Industry Questions-Responses_Part IV.pdf

1 | P a g e

10-Feb-23

Industry Questions & Responses – Part IV T-6A Texan II Avionics Replacement Program (ARP)

1) Reference: Attachment_2_SOW_3.1_Program_Management. Question: What are the coordinating procedures with the other Contracted Logistic Support (CLS) providers. Will there be a MOI between the CLS provider and the Integration Team?

Response: The Government is not familiar with the use of the term MOI in the question above. No Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Understanding (MOU) will be required between the CLS contractor and the ARP contractor. The CLS contractor supports USAF requirements and will be directed by the USAF through the CLS contract.

2) Reference: Attachment_6_Section_L_4.3.2. Question: Volume II, 4.3.2; five pages of Relevant Contract Narrative- Is this the printout from the PPI Tool or a separate document?

Response: Yes, the PPI Relevant Contract Narrative (IAW Section L 4.3.2) is a separate portion of the Past Performance Volume Submission from the PPI Tool (IAW Section L 4.3.1. and ITO Attachment 1.1.).

Per Section L, 4.3.1, offerors shall provide Past Performance Information (PPI) on current or previous contracts (or efforts). The PPI shall be completed in accordance with Attachment 1.1, Past Performance Information Form (identified as “PPIF”) which is accomplished within the PPI Tool itself. ITO Attachment 1.1 states “Offerors must use the PPI Tool (Use latest version at https://www.sam.gov) in order to electronically submit the PPI portion of the Past Performance Volume in accordance with the RFP (FA8106-23-R-0001) for (T-6A Avionics Replacement Program) Section L– Instructions to Offerors, Attachment 1.1.” ITO Attachment 1.1 (pages 32-34) show examples of the type of information to enter for PPI within the PPI Tool.

Per Section L, 4.3.2, offerors shall provide a narrative explaining what aspects of the contract is deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. Specifically, the narrative should focus on similarities to the Factor 1 Technical subfactors, Factor 3 Price, and Scope, Magnitude, Performance Quality, and Complexity, as defined in Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.2 Relevancy Assessment, and should be tailored to the proposed portion of effort.

Offerors are requested to limit the narratives to a maximum of 5 pages. However, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA

2 | P a g e the offeror may exceed the requested page limit, if determined necessary to fully describe relevancy.

3) SOW 6 Hazmat Reference: DCMA 8210.1C Ch1: para 5.29 (subs 5.29.1 - 5.29.3) requires that the contractor establish policy and procedure for storing, using, and identifying HAZMAT. Issue: HAZMAT storage. Question: With multiple contractors occupying the hangar, how will HAZMAT be received, stored, and issued?

Additionally, how is the hazardous waste generation expected to be handled? Will there be individual accumulation points for the ARP contractors or one for the whole facility? Who (Government, ARP contractor, other contractor) will manage this process?

Response: It is not the Government’s intent for the ARP contractor to plan for HAZMAT deliveries at the bases. It is the Government’s intent to supply required HAZMAT supplies required by the successful offeror. The successful offeror shall comply with current USAF directives and any local procedures for use, storage, disposal of hazardous materials/waste, and containment/clean-up of spills. It is the Government’s intent to provide HAZMAT training for the Contractor personnel at each base prior to any modifications to the aircraft. The ARP contractor will be required to have HAZMAT policy and procedures that align with USAF directives and approved by GFR/GGFR at each base prior to beginning any work on aircraft. It is the Government’s intent that the ARP Contractor personnel will deliver generated HAZMAT to the appropriate base personnel according to the government procedures. The Government will store and dispose of HAZMAT generated during the modification of aircraft at each base according to local procedures.

4) Reference: SOW Section 3.11: The USG proposes that any tech data developed for this effort, and/or any tech data rights negotiated will at a minimum be IAW 10 USC § 2320 (a)(2)(A)(C)(iii). DFARS 252.227-7015 referenced in SOW 3.11.1 also refers to 10 USC § 2320. 10 USC § 2320 was apparently repealed effective 1 Jan, 2022 with a reference to “See, generally, subchapter I (§3771 et seq.) of chapter 275. Would the Government provide the new reference or confirm that 10 USC § 2320 was repealed and any reference shall be replaced with 10 USC § 3771?

Response: The Government is reviewing this request. A solicitation amendment may be processed. Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates.

5) The SRD Revision 003 change included “Corrected part numbers of UHF/VHF Comm Antenna and UHF Upper Antenna and moved both to Table 2 – pg. 13”. According to DAICO Industries, the manufacturer of the Antenna Selector, P/N CSWX9189 listed in Table 1 is the current production unit that replaces the obsolete P/N 100D0988 (both are listed in the T-6A Illustrated Parts Catalog). Question: Will the Government consider moving the CSWX9189 Antenna Selector to Table 2 as well?

3 | P a g e

Response: The Government is not considering moving the CSWX9189 Antenna Selector to Table 2, at this time.

6) CLINs 0028AD, 0028AB, 0028AL, 0028AM, 1028AB. It is understood from prior Q&A that the NRE CLINs should be priced for the full scope of effort in each applicable ordering period, and the production CLINs should be priced for the quantity specified in each ordering period. However, it is unclear what the Government’s intent is to price CDRLs where the quantity varies by ordering period, since the quantity of CDRL deliverables required for performance is specified in the CDRL attachment. For example:

For CLIN 0028AD CDRL A035 Technical Data Package (TDP) covers the TDPs for the aircraft, ASIL, 5 types of ATDs, and the T-2Mod (if proposed) for a qty of 8; however, the pricing matrix asks us to provide a cost for BEQs of 3, 8, 8, and 4 for BP1-4, respectively. Question: Given that neither the CLIN nor the CDRL differentiate between these 8 TDPs, which TDPs does the government desire to be included in the pricing for BP1 and BP4 entries in the pricing matrix? This question also applies to CLINs 0028AB, 0028AL, 0028AM and 1028AB.

Response: CDRLs will be delivered in accordance with the SOW. Each CDRL Form 1423 contains submission instructions and timing of the required delivery.

7) Reference Attachment 4, Pricing Matrix. How are offerors to price CDRL CLINs with varying quantities per period that do not match the quantities in Schedule B? For Example, CLIN 0028AD includes multiple revisions (draft, updated draft, final) or different types of TDPs (Aircraft, ATD, ASIL, T2) which have different levels of effort and associated costs. In this example, the Pricing Matrix shows varying quantities in each of the 4 base years.

Response: CDRLs will be delivered in accordance with the SOW. Each CDRL Form 1423 contains submission instructions and timing of the required delivery.

8) Reference Attachment 4, Pricing Matrix. Should CDRL CLINs with a quantity of 1 per period in multiple periods (e.g. 0028AF) include the entire cost for the effort in the first pricing period and then escalate the entire cost for the follow on pricing periods? In this example, include the total cost (with appropriate escalation) of CLIN 0028AF in each of the 3 periods on the pricing matrix?

Response: The Government requires offerors to price the entire price for an effort and not spread cost across years.

9) For the CLINs identified as “Data Separately Priced”, should offerors include the cost of the development effort for the CLIN in that line item, or should the cost for the CDRL CLINs be limited to the cost to prepare the data package?

Response: The CDRL CLINs are for the cost of the data package preparation, delivery, etc. Developmental cost should be priced on the appropriate CLIN (TMRR, EMD, etc.).

4 | P a g e

10) FAR 52.217-3 is included within the solicitation. This FAR clause states: “The

Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by including only the price for the basic requirement, i.e., options will not be included in the evaluation for award purposes.” Section M states “The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP. The TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided in the Pricing Matrix (RFP Attachment 4). These calculations will include the one Basic Period of 4-years (TMRR, EMD, and Production/Installation), and one 4-year Option Period (Production and Installation) for a total of 8 years, plus a 6-month extension. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.” Since the Government intends to include the option period in its TEP, FAR 52.217-3 is not the correct clause.

We recommend the Government amend the solicitation to remove FAR 52.217-3 and substitute FAR 52.217-5 instead.

11) Will the USG provide T-6A aircraft jacks? Will the USG provide training for jacking and leveling the aircraft?

Response: It is the Government’s intent that the aircraft will be positioned, jacked, and leveled when the aircraft is delivered to the ARP contractor for the ARP modification. There will be no training supplied by the USAF on jacking or leveling the aircraft.

12) The pricing matrix has entries for pricing has entries for pricing CLIN 0028AJ CDRL A087 Digital System Model only in BP2 and BP3. However, CDRL A087 DSM is specified in the SOW as entry criteria for SRR, PDR, and CDR which are all expected to occur in contract year 1 (per Appendix E and when accounting for early delivery incentive dates). If the 0028AJ DSM is not ordered until BP2, entrance criteria cannot be met for SRR, PDR, and CDR if ordered in BP1. Please modify the pricing matrix to include 0028AJ DSM in BP1.

Please submit additional Industry Questions to Stephanie Tinnin at stephanie.tinnin.1@us.af.mil and Gale VanDeventer at gale.vandeventer@us.af.mil.