Q&A's_from_Draft_RFP_-_Posted_to_FBO_7-17-17.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 125 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8106-16-R-0012
About this file
The attached excel spreadsheet contains the majority of the questions from industry and the corresponding Government answers resulting from the draft RFP documents posted to FBO. The few remaining questions and answers will be posted as soon as possible.
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
| PWS 2.7 | Supply | The Contractor shall determine each COMBS’ spares’ inventory, GFP, and contractor furnished property (CFP). The Contractor shall ensure required equipment/materials are in place prior to full-scale performance or as needed to meet the performance requirements in PWS 1.1.4. | The government's C20 GIII/GIV inventory looks robust. But the C37/GV/550 inventory is not. It's far smaller and almost nonexistent at some locations especially airframe parts. We saw Macdill has only 114 spare parts for 3 airplanes but it all looks like outfitting parts. There was no mention of a government plan to buy or provide more spare parts to meet the supply rates in table 1-2. | Are there more parts at these places now or maybe there is another list of GV spare parts that was not listed in FedBiz yet? If this is it, does the government expect the contractor to provide all the extra spare parts for all these locations? If so is there a CLIN to reimburse the contractor? | ||
| PWS 1.1.3 | Performance | The Contractor shall establish maintenance and supply support to satisfy Table 1-2’s Performance Requirements, and utilizing the average Table 1-1 rates. | The supply rates in these tables are very tight. To make them it seems a large amount of spare parts, readily available, is probably needed at the sites. Unless we can just ship the parts when needed. | When calculating these rates do we have to include the time it will take to find, procure and ship parts to an aircraft location? | ||
| General Question | Tinker is soliciting this as a common "C-20/C-37" program. At the SPO-level, unlike today's current contract, does Tinker intend to manage it as a common program, or as they do today, basically independent C-20 and C-37 programs with a common PCO? | |||||
| Draft Contract | ||||||
| CLIN/Location | Section/Title | Reference Statememt (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | ||
| 1 | Flying hour CLINs | NC-37 Flying Hour CLIN | There is no flying hour CLIN for the USN NC-37B for Pt. Magu | This aircraft is listed on table 1-1 as being an aircraft to be included on this contract. | Will the Government consider adding a flying hour CLIN for the USN NC-37B | |
| 2 | CLIN 0006 | Phase In | Clin 0006 C20D | Draft Contract CLIN 0006 is reserved, on appendix G it is not | Need clarification on Appendix G | |
| 3 | Draft Appendix G | Draft Appendix G CLIN X500-X525 lines 241-303 | CLIN X500-X525 | Range mid points are for singular AC flight pricing, not fleet pricing. Reference Appendix G. | How are you accounting for the Total Fleet for evaluation and contract value? | |
| 4 | CLIN 0002 | PHASE-IN - AIR FORCE - C-37A & C-37B - ANDREWS AFB | Phase-In shall begin on 1 June 2018 or at contract award whichever is | |||
| later and continue for 3 months. | There is very little detail provided on this CLIN. It is our understanding that this location is currently supported under a different contractor, that will continue, in place, supporting other aircraft. | Will there be a site survey of any sort to review the proposed spaces, facilities, opeations and support that will provided in order for bidders to better understand how to propose this location? | ||||
| 5 | CLIN X910 | Deployment and/Contract Field Teams (CFTs) | The Contractor shall provide all expenses related to the deployment of an aircraft in accordance with PWS section 5.3, |
5.3.2, 5.3.2.1, and 5.3.2.2 (including notes) for C-20 or C-37 configured aircraft using the required rates outlined under
| CLIN X900 attached to the contract in Appendix G, Pricing Matrix. If | The Deployment CLIN states "All expenses" for deployment will be covered under CLIN X910. In our mind, this will include any deployment specific preparatioin expenses, such as special visa, or other requirement unique to the deployment. However PWS Section 3.1.10 also discusses contractor will obtain Visas in support of contract performance. However it appears PWS 3.1.10 is focused on the full performance at the MOBs and the Deployment 910X is focused on actual deployments. It is a little unclear. | Should the "deployment" VISA's be charged via O&A to the Deployment CLIN X910 as part of the "Deployment Expenses" or will the contractor have to price in the Deployment Visa expenses under FFP. If so, will this be under the MOB CLIN? | ||||
| 6 | CLINS X200 - X240 & X300 - 331 | COMBS / Maintenance | MOB CLINS X300 - X331 state; "all materials, supplies, parts and components for this CLIN are provided in corresponding the COMBS CLIN". COMBS CLINS X200-X240 state the CLINS are for "Labor". All the Flying hour CLINS also state "all Materials, parts and components for both MOBs and Depot. | Offeror requests clarification and assumes the reference in the MOB CLINS does not include materials, supplies, parts and components for the aircraft as those should be in the FH clins. | Should the COMBS CLIN statements be modified to include labor AND "materials" to operate the COMBS or associated MOB and that are not otherwise excluded or covered by FH CLINS? | |
| 7 | CLINS X500 - X525 | Flying Hours | CLINS X500-X525 state; "The contractor shall provide all materials, parts, and components for MOB and depot requirements in accordance with PWS |
paragraph 4.3.1 and 4.12 to meet the threshold performance rates as listed in Table 1-2 of the PWS and repair/replace all GFP usage. Unless specifically excluded from the flying hour rate by the PCO or the exclusion list in Attachment T of the PWS, all
| materials, parts, and components shall be included in this firm fixed price flying hour rate" | Offeror notes obsolencense identification, tracking & reporting etc. is well covered under PWS 3.8. However, how to procure replacements, completed engineering and authorization is not mentioned. Historically the solution is to upgrade a part/system with a new item. Generally the new part will have a new part number and be somewhat altered in form, fit or function. In some cases other related parts must also be changed. Usually the structure must modified to accomodate the new footprint. These changes all require extensive engineering, testing, approvals and drawing upgrades before spares can then be purchased. This problem is typically only associated with post production items as the aircraft manufacter typically handles the basic core aircraft components. Pricing for this large risk this would be a daunting task and will be extremely expensive to the government. | As this situation is not currently excluded in either the PWS or Attacment T, offeror requests clarification as to whether this is an oversight or is it really the USAF's intention to have all offerors quantify the potential cost/risk of all potential future part upgrades & spares replacement and priced within CPFH CLINS? | ||||
| 8 | CLIN X525 | Flying Hourse - USCG | The contractor shall provide all materials, parts, and components for MOB and depot requirements in accordance with PWS paragraph 4.3.1 and 4.12 to meet the threshold performance rates as listed in Table 1-2 of the PWS and repair/replace all GFP | |||
| usage. Unless specifically excluded from the flying hour rate by the PCO or the exclusion list in Attachment T of the PWS, all materials, parts, and components shall be included in this firm fixed price flying hour rate. | Offeror notes the FH CLIN for the USCG includes materials for both MOB and DEPOT requirements. Addtionally, PWS 4.14 states, "The Contractor shall provide and maintain the required supply support elements for the USCG C-37A aircraft at Reagan National Airport". The USCG MOA states the USCG will be maintaining a separate relationship for maintenance support. Therefore CLIN x525's inclusion of materials for "DEPOT" seem to conflict with these other documents and the prior guidance. Additionally, if the contractor must supply parts to a 3rd party depot, this could create conflict as the contractor may not have any control and/or business relationshipt with the 3rd party. | Are offerors supposed to perform depot maintenance on the USCG aircraft under this contract? Are offerors expected to supply materials to a 3rd party DEPOT for the USCG under CLIN X525 that is actually being accomplished at a depot not related to this contract or should the word DEPOT be removed from this CLIN? | ||||
| 9 | CLINS X500 - X525 & PWS 4.3.1 | Transportation | CLINS X500-X525 have several note inclusions; Note 1: Transportation of materials, parts, and components shall be included. Note 2: When supply support is required away from a MOB (i.e. deployment and/or field team support) those materials shall be included in the firm fixed price flying hour rate. AND PWS 4.3.1 states the FH CLINS covers all transportation. | Transportation (Shipping) of materials between the COMBS/MOB networks and to/from the LRU repair vendors is an undestandeable FFP that, with extensive reseaarch can be included in FH CLINS since these costs can be controlled with known shipping vendors & shipping routes. However it's physically impossible for any offeror to accurately estimate shipping costs for all possible mission/location scenarios, and all possible requirements accross multiple years. The US Gov flies to many locations where civilian travel is limited. If/when material is required (away from MOB or DEPOT), it is usually on a mission with a critical/immediate need basis when costs are the absolute highest and most unpredictable. In the case of extended deployments, it would also be expected that large pallets of parts/GSE would have to be relocated to the location at a significant cost. In some cases special charter flights would have to be arranged. It would be far less costly in CPFH pricing to allow these unknown (Away from MOB) transportation costs to be handled on occurrence and on an Over and Above basis. | Does the USAF intend offerors to price in this high, unknown transportation cost/risk into the CPFH CLINS? | |
| 10 | CLINS X902 & X908 | Aircarft Interior Refurbishment | The Contractor shall provide aircraft interior refurbishment in accordance with PWS section 5.4.9 for C-37 configured aircraft using the required labor rates outlined under CLIN X900 attached to the contract in Appendix G, Pricing Matrix. | Refurbishment is a depot task and is covered by these 2 CLINs as an O&A It is also clear that the labor for the refurbishment tasks will be negotiated under these 2 CLINS (with CLIN X900 rates). But these CLINs do not speak to materials. And Attachment T only excludes some refurbishment coverings.Therefore it is unclear if the other materials required for refurbishment tasks are supposed to be covered by this CLIN or by the CPFH CLINS | Was the ommision of "materials" under this CLIN un-intentional OR should offerors now include the added risk/price for the additional refurbishment materials that are not excluded by Attachment T? | |
| Appendix K - Instructions to Offerors | ||||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statememt (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | ||
| 1 | Attachment 2.0 | Proposed Team List | For Offeror (Prime) provide requested data and include a list of names those POCs and phone numbers that were sent a past performance questionnaire. | Referenced list appears to require listing of "significant subcontractor and/or teaming arrangement(s) performing a subfactor element". Subcontractor(s) / team member(s) may not necessarily have been sent a past performance questionnaire. | Can the USAF explain why POC information for people sent a past performance questionnaire is required? Is the USAF willing to delete or amend the referenced verbiage to indicate POCs for subcontractor(s) / team member(s) not supplied a past performance questionnaire will not be required? | |
| 2 | Attachment K | Page 12 Paragraph g Number 1 | The Offeror shall detail an approach that outlines the extent to which Small Businesses will participate in their subcontract arrangements and relationships for the basic year and each option year of the contract… | The requirement as stated appears to be a small business plan specific to the resultant contract. This requirement appears to be in conflict with the approach mandated in 52.219-9 (g) and (j) which states, “A commercial plan is the preferred type of subcontracting plan for contractors furnishing commercial items. The commercial plan shall relate to the offeror’s planned subcontracting generally, for both commercial and Government business, rather than solely to the Government contract…” | Can the USAF confirm that the guidance as referenced in the FAR is the preferred approach? Assuming the FAR guidance is acceptable will the requirements in Appendix K be amended? | |
| The following Appendix K Table 2.4 Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) PWS comments are offered as a courtesy to assist the alignment of various paragraphs and Appendices. |
In some instances, Appendix K Table 2.4 Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) PWS does not align with corresponding Appendix K section 3.2 and Appendix L section 2.2 elements and are listed below:
1 Appendix K Table 2.4 Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) Subfactor 1 Program Management 1) Element (1b) PWS 2.1.2 missing from CRM
2) Element (1d) PWS 1.1.6 does not exist
3) Element (1e) PWS 1.1and 5.4.2 missing from CRM, PWS 3.2.7, 5.4.2 and 5.9.2.2 is not consistent between CRM, Appendix K section 3.2 and Appendix L section 2.2 elements
4) Element (1f) PWS 3.15 missing from CRM
2 Appendix K Table 2.4 Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) Subfactor 3 Maintenance 1) Element (3a) PWS 5.2 and 5.4.2 not referenced in Appendix K section 3.2 and Appendix L section 2.2 elements
2) Element (3c) PWS 5.4.2, 5.4.6, 5.4.10, and 5.9 missing from CRM, PWS 2.0 not referenced in Appendix K section 3.2 and Appendix L section 2.2 element
3 Appendix K Table 2.4 Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) Subfactor 4 Phase-In 1) Element (4a) PWS 2.7 missing from CRM
2) PWS 7.0 Service Summary table 2.1 has the following incorrect PWS references:
a. 1.1.4 should be 1.1.3
b. 1.1.4.3 should be 1.1.3.3
c. 1.1.4.2 should be 1.1.3.2
d. 5.2.9 should be 5.2.5
e. 5.2.10 does not exist
f. 5.4.3.7 and 5.4.3.7.1 does not exist and should be 5.4.3.5
g. 3.2.9 should be 1.1.5
| 4 | Appendix K | Appendix K - FAR INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO), Table 2.3, Proposal Organization, Vol II Past Performance | There is no Table of Contents, List of Tables and Figures, or Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms | ||
| 5 | Appendix K | Appendix K - FAR INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO), Table 2.3, Proposal Organization, Vol II Past Performance | Discussion: Table 2.3 identifies requirements in the past Performance volume for both Present/Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIs, Attachment 1.1) and a Relevant Contract Narrative, suggesting that the Relevant Contract Narrative is separate from the PPI information provided in Attachment 1.1. Attachment 1.1, under the Program Details Tab, requires the offeror to " Explain how your performance on this contract is relevant for each applicable factor or subfactor, as instructed under Past Performance in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of the RFP." Later in Attachment 1.1, offerors are instructed that "The Business Relationships and Past Performance documents will print separately; combine the two to create your Past Performance Volume." This suggests that the Relevant Contract Narrative is the information provided under the Program Details Tab of the PPI Tool. | Is the Relevant Contract Narrative part of the information submitted in the PPIs using the PPI Tool, or is it separate? | |
| 6 | Appendix K | Appendix K - FAR INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO), Table 2.3, Proposal Organization, Vol IV Contract Documentation | The Table requires Volume IV to have a "Team List, Arrangements, and/or Letters of Intent." And references ITO Paragraph Number 2.2.2, which does not seem to apply. | Is 2.2.2 the correct ITO reference? | |
| 7 | Appendix K | Appendix K - FAR INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO), Table 2.3, Proposal Organization, Vol IV Contract Documentation | The Table requires Volume IV to have a "Team List, Arrangements, and/or Letters of Intent." And references ITO Paragraph Number 2.2.2, which does not seem to apply. | If 2.3.2 is the correct ITO reference, how is the "Team List, Arrangements, and/or Letters of Intent" different from the "Team List" identified in 2.3.2 and required in all the other volumes? | |
| 8 | Appendix K | Appendix K - FAR INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO), Table 2.3, Proposal Organization and ITO ATTACHMENT 3.0 SCENARIO | Where in the proposal do we submit our response to the Scenario Requirements in Attachment 3.0? If in Volume I, Technical, is this material excluded from the 75 page limit? | ||
| 9 | Appendix K | Reference: Appendix K - FAR INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO, paragraph 3.2.3.e.1 | The referenced paragraph requires offerors to submit XL spreadsheets with CMP code information. | Is this material excluded from the Technical Volume's 75 page limit? | |
| 10 | ITO 1.1 | ITO ATTACHMENT 1.1, Past Performance Information (PPI) for Offerors | On what date will the Government make the PPI Tool available? | On what date will the Government make the PPI Tool available? | |
| Attachments H & J - Depot CMP codes | |||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statememt (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | |
| 1 | Attachment H&J | Note section | (3) The firm fixed price for CLINs X008-X024, X027 is for inspections IAW Gulfstream Maintenance Manual Chapter 5, CMP.net codes and subcodes, base line CMP cards in Attachment 2, contractor's CSOW paragraph 1.3 & 1.4 to include access, closure, re-installation, required follow-on operational checks and any repair 4 hours or less. The contractor shall explain any additions or subtractions from the attached 2 base-line required to meet the intent of the CLIN. | By including access and closure in the depot CLINs, it will unnecessarily jack the price up and also make it more costly to the government, as multiple CLINs performed at the same time will all include access in the same area. opportunity. This will especially be expensive when multiple CLINs are exercised. For instance, if a C-37A 96 month inspection, a 192 month inspection, and an 8000 landing inspection were accomplished at the same time (very likely), the government would likely triple pay for access/closure, as each CLIN would already be pre-priced to include access/closure for the interior.There is also complexity in the fact that with multiple configurations among the services, a singular access and closure amount for a single inspection is difficult to determine, without pricing for the worst case scenario in order to cover the contractor's risk. This is expecially true with the recent L-3 com upgrade that adds even more complexity to the amount of effort required to remove/install the cabin interior and CSO stations. In all commercial depot environments, "access and closure" requiring removal and reinstallation of furnishings/modifications is provided on a T&M basis. If the government awards without full consideration to this fact (assuming price will be a significant factor) they will likely end up with quotations that grossly overprices for risks to comply with the inspections since accurate quotation requires detailed access to each aircraft which will not be posible with the solicitation window. We also noticed in the prior solicitation this exact same issue was discussed and resulted in "access and closure" being handled under O&A privisions. | Regarding the inclusion of access and closure in the depot CLINs, does the government see the overall price increase they will create if they force each bidder to include access and closure into each depot CLIN? Will the government reconsider making Access and Closure at Depot O&A? |
| Attachment T - Exclusion List | |||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statememt (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | |
| 1 | Attachement T | EXCLUSION LIST | Item #1. Auxiliary Power Unit , Nose Landing Gear, Main Landing Gear, & Thrust Reverser: parts, components, and material (and associated shipping) required for off-wing depot maintenance/repair/overhaul | Offeror requests clarification on the named iterms, especially as the APU & Landing Gear are actually complex assemblies consisting of many parts, some of which may, or may not, be part of the core assembly. As written, these could cause future conflict. Suggest the following; "APU"= As chased/delivered from Honeywell as an assembly. (Includes Starter, Load Control Valve, Engine Electronic Control, and Fuel components) "Landing Gear"= As purchased consists of the structural "undressed" assembly less Hydraulic Lines, Wiring, Brakes and Wheels. | |
| Should ATTACHMENT T, ITEM 1 be modified to clearly define APUs and Landing Gear? | |||||
| 2 | Attachement T | EXCLUSION LIST | Item #2. ENGINES | Offeror notes Nacelles are not included in Attachment T. Nacelles normally consists of the engine’s physical envelope (fan and fixed cowls, Thrust Reverser, Nose cowl) up to the aircraft pylon and excluding the engine. These can be very expensive items. It would make far more financial sense to also exclude NACELLES and simply price these on occurence as an O&A, in lieu of requiring offerors to price in the risk. We also noticed they were listed as an exception in the prior solicitation for the current contract. | Was this ommision intentional and should offerors include the added risk/price for the potential failure and/or replacement of all these components for the full contract term? |
| 3 | Attachement T | EXCLUSION LIST | Item #3. 3. Infrared Countermeasure Systems LRUs (consumables included within CPFH) | Offeror notes this exclusion states "consumables are included within the CPFH". Nothing in the exclusion mentions the special support equipment. Many of the related consumables for these very special systems are also special purchase as well as the specialized support equipment related to the support of these systems. Typically all of these items, (consumables and special support equipment) are available for repair, replenishment or replacement within the government's own system. These items will be very expensive to offerors and likely will be better priced under the government's own system. | Should offerors now include the price for all consumables and the repair or replacement of the specialized support equipment within each of the CPFH clins? |
| 4 | Attachement T | EXCLUSION LIST | Item #7. Aircraft Interior Soft Goods (carpets, veneers, fabrics, leathers, etc): replenishment/replacement of GFP will be O&A | Offeror notes this exclusion includes the custom "coverings", which are normally replaced during "Interior Refurbishment". However the interior underlying cabinetry, seating, bulkheads, doors, fixtures etc. (that these coverings are attached to) may also have to be replaced due to internal damage, corrosion etc. These can be very expensive items. It would seem to make more financial sense to also exclude these items in lieu of requiring offerors to price the risk for all of them into the FH CLINS. | Does the government want bidders to include the risk/price for the potential replacement of all future interior refurbishment materials/components into the FH CLINS? |
| 5 | Attachement T | EXCLUSION LIST | Item 3 - 8 vs Items 1 & 2 | As Attachment T lists exclusions that will be covered under O&A provisions, why do items #1 & #2 itemize "associated shipping" as an excludable O&A, but items 3 - 8 do not include the same exclusions for shipping? | |
| PWS | |||||
| Location | Section/Title | Reference Statememt (if req'd) | Comment/Rationale | Question | |
| 1 | 1.1.2.1A | Full CLS Acft @ JBA | The Contractor shall include Full CLS requirements for the six USAF aircraft at JBA as shown in Table 1-1A. In the event it is determined Full CLS is not required, Partial CLS services as seen in Table1-1 will be used. | In order for bidders to be able to price in this option, we need to know specfically what services and facilities and GSE will be provided through the Base Support Agreement for Joint Base Andrews. (JBA Base Support Agreement was not provided) | Should this option be exercised, does the same one (1) hour recall notice for other Full CLS MOB’s apply or will the contractor be required to have staff on-site 24/7/365? Will the government provide potential bidders the current CBA in place for those aircraft? |
| 2 | 1.1.2.1A | Full CLS Acft @ JBA | Full Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Aircraft at JBA (Option TBD [to be determined] by USAF) | With respect to bidding Full CLS for the 89th, many critical aspect of the current contract are unknown to properly bid. | Reference the direction to bid full CLS for the 89th aircraft, will the government provide the following: |
1) JBA Base Support Agreement?
2) The current CBA, including T’s & C’s
3) When would the 89th option likely be exercised?
4) Is there an anticipated Period of Performance?
5) Is it anticipated that the current CBA will carry over into this new solicitation contract, for the 89th?
| 3 | 1.1.3.1 | Mission Capability (MC) Rate | Formula | Using Fully Mission Capable (FMC) in the formula is confusing since the performance metrics of this contract are based on Mission Capable hours. | Offeror suggests the following formula for calculating MC Rate. MC Rate = Available Hours - (NMCM Hrs + NMCS Hrs) / Available Hours | |
| 4 | 1.1.3.3 | Departure Reliability Rate (DRR) | Formula | Limiting DRR Formula to using Home Station Departures Only puts a severe burden on locations that routinely launch aircraft from the MOB and are then on the road for 5 – 10 days. Using only Home Station Departures, could easily mean the MOB could only have 4 or 5 Home Station Departures in a month. At 60 Home Station Departures per year, if they have more than 3 delays, they will drop to 93%. (3 Delays puts them exactly @ 95%) | We noticed this is different from AFI 21-101_AMCSUP 9 Feb 2016, Page 118. "Departure. AMC departures are considered home station, en route or world wide." Will the government change this requirement to align with stated AFI as well as industry standards for calculating DRR using Total Departures? | |
| 5 | 2.1.6 | Host Base Training | The Government will provide initial host base training to Contractor personnel during the phase-in period after which time the Contractor shall be responsible for all Host base training. | Host base training should not be the responsibility of the contactor, due to specific threat condition and host country specific requirements. The host base is the SME for this and normally has briefings on a monthly or quarterly basis. | Offeror would like to note the added cost to procure materials and Subject Matter Experts to conduct recurring training, some of which may be uniquie to the Host Base. Can the USAF confirm either responsibility of host base training, or acceptance of increased costs associated with contractor furnished training? | |
| 6 | 3.6.1 | Personnel/Property Safety | The Contractor shall implement and maintain a Safety Program to ensure protection of Government property and personnel IAW Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Host Nation Safety and Health standards, FAA guidelines and regulations, and the Safety Appendix and Safety Inspection. | Offeror is not familiar with the "Safety Appendix and Safety Inspection." | Will the USAF provide of this document to potential offerors? | |
| 7 | 3.8 | Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) / Parts Obsolescence | When directed by the PCO, the Contractor shall perform a teardown analysis/root cause analysis to support SPO investigations. (CDRL A020) | Offeror understands repair reports are normally provided at no charge for repairable parts, however the requirement to "perform specific tearwdown with root cause analyses" can be very expensive to price as it is an unknown and has significant other impacts. It will cause the part to be removed from the supply chain (while undergoing special analysis). It will conflict with the offerors exchange programs if the party was exchanged with other vendors such as Honeywell, Rockwell collins etc. The protracted delay on part turn-in It may cause the exchanging vendor to charge an outright sale price for the exchange part. There is nothing in this paragraph to suggest this would be handled on an O&A basis. Thus it seems offerors must price for this risk. | Does the USAF intend offerors to price this in, or should the requirement be adjusted to cover the need on occurrence under an O&A basis? If the estimated risk price must be included what CLIN should this be priced into? | |
| 8 | 4.1 | Main Operating Base ( MOB ) Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply | The Contractor shall identify, procure, stock, store and issue common and peculiar spare parts, components, consumables, bench stock (to include all CAP, GFP and CFP) for the C-20 and C-37 aircraft, aircraft systems, engines/APUs and test/SE. | We noticed the Government's inventory does not include large items such as C37 flight controls, Doors and only one set of Landing Gear and no Engine Nacelle /Cowl parts, no spare C37 Engines and only 1 APUs. Although Engines and APUs specifically have rental CLINs (X904 and X907), these other major items are also typically rented and shipped from suppliers while the customer's components are sent for repair. We also noticed these items were to be rented on a case by case basis in the 2013 solicitation. But similar language does not exist in this solicitation. This would be a very expensive risk to price into each of the FH CLINs. | Are bidders required to include into each FH CLIN, the price to locate, ship & provide such large rental items as Flight Controls, Landing Gear, Doors & Cowls at no charge? Or will the offeror consider including additional CLIN language that will allow rental of these other large items on an O&A basis? | |
| 9 | 4.1.2 | Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) | GOVT furnished TMDE used on USA aircraft shall be calibrated and certified IAW Army Regulation (AR) 750-43 | If the local PMEL does not meet the AR requirement.. Can the Army provide us the | ||
| nearest Army approved PMEL shop? | Should offerors include costs to calibrate all Army TMDE equipment IAW AR 750-43? | |||||
| 10 | 4.2.5.1 | GFP Doc Expceptions | FAA approved parts need to be new, are separately tagged or are in containment packaging, and are free from alteration and clearly traceable back to the manufacturer or source supplier. | We do not understand why GFP FAA approved parts need to be new. Maybe this section is mis-typed. As written, it's quite likely that some of the GFP items curently in the government's inventory will be no longer allowed for use. And replaced by the bidder at great cost. We do not beleive this is the government's intention and perhaps could be inadvertant typographical errors. | What parts need to be new? Is it only consumables? Is the USAF requiring pricing for only "new" FAA parts or are FAA Approved Repaired or Overhauled parts acceptable? Or perhaps this is a inadvertant typographical error? | |
| 11 | 4.2.5.1 | Government Furnished Property (GFP) Documentation Exceptions | Directional Infrared Counter Measures (DIRCM) and LAIRCM, both repairable and consumable items (e.g. smart cards, desiccants, filter, etc.) will be acceptable with Government or Government vendor supplied paperwork. |
Navy Senior Leadership Communication-Aircraft (NSLC-A) network equipment will be acceptable with Government or Government vendor supplied paperwork.
| This last 2 bullets in this paragraph describe parts that will be acceptable with government paperwork. But this para does not extend to also cover parts such as wheels or batteries or other items that may also be repaired, inspected or otherwise maintained by a Base backshop as described and allowed in the BSAs and also in PWS 5.2.4. | Should PWS 4.2.5.1 be modified to also include these items, or should the contractor add the price to create a new process to accomplish these tasks commercially and fully remove them from any offering for base backshop support? | ||||
| 12 | 4.9 | Life Support | The Contractor shall maintain documentation IAW FAR Part 91 and 135, Subpart J, annotating required inspections and maintenance actions accomplished. | Aircraft are maintained IAW FAR 91. Offeror is unaware of the need to document life support equipment to FAR 135 subpart J, if its being maintaining the aircraft to FAR part 91. | Can the Part 135, Subpart J reference be removed? |
| 13 | 4.11 | Beyond Fair Wear and Tear (BFWT) | NOTE: If partial CLS, reimbursement for “no fault found/cannot duplicate” will be allowed for parts used by JBA’s “O” level maintenance provider. | Offeror notes this section excludes “no fault found/cannot duplicate” for the 3rd party maintainers at JBA. It is understood that a 3rd party will also be performing maintenance on the USCG aircraft at DCA. | As the above exclusion was only applied to JBA, should the offerors include the added price risk for “no fault found/cannot duplicate” parts replaced by the USCG's maintainer? |
| 14 | 4.13.1 | USAF (MCS) | An onsite 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. Group A parts will be provided in the CLS COMBS. The CLS Contractor shall perform a system operations check with Field Service Representative (FSR) support, prior to any depot input | What are Group A parts and Appendix B spares? | |
| 15 | 5.1 | Maintenance Personnel | The Contractor shall provide skilled, experienced A&P Licensed personnel to meet or exceed the Performance Requirements in Table 1.2. | It is not common for Avionic Technicians to have an A&P license. | Does the government require ALL technicians to possess an A&P license or will Avioninc Technicians be exempt from this requirement? |
| 16 | 5.2.3 | Aircraft Maintenance | The Contractor shall perform removal and replacement of engines, APUs, landing gears, and non-destructive testing (NDT) requirements where support equipment is available. | This statement indicates that engine changes and NDT should be done at MOBs, "wshere support equipment is available" also NDI could be done by MOB technicians. NOTE: Performing the CMP Task at a Depot will NOT remove it from the depot CLIN workscope sine they are priced as CLIN "packages". Also, the CMP Task will still need to be Complied With again at the Service Center in order to meet the requirements of FAR 145 | Is the government requesting offerors to price the ability to perform ALL depot CLIN CMP tasks at each MOB Location to meet this requirement? Does the government want ALL MOB sites to include Non-Destructive Inspection equipment and NDT Qualified Technicians or will the government allow use of base Non Destructive Inspection backshops? |
| 17 | 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 | ||
| 18 | 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. | Regarding PWS 5.2.3, does the government understand that partial depot CLIN CMP work performed by non-repair station MOB employees, per FAA 145 repair station policies, cannot be signed off once the aircraft is at the depot? | |
| 19 | 5.2.3.2 | Delayed Discrepancies | The Contractor shall ensure DD (as defined in AFI 21-101) are properly documented in the AFTO 781K file. The Contractor shall schedule and work the DD within 30 days of discovery, as mission schedule allows. The Contractor shall address their plan to remedy any DD exceeding 30 days in the monthly Aircraft Status Report. The Contractor shall provide the COR compelling rationale and obtain coordination for DDs exceeding 60 days and/or deferred until next scheduled depot visit. | Not all services recognize AFI 21-101. Some clarification for flight operations should be given. | Request government to confirm this does not apply to Partial CLS Aircraft. |
| 20 | 5.2.3.2 | Delayed Discrepancies (DD) | The Contractor shall ensure DD (as defined in AFI 21-101) are properly documented in the AFTO 781K file. The Contractor shall schedule and work the DD within 30 days of discovery, as mission schedule allows. The Contractor shall address their plan to remedy any DD exceeding 30 days in the monthly Aircraft Status Report. The Contractor shall provide the COR compelling rationale and obtain coordination for DDs exceeding 60 days and/or deferred until next scheduled depot visit. (CDRL A001) | Add wording to relieve partial CLS sites. | |
| 21 | 5.2.3.3 | USAF MCS | The CLS Contractor shall maintain MCS systems at Full CLS sites. The Contractor shall requisition/turn-in MCS LRUs, from the MCS third-party contractor’s COMBS as… | These MCS systems/parts are not within the control of the CLS Contractor, therefore is is unfair to the CLS contractor to accept any negative DRR, NMC, NMCS, PMC & PMCS time for MCS related system failures, faults or other issues to include lack of on site spares, all of which are are not within the control of the CLS contractor. , | Will the CLS contractor be held responsible for third party system/parts performance and avaialbility within our site metrics? What if a part is required for MCS mx that the third party vendor does not have in stock? Would the CLS contractor be penalized for the lack of the part? |
| 22 | 5.2.3.4 | USA/USN Mission Communication System (MCS) | The CLS Contractor shall perform a system operations check, prior to any depot input. | This may not always be possible, especially for AOG, or short notice drop-ins. Additionally the government contracted on site FSR may not always be readily available. The CLS contractor cannot control all these situations. And spedial equipment may be needed. | Will the government consider changing this requirement to make it be accomplished where possible and with the assistance of the goverment's on-site contracted FSR? |
| 23 | 5.2.3.4 | USA/USN Mission Communication System (MCS) | The CLS Contractor shall be responsible for all maintenance of MCS systems at full CLS sites. | The Navy has a technician on contract through SPAWAR that maintains the JEMPERS sysytem and does a majority of the MCS troubleshooting. Will that be the case in this contract? | The Navy has a technician on contract through SPAWAR that maintains the JEMPERS sysytem and does a majority of the MCS troubleshooting. Will that be the case in this contract? |
| 24 | 5.2.4 | Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)/Tire and Wheel Build-up | NDT - The Contractor shall provide on-and-off equipment non-destructive testing and tire and wheel build-up capability at each MOB. The Contractor may utilize back shop capability when available IAW the Base Support Agreement. | PWS 5.2.4 requires on/off equipment NDT to be provided at each MOB. This conflicts with PWS 5.2.3 where it says "perform non-destructive testing (NDT) requirements where support equipment is available". Further PWS 5.3.2.1 (deployment), requires all these same functions to also be provided at the Deployment site. These all address NDT inspections that are not necessarily covered by the listed DEPOT CLINS, but perhaps should. New inspections can suddenly be rmandates. Special NDT inspections may also be required following discovery of damage or corrosion. Most NDT tasks require complicated NDI equipment (Xray, Magnaflux, ComScan, UT, etc. + specialized training & certificatiions + recent experience.The equipment in many cases is only available/obtained through an I‐level or Depot Level NDI shop We did notice in the various BSAs, some MOBs have NDI backshop support but some do not. For some it is strictly on a non‐interference basis. Additionally, at the MOBs with Base NDI shops, their capabilities depends on their equipment and staff's level of certification at the time.. The BSAs do not provide specific clarification as to what level NDI they are rated for and/or will provide. Their capabilities will change over time., To force the offeror to estimate and price the provision of all NDT capabilities, personell, training and equipment into each MOB's CLIN bid will significantly drive up proposed pricing due to the large level of unknowns. | QUESTION(s)- Will the government either allow O&As for procurement of on-site NDT when it is both needed and determined to be beyond the capability at a particular site or location? |
| 25 | 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. | GOPs should drive this not base requirments unless this is purely safety related. | In order for potential offerors to be aware of all requirements and to include additional training, material, safety equipment, etc, Will the government provide copies of the applicable Host Base requirements? |
| 26 | 5.4.3.4 | Over & Above (O&A) Tasks | Note: Material suppoting depot maintenance shall be IAW the CPFH and Attachment T | This will significantly increase our CPFH price, as the amount of material changed at the depot on the current contract is substantial. This increase will be expoential since there is no CPFH funding revenue while the aircraft is in depot. This increase will be expoential since there is no CPFH funding revenue while the aircraft is in depot. Thus, flight hour pricing must be even further increased to accumulate even more funds to cover the period of time while in depot and not flying. We also noticed on the prior solicitation, the government cleverly mitigated this situation by adjusting the under 4 hour rule (ref PWS 5.4.3.4) to also include materials. This allowed some of the depot material to be FFP, but then allowed most major items to be negotiated only on actual occurrences. | Regarding all depot material being CPFH (excluding attachment T items), does the government understand that, based on historical data (plus the need for each bidder to cover their risk) this will significantly increase the CPFH price to a level far higher than current actuals? Will the govenrment consider allowing the materials to be included for the under 4 hour discrepancies as noted in PWS 5.4.3.3, but for larger items, allowing O&A to be negiotiated. |
| 27 | 5.4.5 | Depot Return to Service | Maintenance record supplemental documentation to include inspection certifications, TDs, airworthiness directives, ASCs and CBs. AFTO 95 (AF aircraft only), Significant Historical Data, Major Accessories/Component Replacement log | 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". - | Question, can this reference be used as technical guidance? |
| 28 | 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 this paragraph, as it contains inaccurate information? |
| 29 | 5.2 | Main Operating Base (MOB) Organizational Level Maintenance | In the paragraph for this title, there is a statement that, "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? |
| 30 | 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. | We are okay with supporting the government flight crews, but the FCF/MTF profiles are owned by the respective services, and are different from service to service. Gulfstream is not privy to these - nor is there a Gulfstream requirement to perform any type of flights following a depot visit. The profiles should be provided by the government. | Would the government consider removing the requirement for the contractor to prepare and provide FCF/MTF profiles? |
| 31 | 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?" |
| 32 | 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? |
| 33 | 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. |
| 34 | |||||
| 35 | 5.4.9 | Interior Refurbishment | The Contractor shall perform aircraft interior refurbishments upon PCO/ACO direction. | Should we ask for clarification/stipulation that this task/requirement be accomplished only at our Depot facilities? | Will the government confirm that refurbishment tasks will be accomplished at Depot Facilities? |
| 36 | 5.9.3.2 | C-37 APU | Contractor shall perform field level “on-wing” repairs replacing minor SRUs as necessary to preclude removal and replacement of the APU. In this instance, parts and labor expenses shall be covered by the flying hour CLIN | APU components now charged to flying hour CLIN | Does the government want offerors to include costs of SRU APU Components or will the APU be excluded per attachment T. Contradiction, please clarify. |
| 37 | 4.12 | COMBS CPFH Coverage | The Contractor shall provide worldwide transportation of CPFH covered items. The Contractor shall provide transportation to/from maintenance and repair facilities. The Contractor’s CPFH rate shall include applicable customs fees necessary for worldwide support. | How does the USG anticipate bidder's can scope covering any global worldwide transportation requirements (all possible global locations; all potential frequency of events). Ditto for any potential worldwide customs fees. To do this, bidder would have to successfully determine any landing location suitable for a C-20/C-37; an unsurmountable task. The other option would be for the bidder to cover an enormous amount of risk, resulting in unnecessary cost to the government. Recommend transportation/customs fees out of the normal MOB routing structures be O&A. | |
| 38 | 4.13.1 | USAF MCS | The CLS Contractor shall perform a system operations check with Field Service Representative (FSR) support, prior to any depot input. | Section 4 is COMBS. There is a discussion about system maintenance checkout; Repeat of what is covered in 5.2.3.3 | |
| 39 | 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. | Should this be reworded to Aircraft Commander as they normally prepare the flight profiles? | |
| 40 | 7.0 | Service Summary | Entirety | Many objectives have unrealistic expectations (100% accuracy, zero late deliveries, etc.). If the bar is set at 100%, how can the contractor ever expect to excel? On a CPAR, getting a 100% would equal meeting the requirement, which is a "Satisfactory". Recommend a graduated scale such as - 96% - Satisfactory; 98%- Very Good; 100% - Excellent | |
| 41 | Table 2-1 | Service Summary | MC Rates for NAS Point Mugu Aircraft | In Table 1-2 these metrics were identified as 85%. Pt. Mugu aircraft are not addressed in table 2-1. | |
| 42 | Table 2-1 | Service Summary | Accounting accuracy and billing errors. | Numeric values of 10 and 2 are unrealistic based on the quantities of billings accomplished. On the current contract, that equaled inaccuracy rates of less than 0.5% for the Contract year. Recommend this be changed to a percentage (eg. 95%). | |
| 43 | Table 2-1 | Service Summary (ALSO PWS 4.10.1) | The Contractor shall maintain greater than 99% inventory accuracy with unreconciled inventory corrections not to exceed $2,500 per year. | Dollar value of $2,500 is unrealistic. Based on current approximate dollar value of GFP, that would equal a 99.9999% accuracy rate requirement. Recommend this be changed to a percentage (eg. 98%). | |
| 44 | BSA | Andrews USAF Base Support Agreement | Not provided. | ||
| 45 | Attacment C | Publications | Publication description/list | Not all manuals are specified as GFD or contractor supplied. Addtionally, not all manuals are listed w/format requirements (electronic vs. hard copy) | Offeror assumes all manuals are required in electronic format only. Please confirm. |
| END OF QUESTION LIST |
Shealy, Lisa Page &P &D
Sheet2
| Questions and Answers from Draft RFP | ||||
| General Quesiton | ||||
| Location | Section/Title | Comment/Rationale | Question | Answer |
| General Question | Tinker is soliciting this as a common "C-20/C-37" program. At the SPO-level does Tinker intend to manage it as a common program or basically have independent C-20 and C-37 programs with a common PCO? | The Governments intent to manage the programs by service and fleet under a common contract. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .