides all remaining questions and answers in regards to the draft RFP.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
C-37 & C-20 Contractor Logistics Support Services has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- 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 | Document/Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | Answer |
| NAS Mugu Base Support Agreement | The NAS Mugu Base Support Agreement cites Enclosure 1, however Enclosure 1 is not provided in Draft RFP documentation. | Can USAF please provide Enclosure 1 to Mugu BSA? | PT Mugu location has been removed from RFP | ||
| 0006 | Phase In | Clin 0006 C20D | In the Draft Contract, CLIN 0006 is reserved, but in the draft "Pricing matrix" it is not and CLIN 006 is for a C-20D which is not called out in the PWS table 1-1. | Offeror requests clarification on Draft Pricing Matrix for CLIN X0006. | CLIN 0006 will be reserved. |
| Draft "Pricing Matrix" | Draft "Pricing Matrix" CLIN X500-X525 lines 241-303 | CLIN X500-X525 | Some Flying Hour (FH) CLINS are for groups of aircraft (CLINs 500, 510, 515, 516) and some for singular aircraft (CLINS 511, 517, 518, 525). Offeror expected the ranges for the "grouped" CLINs would be increased to reflect the appropriate FH for the entire group. Currently the range mid points for some group CLINS are equivalent to each other and to CLINS for singular AC flight pricing. For example CLIN X515 is for 3 aircraft and CLIN X500 is for 9 aircraft and CLIN X518 is for 1 aircraft. Yet all three CLINS have exactly the same FH ranges. This will create highly unequal pricing for various CLINS with identical ranges. | How is USAF accounting for the Total Fleet for evaluation and contract value? Is this an error or does USAF expect the bidder to develop specialized FH Price points for these group CLINs with various size groups but identical ranges? | Each CLIN will take the total number of aircraft supported by the CLIN and utilize it as the denominator. Then each month the total number of hours flown by those aircraft will be totaled, which will be the numerator. The total number of hours flown divided by the total number of aircraft supported by the CLIN will produce the average number of hours. The average will be used to detemine the appropriate range/FH rate. The total hours for the fleet will be multiplied by the flying hour rate associated with the average hours. |
| Draft "Pricing Matrix" | Draft "Pricing Matrix" CLIN X500-X525 lines 241-303 | CLIN X500-X525 | Columns Y-AG, row 243 (hours) left blank for fleet. This results in no calculation for TEP. Additionally, since no TEP price is being calculated for each fleet, row 510 X500-X525 subtotal is not calculating at TEP price with all the other subtotals. | Offeror requests clarification on "draft pricing matrix" to ensure evaluation criteria is calculated. | Final pricing matrix will resolve TEP calculation issues. |
| CLIN 052 | PROGRAM MANAGEMENT - NAVY - C-20, USMC, Army C20, USCG | CLINS 0050 - 0056 | There are 7 CLINs for Program Management, but 4 are for single aircraft sites. An offerors proposal for program management is typically to propose one comprehensive and efficient structure for overall program management. It would be cost prohibitive to price in separate structure and headcount for each Service/CLIN that could each be deleted without affecting another CLIN. In this format, as proposed by the government, it forces 4 programs to be separately bid for PM. Offerors will be forced to increase the other program management CLINs (for multiple aircraft) to allow sufficient program management structure to sustain the remaining CLINs, should any one or two 1-aircraft CLINS be dropped. This will drive up the contractors price to accommodate for this added risk. | Will the government consider one program management CLIN per SERVICE and allow renegotiating remaining program management CLINS, should any one service then completely decided to pull out? | No. |
| CLINN X900 & X905 | MK-511 hourly and Daily rental fees | The offeror notes that there is a rate required to rent MK-511 on daily and hourly rates, however there are No GIIIs in the solicitation. Additionally, there a CLIN in the draft contract AND in the Draft Pricing matrix for GIII Engine repair/overhaul/ | Does the government want GIII SPEY 511 engine rental capability and pricing in CLIN 900 despite lack of GIIIs in the solicitation? Does the government want GIII SPEY 511 engine repair capability and pricing to support CLIN 905 despite lack of GIIIs in the solicitation? | There is no SPEY 511 requirement on the follow-on contract | |
| CLIN 0011 | Phase-in Navy Pt. Mugu | Page 3 of the contract states" this is to procure CLS support for aircraft currently assigned". | Offeror assumes each site already exists and is operating with staff, processes, equipment, etc. already in place. Therefore pricing for each PHASE-in typically assumes the incumbent's ongoing work, take over of existing spaces and likely hire of existing staff. However on close review of all documents so far, there is no apparent activity in Point Mugu. No spares, GSE, consumption, etc. If this is a new site and not already up and running, it seems bidders will have to do both a STAND-Up AND a PHASE-in. These are distinctly different tasks. STAND-Up tasks add significantly more cost, and many more activities to accomplish in addition to normal PHASE-in activities | Is Point MUGU currently up and running with existing Staff, SE, Spares, & Spaces already in place? |
If not, should offerors ALSO include the price & plan for a STAND-Up to include the added costs for sourcing/relocating staff, training, office/shop tools, GSE, etc.?
| And should all this additional pricing be included in the PHASE-IN CLIN X0011? | PT Mugu location has been removed from RFP | |||||
| CLIN 0011 | Phase-in Navy Pt. Mugu | CLIN 0011 | Upon review of all documents provided so far, for Point Mugu the offeror has found no GFP spares/parts and no GFE (SE) loaded for that location. This can be a very expensive investment and may not be possible within the 90 day phase in period, due to lead time. | For Point Mugu, is the offeror required to procure and provide ALL On site Spares and GSE for that aircraft/location? | PT Mugu location has been removed from RFP | |
| CLIN 0303 | C-37 MOB Maintenance AF Andrews AFB | CLIN 0303 | The Offeror questions how to effectively support/price the USAF Andrews location. Our Subject Matter Expert is familiar with the USAF setup here and had also attended a 2011 Site Survey at Andrews. The offeror understands the current line maintenance provider incumbent for the USAF Andrews aircraft is not the same incumbent as on the current C-20/C-37 contract. Offeror cannot determine if the awardee of this contract will be afforded sufficient office, shop and hangar spaces as well as access to back shops to effectively maintain the USAF aircraft. Additionally, there was no BSA provided for Andrews. Offeror notes that with 6 aircraft at this location, a dedicated hangar, shop, & office space will be required. | If the current maintainer for the USAF at Andrews is supporting a different contract, and thus will continue to need their own hangar, office and shop spaces, is there another set of offices, shop, hangar spaces, (for supporting the USAF aircraft), that will be provided to the awardee of this contract? If so, can USAF provide details on what will be provided so offerors will know how to price this item? | JBA MOB will be manned and supported by a third party contractor for USAF aircraft. The JBA USAF MOB option has been removed from the PWS, contractor must still support Army and Navy at JBA full CLS. | |
| CLIN 0002 CLIN 0003 CLIN 0004 | Phase-in AF Andrews AFB |
Phase-in AF Hickam AFB
| Phase-in AF MacDill AFB | CLIN 0002/CLIN 0003/CLIN 0004 | The offeror notes no GFP Tow Tractors listed in the GFP inventory at 3 locations (A) USAF Andrews, (B) USAF MacDill and (C) USAF Hickam. Additionally, very little GFE (SE) such as jacks, stands, power carts etc. are showing in the inventories at both USAF MacDill & Hickam sites. These items are expensive. | Are offerors required to buy & provide all Tow tractors and other GSE equipment, test boxes, jacks, etc. for Andrews and other locations that are not already listed in the Government's inventory or in the base support agreements? | A draft list of Support equipment provided has been posted to Fed Biz Ops. The Contractor is required to provide all SE not listed as GFE to meet requirements in the PWS. A final list will be provided with the formal RFP. | ||
| N/A | Contract Clauses | 52.223-20 Aerosols / 52.203-3 Gratuities / 252.239-7016 Telecommunications Security Equipment, Devices, Techniques & Services | These clauses are not required by law for FAR Part 12 solicitations or contracts. Offeror requests these clauses be removed as their inclusion is counter to the commercial nature of this contract, which USAF has selected in accordance with the provided SF 14449 Solicitation/Contract/Order For Commercial Items. | Can the USAF please confirm these non-commercial clauses will be removed? | Clauses will remain. | |
| N/A | Contract Clauses | 52.213-1 Fast Payment Procedure / 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan - Alt III / 52.228-11 Pledges of Assets / 52.228-14 Irrevocable Letter of Credit / 252.227-7013 Rights in Technical Data - Noncommercial Items / 252.204-7003 Control of Government Personnel Work Product / 252.204-7005 Oral Attestation of Security Responsibilities | Per FAR & DFAR prescription, these clause are not relevant to this contract as follows: 52.213-1 Fast Payment Procedure - for deliveries of supplies to locations where there is both a geographical separation & lack of communications facilities between Government receiving and disbursing activities that will make it impractical to make timely payment (these conditions do not exist), 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan - Alt III - for use when contract action will not be reported in the Federal Procurement Data System. 4.606(c)(5) or (c)(6) are not applicable to this contract, 52.228-11 Pledges of Assets and 52.228-14 Irrevocable Letter of Credit - required for submission of bid guarantees, performance or payment bonds, which are not applicable to this solicitation, 252.227-7013 Rights in Technical Data - Noncommercial Items - pertains to noncommercial technical data, which is not relevant for this contract, 252.204-7003 Control of Government Personnel Work Product - Offeror takes exception as at times, control may be required to be relinquished in order to perform contract requirements, 252.204-7005 Oral Attestation of Security Responsibilities - this is not applicable as contractor personnel will not have clearances above a SECRET level. | Can the USAF please confirm these nonapplicable clauses will be removed? | The following clauses will be removed 52.213-1, 52.219-9 Alt III, 52.228-11 and 52.228-14. Whilte these clauses will remain in the RFP 252.227-7013, 252.204-70003, and 252.204-70005. | |
| N/A | Contract Clauses | 252.211-7003 Item Unique Identification and Valuation & 252.211-7008 Use of Government Assigned Serial Numbers | Offeror assumes the inclusion and completion of these clauses does not conflict with the UID requirement called for in the PWS 5.10.9 Unique Identification (UID) Plates. The PWS states that "The aircraft are marked with UID identification plates and this is the only UID requirement for the C-20 and C-37 programs." 252.211-7003 calls for unique identifiers of items above and below $5,000 as listed within the clause. The clause fill-ins state "See Schedule as Applicable". | Can the USAF please confirm that the contract (which is assumed to take precedence) shall not require unique identifiers above and beyond that which is called for in section 5.10.9 of the PWS? | At this time, the unique identifiersdescibed in PWS 5.10.6.3 will be the UID identification plates. See updated PWS | |
| CLIN X100-X125 | The Contractor shall be responsible for changes resulting from either the subscription service or from the aircraft components. | Please clarify the intent of what is meant by "or from the aircraft components". | Components in this sense are LRUs or other pieces of equipment associated with the subscription service. | |||
| Appendix K - Instructions to Offerors | ||||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | ||
| 2.3 | Table 2.3 | Technical VOL limited to 75 pages. | Government mandates providing copies of FAA Certifications, Depot Maintenance Schedules, Letters of Intent from Subcontractors, CMP Code Parent/Child Relationship spreadsheet, Maintenance Scenario, Phase-in Plan, etc. This listing of mandated information easily exceeds several hundred pages by itself. | Would USAF consider a "Two Book" Technical VOL II, with Book One (limited to 75 pages) detailing how the offeror will fulfill the PWS requirements, and Book Two (page count unlimited) having all of the requested supporting documentation? | Offerors are to provide proposals in accordance with the final instructions to offerors outlined in Appendix K - 52.212-1. | |
| 3.2.5 a. | Subfactor Three: Maintenance (M) | Submit a copy of a valid and current FAA Part 145 Repair Station certificate with Operations Specifications for Gulfstream aircraft at the Depot site in accordance with PWS Section 5.4.1, 5.4.6 and 5.4.7 | Would the Government consider excluding the Part 145 repair station certificates with Operations Specifications from the Technical volume page limit? | FAA Certificates are excluded from page count | ||
| 5.2.4 | Total Evaluated Price (TEP) | These include an eight month Basic (three month PH, five month full performance), five one-year options, three one-year incentive Option Periods, and a six month Option Period to extend services. | Draft RFP page 5 of 210 Period Schedule only has One (1) incentive option | Offeror requests USAF reconcile on number of incentive options for consistency. | Final documents will be updated for consistency. | |
| Attachment T - Exclusion List | ||||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | ||
| Attachment T - Exclusion List | Exclusion List | Offeror recognized that most of the aircraft shall operate daily in highly corrosive environments and/or routinely travel to areas with high salt/corrosive and/or tropical/damp environments. Additionally, none of the BSA's guarantee hangar availability, and the PWS requires a 2-hour on ramp requirement (prior to every launch). Therefore, these aircraft will spend much of their time outside, in harsh weather elements. These daily operating elements are all beyond any offerors control, and as such is a serious concern for all offerors. Without any exclusion, this will be a high risk/cost driver for CPFH and will likely cost far more to the government over time. | Will the government consider parts replacement as a requirement resulting from "corrosion" to be an exclusion in ATTACHMENT T? If not, would the government at least consider some of the large/major elements (much of which can also be rented) such as Landing Gear, Engines, Nacelles, APUs, Flight Controls, Attach Points, Doors etc.? | No, corrosion will not be excluded. 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. Large rental items such as Flight Control surfaces, landing gear doors, and engine nacelles have been included in Attachment T to be negotiated on a case by case basis. Additionally, Attachment T (#8) states "Major Structural airframe items identified as PSE . . . | ||
| Exhibit A | ||||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | ||
| Exhibit A | CDRLs | DD Form 1423s, Block 5 and Block 16 | Offeror notes incorrect or incomplete PWS references | Can block 5 and block 16 on the CDRLs be updated to reflect the correct PWS references ? | Updated CDRL | |
| CDRL A007 | Block 4 | DID DI-ADMN-81249A | The referenced DID DI-ADMN-81294A has been superseded and replaced by DI-ADMN-81250A. | Can the DID in block 4 of the CDRL be corrected to reflect the current one, which is DI-ADMN-81249B? | Updated CDRL | |
| CDRL A012 | Block 16 | "SEE ATTACHED EXAMPLE" | Block 16 of the CDRL references an attachment but there is not an attachment to the CDRL. | Can the attachment be provided or does the reference to the attachment need to be removed from the CDRL ? | Updated CDRL | |
| CDRL A013 | Block 4 | DID DI-ADMN-81250B | The referenced DID DI-ADMN-81250B is for "Conference Minutes". Per the ASSIST website, the DID for "Quality Deficiency Report" is "DI-QCIC-80736". | Can the DID in block 4 of the CDRL be corrected to reflect the correct DID? | Updated CDRL | |
| CDRL A018 | Block 4 | DID DI-MGMT-81900 | Per the ASSIST website, DI-MGMT-81900 was cancelled on 1 May 2013. | Can block 4 of the DD Form 1423 be updated with a new DID ? | Updated CDRL | |
| PWS | ||||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statement (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | ||
| 1.1.3.1 | Table 1-2 | Performance Requirements Metrics | Calculations for PMCS/NMCS: Offeror assumes clock time should only count during the period that the part is in the Contractor’s Chain of Custody. The contractor should be exempt from airline enroute time, Customs processing time, Freight Forwarding time to the Main Operating Base (MOB), holidays, hazmat delays etc. as these are not within the scope of the contractor’s control. | Request USAF please confirm stated assumption. | The contractor is not excused from the instances citied. The Contractor shall provide all parts in the time needed to meet the performance requirements of the PWS. The contractor's cognizance of these logistical elements should be factored into their parts management in order to avoid delays. The Government further defines NMCS in the defintions attachment. | |
| 1.1.4.3 | Departure Reliability Rate (DRR) | There could be maintenance delays resultant of issues not within contractor's control (E.g., Couldn't service oxygen because due to restrictive operating hours, couldn't tow due to ramp snow/ice removal issues, waiting on a fuel truck, locally imposed engine run quiet hours, ramp freezes due to DV movements preventing you from working the aircraft, etc.) | Offer requests addition of following verbiage (or like) to referenced sentence - "within the scope of the contractor’s control." | Para.1.1.4.2 .PWS has been reworded. Reference final PWS for new wording. | ||
| 4.1 / 4.7 | MOB COMBS | Last paragraph - Contractor shall maintain SE | Offeror notes in the inventory listings, some GSE items are actually NOT stored at the COMBs (as called out in PWS 4.7). Therefore not in the daily possession, control or oversight of the contractor. Specifically only for the Partial CLS aircraft (Andrews 89th or USCG) where the daily possession, oversight, use and inspection would not be controlled by the contractor. It would seem that only GSE items in the physical storage/possession of the contractor, which can then be checked out on a daily or hourly basis by a 3rd party, but are also inspected upon return by the offerors staff should be the limit of the offerors risk/responsibility. As written this will create an unreasonable pricing responsibility for the offeror to cover a large unknown risk for GSE that is solely kept, controlled, used, operated & inspected by a 3rd party. | Will the government consider adding a clarifying discriminator statement in the PWS. From "The Contractor shall calibrate, store, and maintain all special tools and equipment associated with the COMBS support within the implementation of this PWS." to "The Contractor shall calibrate, store, and maintain all special tools and equipment that is associated with the COMBS support and is in the COMBS daily possession/control within the implementation of this PWS." (or similar verbiage) | No,within the implementation of this PWS, all SE should be in the COMBs and will be in the possession of the Contractor. At times, the Third Party Contractor at JBA may sign out calibrated SE on a hand receipt. When this happens the third party Contractor will return the SE to the COMBs before next inspection is due. | |
| 4.6 | Aircraft Survivability Equipment | Contactor is responsible for the total support of the ASE at the MOB | PWS 4.6 is understandable as written. However some of these requirements are again partially restated in 5.6, but in a differing manner and likely to be misinterpreted. | Will the USAF consider deleting PWS 5.6 and leave PWS 4.6 as the guiding paragraph? | Para 4.6 describes COMBS and GFE parts storage. Para 5.6 describes maintaining and repairing ASE. | |
| 4.8 | Mission Support Kit (MSK) | If required, the Contractor shall provide for replenishment enroute for extended missions. | Please define and provide a scenario for the USG’s intent for “replenishing enroute”. If it is within the contractor's normal MOB network, we don't see an issue, however if it isn't, assume shipping would be O&A? Would USG provide a "Ship To" addressee for those scenarios? | The Government cannot determine deployment locations and/or frequencies at this time. Initial Shipping/Return of the MSK will be negotiated on a case by case basis. PWS has been reworded to address "replenishing enroute." | ||
| 4.9 | Life Support | The Contractor shall maintain the survival and life support equipment IAW vendor instructions and IAW FAR Part 145… | The survival and life support equipment is maintained via the manufacturer’s instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA). The documentation is accomplished per FAA 14 CFR part 91. There are no unique FAR 145 Subpart E Repair Station requirements relative to maintaining survival and life support equipment. | Offeror recommends restating: “The Contractor shall maintain the survival and life support equipment IAW manufacturer’s instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA). The Contractor shall maintain documentation IAW FAA 14 CFR part 91, annotating required inspections and maintenance actions accomplished." (or similar verbiage) | Para 4.9 Life Support has been reworded in the PWS. | |
| 4.10.1 | Inventory Management System (IMS) | The contractor shall support and provide logistics analysis tools to develop trends by part, system, aircraft, or unit. | Alternatively would USAF accept the contractor having a dedicated logistics / material analyst on staff that will support and provide logistics analysis, developing trend by parts / system / aircraft or unit? | Please refer to 4.10: The Contractor’s IMS shall support and provide logistics analysis to report trends by part, system, aircraft, or unit, on-line IMS for all GFP/CAP, assigned to each MOB COMBS and/or depot facility. The Government will not tell the Contractor how to staff to meet PWS requirements. | ||
| 4.10.1; TABLE 2-1 | Contractor Inventory Reporting System // Service Summary | The Contractor shall maintain greater than 99% inventory accuracy… | Inventory is consistently on the move within the program, so inventory would only be a “snapshot in time” at any given moment. Therefore, Offeror believes more than 99% accuracy may be unrealistic. If not, maintaining a 99% accuracy on a system, not to exceed $2,500 value on a parts inventory that has incomplete pricing will become an impossibility, | Is the 99% inventory accuracy intended to only include quantity discrepancies or also other attributes (ownership, location, etc.)? Please confirm this is acceptable to the USG. Is the government's inventory 100% priced by item? | The 99% inventory accuracy requirement has been removed from the PWS. However the Contractor must still fulfill inventory requirements as stated in the PWS. Physical inventory of GFP should be performed by the Contractor IAW terms and conditions within the contract. | |
| 4.13.1 | USAF | An onsite COMBS will be provided for this system… | As written, it is confusing as to whether the offeror or a 3rd party is providing this on-site COMBS for MCSs. | Can USAF please confirm the onsite COMBS referenced is a third-party operation and not a requirement of this contract other than interfacing with the 3rd party COMBS for parts issue/receipt to CLS Program maintenance personnel? Also is the offeror supplying the FSR in this PWS paragraph or a 3rd party (as described in PWS 5.2 and 5.2.3.3? | An onsite, third-party COMBS will be provided for this system to provide accountability, inventory, packaging, shipping, and safeguarding of all spares associated with the system. Repair and replacement of system spares identified on the exclusion list (Attachment T) are not the CLS Contractor's responsibility. The Third Party Contractor will supply the FSR. | |
| 5.0 | Maintenance | The USN C-20G are the only aircraft in the fleet that are currently in an MSG-3 maintenance program. All other aircraft are in standard maintenance programs appropriate for their models. See the individual CMP.net files and Chapter 5 of the Gulfstream commercial maintenance manuals for each aircraft's requirements. | All C-37A & C-37B model aircraft are in an MSG-3 program - in addition to the C-20G aircraft. Only the Army C-20F is non-MSG-3 | Would the government consider removing/revising this paragraph, for accuracy? | The PWS has been reworded. | |
| 5.2 | Main Operating Base (MOB) Organizational Level Maintenance | The government-contracted FSR will be available to assist with technical support. | This statement pertains to the USAF C-37s only. | Would the government consider adding "for USAF C-37s" at the end of that sentence for specificity? | PWS paragraph 5.0 has been reworded to avoid confusion. | |
| 5.2.6 | Pre-Flight and Post-Flight Activities | The Contractor shall have the aircraft preflighted, exceptional release/safe for flight signed off, cleaned, systems serviced and located on the required launch spot with a power unit not later than 120 minutes prior to scheduled departure time, | Industry tends to be capped at 45-90 minutes. Going to 120 minutes will increase a contractors price due to additional site staffing requirements. Additionaly, sitting on a ramp in inclement or cold weather for 2 hours will cause more problems, such as an increase for de-icing, exposure to icing, heavy rain, extreme cold - all of which is not likely desired by the crew. | Would the government consider adding a statement that allows adjustment to the 120 minute rule with local Squadron advance coordination/approval? This would preclude multiple potential deicing requirements, ease aircrew preflight activities, lower offeror pricing. etc. | The Governement will expect the Site Manager to work with local MOB leadership or as coordinated with the squadron commander scheduling flight departure fluctuations. Per Para 5.2.6 the Contractor shall have the aircraft pre-flighted, exceptional release/safe for flight signed off, cleaned, systems serviced and located on the required launch spot with a power unit not later than 120 minutes prior to scheduled departure time. | |
| 5.2.6 | Pre-Flight and Post-Flight Activities | The Contractor shall accomplish deicing at the direction of the aircraft commander | At most applicable locations, this function is currently performed by base Transient Alert. Will the Government provide access to GFP deicing equipment and associated operators training, or should the offerors consider purchasing this equipment/training in their bid? (this could be very expensive) Alternatively, would the government consider changing the word 'accomplish' to 'coordinate'? | The BSA will acknowlwdge the use and training of de-icng equipment and training that will be provided by the Government. The Contractor will accomplish the de-icing. | ||
| 5.2.7 5.2.3 | Aircraft Maintenance | The Contractor shall accomplish CMP codes, included within a firm fixed price (FFP) depot CLIN, due prior to depot induction, in the field. The Contractor shall complete these tasks at the MOB as part of MOB maintenance | As written, this forces each MOB to provide capability to perform DEPOT Level maintenance, (partial and/or in it's entirety) whenever the Government chooses to not induct for depot work in a timely manner. If and when some CMP codes to be complied with at the MOB are part of a larger package it will also separate the responsibility for sign-off of the package between a MOB and a DEPOT. However, due to the MOBs and commercial Depots being separated by FAA rule, this will create a liability/conflict which will force any portion that was done at a MOB to be reaccomplished at the depot in order to sign the package off. This is because a Part 145 MRO cannot sign off work they did not perform and MOB personnel will not be part of any FAA Repair Station umbrella. As written, this also forces offerors to further increase MOB staff sizes simply to handle this risk at every site. And as written, it will put the MOB at greater risk for not meeting their performance/availability under PWS 1.1.3 and PWS 7.0 | Does the government want offerors to increase their MOB size/pricing to handle DEPOT work at any time/MOB and in order to meet the performance/MC requirements in the PWS? Additionally if the government's intent is to periodically only accomplish some parts of a DEPOT package, does the government concur that the tasks will have to be priced again for completion at DEPOT? If neither of these are the government's intent, will the government please clarify or amend or delete the requirement? | The Government is not requesting the offeror price the ability to perform ALL depot CLIN CMP tasks at each MOB. Generally, all CMP inspections included in the FFP depot CLINs will be accomplished at a depot per the service coordinated 10 Year Maintenance Plan. However, in the event a CMP inspection (s) comes due earlier than the planned depot induction, the contractor is required to perform at the MOB as long as the inspection does not require extensive access (i.e. interior removal), specialized skills not typically performed outside a commercial depot, or introduce inordinate risk to aircraft availability. | |
| 5.2.7.1 | Aircraft Servicing | The Contractor shall perform all aircraft servicing IAW the OEM’s Directives and local host base operational requirements and procedures | Without Site Survey's and discussions, these are unknown requirements that affect staffing, equipment and pricing. Alternatively, commercial requirements for servicing and ground handling can be priced without viewing all these. | Will the SPO provide bidders with all host base operational requirements and procedures? | Host Base Support Agreements will be provided for each MOB. Contractor's should consider Best Commercial Practices for servicing whenever possible. | |
| 5.2.7.3 | Transient Aircraft | Priority of support will be home station aircraft first to meet immediate mission requirements or as directed by the PCO. | Routine transient support is provided by Transient Alert operations. MOBs are not staffed to accommodate routine maintenance support for unassigned aircraft and normally only provide assistance during AOG-type scenarios for transient aircraft. | Offeror requests USAF please clarify the scope or intent of this requirement. | The PWS has been update to clarify when required the Contractor shall provide support for all CLS C-20/C-37 aircraft regardless of home station. Transient Alert will continue to supprt Routine transient operations. | |
| 5.2.12.2 | Base Exercises | Whole section | To what extent will the Contractor be tasked to participate in base exercises? Are they required to don MOPP gear, maintain an "under attack" posture, etc. just as military members? Will performance metrics be exempt during these periods as contractor may not be able to meet requirements due to exercise restrictions? (E.g.. towing restrictions, etc.) | The Contractor shall support base exercises as requested by the COR. If Performance Metrics are affected by a Base Exercise or other base restriction, the Contractor notify the COR IAW para 1.1.4.2 of the PWS. | ||
| 5.3 | Deployment and/Contract Field Teams (CFTs) | O&A CLIN X910 is specific to "deployment" although the referenced PWS is for "Deployment and Contract Field Teams" | As described in the Synopsis, can the offeror assume that deployments and/or CFTs will be done on an O+A? Will the government amend the title to CLIN X910 to match the title in PWS 5.3 and subparagraphs? | Deployments an CFT's will be negotiated on a case by case basis utilizing the fixed rates in Appendix G. Title to CLIN X910 remains the same. | ||
| 5.3.2.2 | Contingency for Hostile Operations | The Government will provide to Contractor employees deployed in the theater of operations, the equivalent field living conditions, security, subsistence, emergency medical and dental care | In AOR theaters, Contractors have no recourse other than locally available military medical assistance for minor non-life-threatening medical care whilst deployed. In the interest of our staff's health, we MUST assume that minor medical care will also be included such as treatment for cold/flu/sore throat, sprains, non- life threatening minor cuts/scrapes, tooth aches, etc. The concern is that this support be specifically requested, otherwise it will not be included. | Will the Government expand this description to include non emergency sick-call type events? OR will the government fund extraction/replacement of personnel each time assistance is needed? | Individual deployments will be negotiated on a case by case basis. | |
| 5.4.1 | Depot Facility | The Contractor shall provide all scheduled and unscheduled depot level maintenance for C-20/C-37 aircraft IAW FAA approved maintenance standards to maintain the aircraft FAA Airworthiness/Type Certification. All depot level maintenance shall be accomplished at a FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 facility certificated for the applicable model of aircraft and their associated systems. | Will equivalent FAA Standards / requirements, i.e. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) standards / requirements, be permitted for all maintenance actions including depot? | All scheduled depots will be accomplished within CONUS. When it is not reasonable to fly an aircraft back to a CONUS depot, the contractor can suggest a depot at another location. That depot shall meet the standards of the Air Agency which licenses. Additionally, the Air Agency that licenses the depot must have an FAA Reciprocal Agreement. | ||
| 5.4.4 | Depot Acceptance Flights | …The contractor shall support FCF and MTF to include preparing profiles, performing aircrew briefings and debriefings, monitoring trend analysis and in-flight assistance as coordinated between the Government and Contractor. The Contractor shall prepare and support the aircraft for all acceptance flights, to include FCF profiles as required. | Supporting the government flight crews is expected and accepted, but the FCF/MTF profiles are owned by the respective services, and are different from service to service. The offeror is not privy to these - nor is there a contractor requirement to perform any type of flights following a depot visit. | Would the government consider removing the requirement for the contractor to prepare and provide FCF/MTF profiles? | Removed from PWS. | |
| 5.4.5 | Depot Return to Service (RTS) | The Contractor shall prepare and complete all forms and data (to include CMP.net when available) prior to aircraft delivery. | This is in conflict with 5.10.5.1 | Would the government consider revising this to state, "The Contractor shall prepare and complete all forms and data (to include CMP cards) prior to aircraft delivery?" (Or similar verbiage) | PWS paragraph 5.4.5 has been updated to reflect the offerors recommendation. | |
| 5.4.5 | Depot Return to Service (RTS) | Last paragraph - "The report shall include AFTO Form 290, Aerospace Vehicle Delivery Receipt to include incoming and outgoing receipt." | This form is both USAF specific and is a duplication of processes required at an FAA 145 repair station. | Would the government either specify that this form is only for USAF aircraft or consider removing this requirement altogether? | The AFTO 290 is required for all services. | |
| 5.4.6 | Aircraft Paint | First paragraph - "The Contractor shall provide complete exterior refinishing of C-20 and C-37 aircraft including airframe paint removal and re-application IAW drawings in Attachment K and meet the C-20 and C-37 Paint Evaluation Standards in Attachment K." | Attachment K was not provided | Would the government consider providing the bidders with a copy of Attachment K? Suggest that any paint drawing be listed as, "drawing number XXX" latest revision. Also suggest the Government paint the landing gear and not the wheel wells on a complete strip and paint. | Paint drawings and floor plans will be available in the bidders library, post-RFP. The Government will provide paint drawings by revision drawing. The Government's full strip and paint requirement will be provided in the CLIN description. | |
| 5.4.8.2 | W&B Records Update | Full CLS MOBs shall maintain the W&B records on the central server… | USA is not registered in the central server because they are maintaining their W&B Records Update IAW Army Regulations. | On PWS 5.4.8.2, would the government accept the following change to the beginning of the first paragraph? "USAF Aircraft:" | The USN and USAF both use AWBS so it would not be prudent to put USAF the beginning of the first paragraph. | |
| 5.4.10 | Landing Gear | The Contractor shall ensure each serviceable landing gear returning from a FAA repair station has appropriate FAA certificates, service-level forms and is properly serviced, packaged and preserved. | Can USAF please provide references to what "service-level forms" are requested to fulfill this requirement? | All the work that’s done to the gear when it comes back from overhaul or repair is captured on an 8130, and remains with the gear in COMBS. Other examples of service level forms are identified in para 4.2.5 of the PWS. | ||
| 5.4.10 | Maintenance | (Landing Gear Overhauls) states to perform LG overhauls “…IAW the OEM specification…” s. | What OEM specification - the Airworthiness Limitation set in Chapter 5 of the OEM Aircraft Maintenance Manual? There is no Landing Gear Overhaul Specification (or manual or other document) listed in Attachment C to the PWS. | The Landing Gear will be removed and reinstalled in accordance with the appropriate Gulfstream Maintenance manual. The Landing Gear will be overhauled / restored at a facility with FAA authority to accomplish overhaul / restore of the particular Landing Gear in accordance with the B.F. Goodrich Component maintenance Manual 32-10. | ||
| 5.10.5 | Maintenance Records / Forms | The Contractor shall maintain aircraft maintenance documentation and reporting IAW AFI 21-101, Para 15.2, AFI 21-103, Para 2.28 and documentation guidance referenced in T.O. 00-20 series publications for all Contractor performed maintenance and TCTOs. | The guidance IAW T.O. 00-20-1, para. 9.2.2 "Aerospace vehicles and engines maintained under FAA rules may use Airframe and Engine Log Books in lieu of automated history or AFTO Form 95 as long as their use is consistent". This is an AF specific item not recognized by other services and conflicts with earlier stated "best commercial practices". | Would the government considering removing the requirement for government specific forms regarding aircraft and engine logbooks, reference this technical order? | The USAF still requires AFTO Form 95 to maintain engine configuration. Provide RTS documentation as stated in PWS and CDRL A023 descibing what shall be required/included/accepted in the Depot Maintenance Report. | |
| 5.10.10 | Data Rights | Reference to "Unlimited Data Rights" | Not all CDRL's will be provided with unlimited data rights. Those containing pricing such as the CFSR and other such sensitive data will be marked proprietary. | Offeror requests this paragraph be updated to reflect that only those CDRLs that can be delivered with unlimited data rights are required as such. | The Government does not intend to distribute pricing data outside the Government, but the CDRL cannot be marked proprietary since it is the Government's data. |
| 6.5 | Engineering | The contractor shall transfer all engineering data developed to support the requirements of the PWS to the Follow-On Contractor. | The Contractor will deliver data compiled at government expense. Any data that was developed at contractor or subcontractor expense will be provided to the government or any follow-on contractor on a case by case basis after evaluation. Some data will not be releasable. | Offeror requests USAF confirm acceptance of this condition. | If the Government funds the development of data it is the Government's data to distribute as the Government deems necessary. Data that was developed at contractor or subcontractor expense will be provided to the government or any follow-on contractor on a case by case basis. |
| 7.0 | SERVICE SUMMARY | Table 2-1 Appearance standards for all full CLS supported C-20/C-37 aircraft shall be met 100% of the time. Table 2-1 Appearance standards for the Navy C-20G aircraft shall be met 95% of the time ., 100% of the time is an impossible metric to reach when the contractor staff is working on the aircraft performing maintenance. And or cleaning. | Would USAF consider adding the following "once the aircraft is presented for flight"? (Or similar verbiage | Service Summary has been updated, to state; "when presented for flight." | |
| General Questions | |||||
| N/A | N/A | N/A | It has come to this bidder's attention that MCBH Kaneohe Bay, HI airfield operating hours do not necessarily support the mission requirements of V-51/MCAS and that the C-20Gs often are recovered/launched out of Hickam (approx. 50 miles and a 45-60 minute drive, dependent on traffic, etc.) due to KBay airfield closure or DV customer preference. At times the maintainer must also convert from passenger to cargo configuration which also requires transporting the required equipment, numerous cabin seats etc. | What is the Government's direction for supporting this effort in regards to NRT, DRR, anticipated support levels (eg. transporting various rig kits across the island, etc.)? Will the Government provide vehicles/Trailers for this effort, or is the contractor expected to provide them? As this effort would be factored into any labor scheduling, it is assumed this effort is a headcount and cost driver - can USAF please confirm? |
Contractors is to support the requirement in the PWS to include providing support equipment not provided by the Government. Any requirement in addition to those outlined in applicable PWS paragraphs will be handled on a case by case basis.
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .