Industry_Day_Questions_and_Answers_12-22-2016.pdf

C-20 / C-37 Contractor Logistics Support Industry Day

The following questions and answers DO NOT constitute direction to the contractor.

The following is preliminary information ONLY. All information provided is subject to change. The Government is not currently soliciting proposals.

Questions Submitted by Industry and Government Answers

1. Past Performance: Consistent with other USAF CLS solicitations, would the Government consider the use of the following Past Performance instructions?

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Response: Yes, the government will consider 5 years, but our strategy concerning relevant past performance is still under review.

2. Sole Source / Director Source Parts: In the interest of maximizing the competitive environment of this C-20/C-37 CLS solicitation, would the Government consider the use of “Directed Q&A Material Handling Rates” for those parts which are Sole Source/Directod Source or the OEM parts pricing is not made available? The proposed Material Handling Rates would be included in the Pricing Matrix and would be all-inclusive, including all expenses associated with material for use to be applied to direct O&IA material costs. The Government would publish in the C-20/C-37 solicitation a listing of parts allowable under the “Directed O&A Material Handling Rates.”

Response: No, the contract will be performance based and a separate material handling rate is not anticipated to be established. To our knowledge, all parts necessary to support the C-20 and C-37 fleet are available through the commercial marketplace.

There is no need to establish a “directed O&A handling rate for source directed parts”.

3. C-20/C-37 Inventory Data: Will the Government provide historical C-20 and C-37 parts inventory consumption data? If so, when?

Response: Yes. This data is anticipated to be available at or before release of the draft Request for Proposal.

4. For the quality standard, will offerors with either an ISO 9001 or an AS 9110 qualify, or will only one standard be prescribed?

Response: The Government is awaiting industry’s response to RFI #3 prior to finalizing this decision.

5. The slides said C-20 98% of spares and equipment will be GFP. Is that 98% of value or 98% of numbers? What 2% are not GFE?

Response: The discussion relative to “98% of spares and equipment” is in reference to the approximate quantity of parts and equipment historically on-hand and can fluctuate.

We intend to publish an inventory listing of GFP with the draft RFP. It will be the offeror’s responsibility to assess the GFP inventory to determine additional inventory that may be necessary to meet contract performance requirements.

6. With Point Mugu standing up as a new site, what is the recommended spares/inventory in place and timeline for fully occupational capability?

Response: The Pt. Mugu, CA site is forecasted to be fully operational prior to contract award. There is no inventory in place at present. The offerors will be expected to determine inventory levels necessary to meet performance requirements.

7. If we need to buy initial inventory, what are the historical spares/inventory levels?

Response: GFP inventory and usage data is anticipated to be provided with the draft

RFP.

8. Will O&A be on CPFF or T&M CLIN?

Response: Firm Fixed Price

a. How do you expect quick movement on O&As if they must be negotiated upfront?

Response: Details with respect to O&A processing are anticipated to be provided with draft RFP.

b. Do you think this O&A setup on upfront negotiated FFP will lead to USAs to meet mission timeline needs?

Response: Historically, there has been little to no delay experienced with respect to O&A approval.

9. DCMA involvement or DCMA-8210 compliance was not briefed in the open forum. Will this be a requirement on the new contract?

Response: DCMA will administer the contract. DCMA Instruction 8210 is still under consideration.

12.10. It was briefed that a certain percentage of the contract value must be allocated to Small Business specifically supporting this contract. Can the Government provide clarifying information on this requirement?

Response: Responses to RFI #3 will be considered in determination of small business subcontracting goals. Specific requirements for Small Business compliance will be provided with release of draft RFP.

13.11. In previous contracts, a percentage of maintenance personnel would need (X) years of experience on GIV/GV/G550 aircraft. Adding an experience requirement seems contrary to a performance based contracting approach. How will that metric be measured and applied, as Contractor employee attrition for various reasons causes that metric to ebb and flow? There are also many potential high quality maintenance employees that are excellent A&P mechanics with significant aircraft experience but perhaps minimal Gulfstream experience. In addition, bidder experience indicates that having Gulfstream experience doesn’t necessarily equate to being a good aircraft mechanic.

Response: Federal Aviation Regulation 145 Subpart D, requirements for qualification of personnel is anticipated to apply. The requirement for a person to have “X” years “Gulfstream” specific experience is being considered for removal.

14.12. What is the Government’s plan to supply bidders with required OEM data for them to successfully bid items such as Pubs, CMP, Material and other contract requirements reliant on OEM data?

Response: A multi-faceted approach is anticipated.

(1) A bidders’ library will be established where all offerors will have an opportunity to review relevant information necessary to formulate their proposal.

(2) Relevant data will be provided as an attachment to the Request for Proposal as determined to be necessary.

(3) Access will be provided to the CMP.net system (Computerized Maintenance

Program) on a limited basis.

(4) Through FedBizOps.

15.13. On slide 26 of the presentation, the government listed “DFARS 252.211-7003 Item Identification and Valuation.” We are concerned if the associated Government IUID will become a requirement and how much will actually be required. Depending on how this is enforced, it could create substantial “added costs” with very little perceived gain.

The solicitation also states (slide 10), that the aircraft will be maintained to FAA certification. However, if government unique UID were enforced at the aircraft sub-component level, it conflicts with all the commercial requirements listed in slides 11-14.

We understand that historically the C-20/C-37 Aircraft (as a whole) was labeled under UID, without the need for sub-level part unit identification and this was done because the serialized aircraft was acquired as a commercial FAA certified aircraft with sub-components that were not certified or marked to meet Government IUID requirements.

Alteration of commercial parts, to make them compliant with Government unique IUID violates the part’s FAA certification, preventing issuance of FAA8130-3 Airworthiness Approval tags. In fact, the previous solicitation of this contract resolved this by stating that the UID marking of the aircraft assembly was the only UID requirement within the program.

If government unique UID will now be enforced by requiring alteration of the aircraft sub-component parts, it will create substantial added cost requirements. It may force contractors to procure a completely separate set of parts, solely for this contract that would then have to be permanently marked and quarantined from any commercial pools of parts as they would become non-FAA compliant. Additionally, it may create an additional new requirement to alter all existing parts on the aircraft with the government unique UID. These parts may then also lose their ability for future exchange within the commercial environment.

However, the DFAR seems to apply only to items delivered under a contract line item.

Additionally, per the DFAR’s, Para (c)(1)(iii), it seems the UID requirement may only apply to DoD serially managed items. And the DFARs Para (c)(1)(i) also seems to allow exemptions to UID could be listed (the exemption list could include all spares that are FAA commercially certified without UID similar to the exemption that was listed in the prior contract).

In slide 23 of the Industry Day presentation, it states this contract will incorporate a FFP Cost per Flight hour approach. A FFP CPFH approach should eliminate contract line item processing for part repair/replacement. Additionally, if commercial exchange of parts will still be allowed (as it was in the prior solicitation), it will also negate the need for serially managing the parts (as it was in the prior solicitation). Will the government consider these as a solution within this solicitation to eliminate the US Government unique UID marking of the commercial sub-component parts of these aircraft?

Response: The Government is working through this concern at present and will provide a position regarding UID marking of parts prior to soliciting a Request for Proposal.

16.14. We understand the government periodically inserts 3rd parties with involvement in various aspects of the aircraft such as with communications equipment. How does the Government plan on addressing this issue to ensure that successful bidder is held to its primary contract responsibility without having to accept a 3rd party requirement that the bidder was not privy to developing?

Response: The successful offeror will only be held responsible for requirements outlined in the awarded contract.

17.15. The Government has asked how to incentivize industry. Will the Government consider a minimum and maximum flying hour baseline price schedule to facilitate variations in aircraft usage and number of aircraft being supported under the Program over its life cycle? Without baseline funding CPFH pricing is typically increased significantly to cover fixed costs as well as the risks from low flight hours.

Response: No. The approved acquisition strategy limits incentive to “Incentive Option Years”, to be earned through satisfactory performance. This will be further clarified in the Request for Proposal.

18.16. How does the Government plan to address VAT/Duty charges for CFE provided to and from non-US locations supported under contract? If this activity is not addressed under O&A, the successful bidder must cover this risk in CPFH or other FFP elements related to material movement.

Response: It is anticipated that costs as described above will be factored into cost per flying hour or firm fixed price elements within the proposal.