COMBS IV Team Updates 11 Sept. to Vendor Questions 8-25-2023 through 9-25-2023 -RT.pdf

Vendor Questions: 8-25-2023 through 9-25-2023

1. Will the Government revise the PWS references in the following CDRLs as suggested?

Government Responses:

B001 - Include PWS references 1.1.5.1.g and 1.1.5.1.h: USG changed the CDRL to reflect PWS references 1.1.5.1.g and 1.1.5.1.h.

B003 - Revise 1.1.7.1 to read 1.1.7.l; revise 1.1.7.a to read 1.1.7.a.3; include PWS references 1.1.7.a.4 and 1.1.7.a.14: USG Revised 1.1.7.1 to read 1.1.7.l; revised 1.1.7.a to read 1.1.7.a.3; included PWS references 1.1.7.a.4 and 1.1.7.a.14.

B005 - Revise 1.1.7.a to read 1.1.7.a.8: USG revised 1.1.7.a to read 1.1.7a.8.

B012 - Delete PWS 1.1.7.b and replace with PWS 1.1.8.a.1: USG has replaced 1.1.7.b and replaced with PWS 1.1.8.a.1.

B021 - Delete PWSs 1.1.13.e and 1.1.16.2.a and replace with PWSs 1.1.16.1.e.3 and 1.1.16.2.b.3:

USG has changed PWS references to 1.1.16.1.e.3. and 1.1.16.2.b.3.

B025 - Include PWSs 1.1.7.c.34, 1.1.7.l, and 1.3.7.1.d: USG has included PWS references 1.1.7.c.34, 1.1.7.l, and 1.3.7.1.d.

B030 - Revise PWS 1.1.7.a to read 1.1.7.a.6: USG revised PWS 1.1.7.a to read 1.1.7.a.6.

B043 - Include PWS 1.1.15.c.4: USG included PWS reference 1.1.15.c.4.

B044 - Include PWS 1.1.15.c.4: USG included PWS reference 1.1.15.c.4

B045 - Include PWS 1.1.15.c.4: USG included PWS reference 1.1.15.c.4

2. Will the Government please revise the B042 CDRL title and subtitle to read “Small Business Utilization Report?”

Government Response: USG revised the title and subtitle to read "Small Business Utilization Report".

3. Will the Government revise the '2. COMBS IV CDRL SUMMARY 23 JUNE 2023' file columns as follows?

Revise Subtitles (PWS title) for the following CDRLs to read:

Government Responses:

B027 - Master Repair/Overhaul Parts Listing: USG revised the Subtitle to read "Master Repair/Overhaul Parts Listing".

B042 - Small Business Utilization Report: No changes needed. It reads as "Small Business Utilization Report".

B043 - Contractor Cost Data Reporting (CCDR): No change needed to the Subtitle in the CDRL Summary, it reads as "Cost and Hour Report (Flex File)". Although the USG did change the subtitle on the CDRL to read "Cost and Hour Report (Flex File)".

B045 - Contractor Cost Data Reporting (CCDR): No change needed to the Subtitle in the CDRL Summary, it reads "Contractor Business Data Report". Although the USG did change the subtitle on the CDRL to read "Contractor Business Data Report".

B013 - Revise Verified DID to read: DI-QCIC-81794A/T: USG revised B013 verified DID to read

"DI-QCIC-81794A/T".

4. Would the Government consider removing the transition critical path schedule from the Volume 1 65-page limit by amending the current statement in Table 2-3, as follows: "*Critical Path Schedule, Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) and Subcontracting Plan (Not included in 65 Page Limit)"?

Government Response: Table 2-3 has been updated to reflect that the Critical Path Schedule will not be included in the 65-page limit.

5. Will the Government unlock the Unit Price column (AO) under OPTIONAL EXTENSION PERIOD (6 MONTHS) so offerors may account for escalation in the optional extension period?

Government Response: No change. IAW Section M, Paragraph 2.4.4, the Offeror's proposed unit prices for Year 4 of Option I will be utilized for the six-month optional extension IAW FAR 52.217- 8, Option to Extend Services.

6. With regard to the Past Performance Volume, does the reference to "other sources" include information submitted in our Technical Volume?

Government Response: Section L.4.1.1 states the Government will use data provided by the Offeror in the Past Performance volume, as well as data obtained from other sources. Section M.2.3.2 provided a list of possible "other sources." The list provided in Section M.2.3.2 was not intended to be all-inclusive. Section L.2.3.7 also included the following statement "The Past Performance and Price evaluation will utilize information from each’s respective volume for the evaluation but may also utilize information from other volumes as well." Section M.2.3.2 states "The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past performance."

Therefore, yes, it is possible the PPET may review information submitted as part of the Technical Volume in its evaluation for Past Performance.

7. In the instructions the government cites FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) and allows Offerors to provide PP of individual Key Personnel. However, the PPI instructions do not indicate how to provide (what information to provide) Key Personnel Past Performance information. Please confirm offerors should follow the guidelines outlined in the Section M Evaluation Factors for Award for the Past Performance of KP.

Government Response: Section L.4.1.1 states "Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 1.1 of the ITO. The Past Performance volume shall include a team list, which includes the prime contractor, all significant subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform the work outlined in the solicitation. The Offeror shall describe the portion of effort each team member is proposed to perform in relation to the Factor 1 Technical subfactors, Factor 3 Price, and Scope, Magnitude and Complexity. The Government

Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) evaluates each member of the Offeror’s team for relevancy and performance quality, based on their proposed portion of effort. Therefore, it is important for the Offeror to provide a detailed portion of effort description, in order for the PPET to conduct an accurate assessment. Offerors shall also provide approximate percentages for portion of effort for each team member. For the Past Performance evaluation, the Government will use data provided by the Offeror in the Past Performance volume, as well as data obtained from other sources."

Section L, Attachment 1.1, page 27 includes the following instructions on how to include Key Personnel:

• “POC & Key Individuals Tab o Key Individuals: Click the “New” button to specify any key individual or individuals who participated in this program or who may support the proposed acquisition. Also indicate their roles for both acquisitions, previous and current.

To edit or delete an existing key individual, double-click an item from the list.

Note: In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), relevant contract efforts performed by from key personnel may be evaluated. If you wish to include the past performance of individual key personnel, select the “New” button for each individual and fill out the necessary information."

Therefore, if an Offeror has Key Personnel proposed to perform specific aspects of the future requirement, the same past performance information requirements in Section L, paragraph 4.0.

Factor 2 – Past Performance (to include all subparagraphs and attachments) would apply. The Offeror shall comply with all Section L requirements, in order for the PPET to conduct an accurate assessment of the proposed Key Personnel.

8. Does the government require a document that serves as a "Consent Letter" to allow references to discuss experiences of the Key Personnel and/or "Client Authorization" letter for Key Personnel Past Performance within the commercial environment?

Government Response: If an Offeror has Key Personnel proposed to perform specific aspects of the future requirement, the same past performance information requirements in Section L, paragraph 4.0. Factor 2 – Past Performance (to include all subparagraphs and attachments) would apply. Therefore, the Government's requests for Consent Letters (IAW ITO Attachment 1.4) and Client Authorization Letters (IAW ITO Attachment 1.5) would also apply. The Consent and Client Authorization Letters are requested to be sent to your teaming partners/subcontractors/commercial clients points of contacts in an effort to assist the PPET in assessing the past performance of the Key Personnel proposed to perform any portion of effort related to the future requirement. The completed forms should be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume.

9. In support of a Key Personnel Past Performance, does the Government require any type of document to be provided (e.g., references or document similar to the Past Performance Questionnaire)?

Government Response: If an Offeror has Key Personnel proposed to perform specific aspects of the future requirement, the Government would expect to see, as part of your Past Performance Volume, a type of commitment document or letter of intent document describing the following:

-current/future employment status of the key personnel

-description of efforts current/future employee will perform as identified key personnel -any other supporting information that may be beneficial for the PPET's evaluation of key personnel and their level of commitment to the future requirement -signed commitment from both prime and key personnel

10. In the evaluation, does the Government weigh a Key Personnel Past Performance equivalent to a Contract/Effort Past Performance?

Government Response: As described in Section L.4.1.1, the PPET will evaluate each member of the Offeror’s team members (to include Key Personnel) for relevancy and performance quality, based on their proposed portion of effort. Section L.4.1.1 also describes the importance of Offerors providing a detailed portion of effort description and approximate percentages for portion of effort for each team member (to include Key Personnel) in order for the PPET to conduct an accurate assessment. Section M.2.3.2 also states "The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis."

11. Please confirm that the current incumbent will be working to the same Transition Out standards that are provided in the PWS section 1.1.16.2. If the Government can not confirm this, we request the Government provide the Transition Out expectations for the Current Incumbent.

Government Response: The incumbent is required to provide both a transition plan and actively work with the follow-on contractor on all SCM activities. The USG will upon becoming aware of any required transactional deficiency by the incumbent, the agency will take appropriate action to correct all transition activities.

12. To ensure we meet the Government needs we request the Government either update the Tool Control requirements or provide clarification regarding the role of any other contractor that will be supporting tool maintenance.

Government Response: Tool control requirement for this contract are outlined within PWS 1.1.12 and associated guidance listed within the specific sections of the provided PWS.

13. Is this Maintenance Contractor responsible for their own Tool Control Program?

Government Response: Requirements for other contractors will not be provided.

14. We request the government provide the warehouse locations in the bidders library for Offeror to use in developing our solutions.

Government Response: Facilities are outlined in PWS para 3.2.3, no additional information will be provided.

15. We request the government provide the current QASP to support our solution development.

Government Response: The QASP is an internal government document and will not be released.

16. Does the government allow for Offerors to submit the Signed Model Contract as a separate document attachment to our Contract Volume?

Government Response: Offerors shall follow the format outlined in Section L Table 2.3. The model contract shall be a part of Volume IV—placed between Teaming Arrangements/Letters of Intent and Contract Information. If adding the signed PDF is not possible due to proposal development systems, offerors may create a model contract page in their proposal that tells the Government to refer to an attachment.

17. Please confirm that the pre-solicitation answers to questions are no longer relevant to the final RFP.

Government Response: The Government re-activated the Sources Sought/Draft RFP posting in SAM to allows offerors to review early correspondence between the USAF and industry. The Draft RFP Questions-Reponses are located at the following link:

https://sam.gov/opp/34e3130a58214aa8af9f430d91894d66/review

18. We request all responses to industry questions be reposted (including any that may not have been included in the Summary of Effort posting), so that all Offerors are able to review them prior to submittal.

Government Response: The Government will release vendor questions/government responses from RFP release through 25 August 2023 with Amendment 0002. Questions submitted after 25 August 2023 will be released after legal review or with Amendment 0003 (if needed).

19. 1) Can the confirm there are no hard copies required for the submission of the PPIFs as stated in ITO Attachment 1.1, Printing Reports and Submitting PPI Tool., 4.?

Government Response: Section L PPI tool has been updated to reflect this change, no hard copies are required. Please see PPI tool for instructions.

2) Is it the Government’s intent for the Offeror to label the requirement for Section 4.3.1, Past Performance Information Forms (PPIF) as TAB 1 within Volume II Past Performance?

Government Response: Section L PPI tool has been updated to remove TAB 1. Please see PPI tool for instructions.

3) If so, will the Government please modify Table 2.3 to reflect TAB 1?

Government Response: Section L PPI tool has been updated to remove TAB 1. Please see PPI tool for instructions.

20. PWS 1.2 b), e) states b) Maintain, calibrate and/or repair T-6A/B/D Support Equipment utilizing only licensed repair stations, vendors, and suppliers to meet the performance requirements e) Provide transportation for T-6A/B/D Support Equipment. Is the requirement to maintain SE at

AFTD?

Government Response: PWS para 1.2 states, "Support Equipment (USAF Locations, Redstone Arsenal, and NAS Patuxent River only)" and para 1.2.a., 1 states, "a) Provide support equipment management all USAF locations, FRCSE (USAF owned support equipment only), Redstone Arsenal, and NAS Patuxent River 1. Redstone Arsenal is supported from existing T-6 Program Office support equipment via site transfer for temporary loan upon request from Redstone Arsenal."

21. As the team list is required in each volume, we request the following clarification: Does the government want a team list "Description of the Portion of Effort" section to be tailored for each volume, e.g., so that the required description of performance for only the relevant Volume factor/subfactors is provided in each Volume?

Government Response: No, the Government does not want the team list to be tailored for each volume.

https://sam.gov/opp/34e3130a58214aa8af9f430d91894d66/review

Per Section L.2.3.2, "A Team List of the Offeror’s primary Point of Contacts shall be submitted in each volume using the format shown in Attachment 2 of the ITO." Per Section L.2.3.3, Table 2.3, each Volume (Vol I -Technical, Vol II - Past Performance, Vol III - Price and Vol IV - Contract Documentation) depicts the requirement of the inclusion of a Team List using the Attachment 2.0 format.

The instructions described in Section L.4.1.1 pertain to the Past Performance Volume only.

Recommend offerors review Section L.4.1.1 in full for clear understanding of information required for the Past Performance Volume.

22. As the team list is required in each volume, including the contracts volume, we request the following clarification: Is the required section "Description of Portion of Effort of Each Team Member" specific to the F1-3 required in our Volume 4 (contracts volume), which does not address Factors 1, 2, or 3?

Government Response: No, the instructions described in Section L.4.1.1 pertain to the Past Performance Volume only. Recommend offerors review Section L.4.1.1 in full for clear understanding of information required for the Past Performance Volume.

Recommend offerors to also review Section L.6.0 and all subparagraphs in full for clear understanding of information required for the Contract Documentation Volume.

23. As the answers to our questions may impact our past performance submittal, we request the government provide an anticipated schedule to release responses to questions, particularly responses related to Volume 2.

Government Response: The Government will release vendor questions/government responses from RFP release through 25 August 2023 with Amendment 0002. Questions submitted after 25 August 2023 will be released after legal review or with Amendment 0003 (if needed).

24. The solicitation PWS requires the incumbent contractor to provide SCM data access and transfer on day 1 of phase-out transition including complete COMBS IV SCM data, usage data, demand forecasts, outstanding requisitions, full inventory listings by site, all assets in repair cycle, and support equipment condition; all outstanding Purchase Orders.

(1) Is the current existing incumbent contractor required to provide the same SCM data on day one of this awarded transition phase-in?

Government Response: The incumbent is required to provide both a transition plan and actively work with the follow-on contractor on all SCM activities.

(2) Will the Government ensure current SCM data is provided on day one of the transition Phase-in period?

Government Response: The Government will upon becoming aware of any required transactional deficiency by the incumbent, the agency will take appropriate action to correct the transition.

25. Section L.3.2.3 and Q&A #16 requires the Subcontracting Plan to be included in Volume I - Technical. Since a Subcontracting Plan contains 12 or more pages, is not part of the 65-page limit for Technical, and is required as the last document of Subfactor 1 - Program Management, will the Government please clarify if the Offeror is allowed to provide their Subcontracting Plan at the end of the Technical Volume following Subfactor 3 - Inventory Data Management and Reporting? We believe this would allow the Government an easier review between the Technical Subfactors 1 and 2.

Governments Response: No, the Subcontracting Plan should not be placed at the end of the Technical Volume following Subfactor 3. The Subcontracting Plan should remain IAW Section L 3.2.3. and Table 2.3 Proposal Organization.

26. Will the Government please clarify how the Offeror is to comply with providing an original copy of the SF1447 under separate cover when this is an electronic submission? Also, under Section L

6.1.1 Solicitation/Contract From (Section) states “Completion of blocks 12, 17 and signature and date for blocks 30a, 30b and 30c of the SF1447”; please confirm these boxes are correct as the

SF1447 does NOT contain blocks 30a, 30b and 30c. Instead, should the Offerors complete boxes

13 and 27 only?

4.1.1 Solicitation/Contract Form (Section A) [L.6.1.1]

6.1.1. Solicitation/Contract Form (Section A)

Completion of blocks 12, 17 and signature and date for blocks 30a, 30b and 30c of the

SF1447. Signature by the offeror on the SF1447 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.

The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes.

Governments Response: Offerors are required to follow the instructions in Paragraph 2.6 Electronic offers within Section L. Also, the Government will update paragraph L.6.1.1 as follows:

FROM: 6.1.1. Solicitation/Contract Form (Section A) Completion of blocks 12, 17 and signature and date for blocks 30a, 30b and 30c of the SF1447.

Signature by the offeror on the SF1447 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.

The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes.

TO: 6.1.1. Solicitation/Contract Form (Section A)

Completion of blocks 13, 15 and signature and date for block 27 of the SF1447. Signature by the Offeror on the SF1447 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover.

27. 4.3.5 Attachments to the Model Contract [L.6.3.5] Will the Government please clarify if you are requesting a “copy” of the ITO Attachments 1.1 through 3.0 and if so, will you allow the Offerors to embed these Attachments as images?

Government Response: The Government has updated paragraph L.6.3.5 as follows:

6.3.5 Attachments to the Model Contract

Provide a Subcontracting Plan IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.219-9 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.219-7003 or 252.219-7004).

The Government has updated paragraph L. 6.1.4 as follows:

6.1.4 Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors (Section K) The offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM) website at https://www.sam.gov. After reviewing the SAM database information, the offeror verifies by submission of this offer that the representation and certifications currently posted electronically at FAR 52.204-8, Offeror Representations and Certification - Annual Representations and Certifications are correct.

28. The government specifically noted one of the CBA contracts is not yet executed. However, we would like to point out that the Laughlin and Corpus Christi are expired. We request updated Laughlin and Corpus Christi CBAs.

Government Response: The vendor will need to comply with the most current CBA agreements on file.

29. The Government indicated changes in the PPQ. We had already at the time of answers to questions being published provided the PPQ to multiple customers. We would like to recommend, since the government did not add information, but rather reduced the required information, that Offerors not be required to resubmit the updated PPQ to our customers. We request confirmation at the government's earliest convenience that Offerors do not need to RESUBMIT our PPQ to our customers.

Governments Response: “It is the Government's preference that the most up-to-date version of the PPQ, as documented in Amendment 0002, be used and sent to customers. However, Offerors are not required to resubmit the PPQs to the customers that have already been provided a previous version of the PPQ. The Government will accept either version of the PPQ.”

https://www.sam.gov/

30. The Government will remove FAR 52.222-44 and replace it with FAR 52.222-43. The Government did not provide an updated model contract. Please confirm that the model contract which will be incorporated will be updated with the aforementioned changed and be reissued for inclusion in our proposal submission.

Governments Response: The Government has removed FAR 52.222-44 and replaced it with FAR 52.222-43 in Amendment 0002. A conformed copy reflecting the contract will be provided within this amendment.

31. We submitted questions on 9/1, per the cut off and have not received a read receipt. We request the government confirm receipt of our questions. In case the government did not see this email, we are including them again in this batch of questions. Where applicable we delete from the below list questions that have been addressed already and/or UPDATED the document reference to indicate these questions are on the prior to Amendment 2. If the government saw our questions and is already including them in the next batch of responses to be released, no action is requested.

However, if the government did not, we respectfully request that they be answered at this time.

Governments Response: A read receipt was provided to the vendor on September 19, 2023

32. The PWS and Pricing Matrix are contradictory. In the PWS the ejection seats are over and above and the Pricing matrix has no line for the ejection seat pricing. Please confirm the ejection seats are over and above and should be priced separately.

Governments Response: They are not over and above. Please see CLIN descriptions for CLINs 3000-3005, 3050-3052, 3054 and 3090.

33. In column 4 of the table in subsection (a), the government provides personnel required to attend the meetings. This information appears to comingle both contractor and government personnel.

We request clarification - which positions are government and which positions are contractor for all meetings listed: Post Award; Transition-In Status Update; Transition-Out Status Update;

DMSMS: OWG (Tinker); Aircraft Information Working Group; Executive Program Review (Tinker); Property Management Review; T-6 Program Management Review (PMR); System Sustainment Review; Product Improvement Working Group/Maintenance Working Group; T-6 Program Office Users Forum; USG/OEM Integrated Product Team

Where the government is referring to the T-6 personnel we request the government clarify that.

For example, if for the DMSMS: OWG (Tinker) quarterly conference meeting, where currently the reference is "2 Program Managers", we request the government clarify it is referring to 2 T-6 (government) Program Managers.

Governments Response: The PWS 1.1.11(a) has been updated to remove "two" program managers and to reflect a program manager.

34. In column 4 of the table in subsection (a), the government provides personnel required to attend the meetings. This information seems to imply staffing requirements, e.g., up to 3 Program

Managers (as referenced in the Sustainment Review). We request clarification if the Government is requiring 3 Program Managers.

Governments Response: The PWS 1.1.11(a) has been updated to remove "three" program managers and to reflect a program manager.

35. The government uses “/” to list persons. “/” indicates “either/or .

Please clarify the # and type of required personnel, e.g., is the requirement for the System Sustainment Review for 3 program managers, 1 contract officer, 1 engineer and 3 logisticians Or for any combination of these staff positions to participate?

Governments Response: The functional applicable positions are indicated in the PWS. The PWS 1.1.11(a) has been updated to remove "three" logisticians and to reflect a logistician.