RFP QA 1.pdf

Ques tion #

DRFP

DOC/F

ILE

NAME

DRFP

Section Question/Comments for USG Answer

RFP

QA 1

Schedule General The current CERP schedule that we have is dated December 2019 and does not directly align to dates in the final RFP. Could the

USAF provide an updated CERP schedule?

An updated Schedule will be posted to BetaSam.

RFP QA

General General Would the Government allow an Executive Summary not to exceed five pages to be excluded from the 125-page limit? The Government does not desire an Executive Summary within the Technical Volume, however, if included, it will be counted as part of the 125 page limit. Any narrative beyond the 125-page limit will not be considered in the evaluation.

RFP QA

Appendix

D ‐

Pricing

Matrix

Calculation

Methodology

Tab

The Calculation Methodology tab is protected and thus the offeror cannot expand the rows and columns to read all of the information. Can the USAF either expand the cells or unprotect this sheet?

The calculation methodology tab in the pricing matrix has been revised so the cells can be expanded.

RFP QA

Attachme nt Y

‐ CEMS

Requirem ent s

1.c ‐ "….the contractor shall update all serially tracked assets whether repaired or new production into CEMS."

Who has responsibility for CEMS data updates/entry as it relates to LRUs which are removed/replaced in the field (at

Organizational‐level)? If an LRU is sent to the Contractor for repair, is there any CEMS data entry responsibility for the Contractor?

Or does CEMS data entry only apply to engines which are sent to the depot for maintenance?

For O-Level Removal/Replacement actions taken in the field, the O-Level Base Engine Manager would be responsible for updating CEMS. The Contractor is responsible for initializing each new engine and its parts into

CEMS as well as updating CEMS data for engines sent to the depot for maintenance as well as updating CEMS to annotate maintenance actions and SB/AD compliance for LRUs sent in for repair.

RFP QA

Attachme nt A

SOW ‐

Instructio ns for

Continue d

Airworthi ness

(ICA)

SOW sections

“5.3 Service

Compliance

Publications” and “5.4.1

Instructions for Continued

Airworthiness

(ICA)

The RFP does not include a dedicated CLIN for O‐level service manuals and bulletins and related data as specified in SOW sections

“5.3 Service Compliance Publications” and “5.4.1 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA)”. For commercial engines, such items are typically available upon payment of an annual commercial license fee per user. Therefore, we would recommend USAF to insert a dedicated CLIN for SOW sections 5.3 and 5.4.1 to align with commercial market practices.

Paragraph 5.3 and 5.4.1 are to be included in CLIN XX21, any cost/fees should be priced under CLIN XX01.

Option B is the correct methodology. The calculation confirms the adjustment is cumulative based on the applicable indices. The Option B price calculated by the contractor used the correct methodology but there was an error in calculating the employment adjustment. The contractor used 11.14% instead of 11.04% in the calculation.

RFP QA

EPA

Clause

EPA Clause

RFP QA

Appendix

A

SOW

6. Tooling, Support/Test

Equipment, and Hand

Tools

1) Should we assume four (4) bases where SE will be required to maintain the engines? What are the four locations?

2) Please identify the estimated aircraft quantity profile for each location, to assist in calculating engine tooling requirement.

OEMs need to plan for 3 bases CONUS (Barksdale, Edwards and Minot). For the Pricing Matrix, provide the SE quantity and pricing to support a single engine in any handed (left-right) position on the B-52 aircraft. The

Government will use this information to determine the total SE need for the B-52 fleet of 76 aircraft and the bases that the SE will be sent to. The "Support Equipment" Tab of the Pricing Matrix will be updated with an additional Note

(Note 3) to reflect this change.

RFP QA

Appendix

E

SOW

OTA Reports Advise if the OTA Reports requested on June 22, 2020 (30 days in advance of the final proposal submittal) are to be in hardcopy or electronic format and indicate how many copies are required. Additionally, advise if the OTA Reports are to be included in the final proposal submittal on July 22, 2020.

Per Appendix E (-1), 10 hardcopies and 2 disk copies are required for the Technical volume, therefore this is the requirement for the OTA Reports. Offerors are only required to submit the OTA Report once -- either as an early submission or with the proposal.

RFP QA

Program

Schedule

Program

Schedule

Advise if the engine OEM's will be receiving an updated Program Schedule See Answer to Question RFP QA 1.

RFP QA

CLIN

XX18

and

XX19

Delivery terms Will items (support equipment, tooling, etc.) under CLINs XX18 and XX19 require delivery pursuant to the DD250 process, even though this is not typical for a FAR 12 acquisition?

CLINs XX18 and XX19 are subject to the applicable clauses in the solcitation (i.e. DFARS 252.232-7006), the requirements identified in the CLINS (i.e. COMBO Inspection/Acceptance Report), and applicable SOW paragraphs.

RFP QA

Statement of Work

Paragraph 1.2 Reference Section 1.2, 2 nd to last sentence of that section on page 9: “The technical proposal shall identify differences or gaps of the proposed engine with the EPS and associated risks (including the supporting documentation).” We are wondering if the reference to the “technical proposal” is a reference to Volume I or whether/if differences/gaps are identified those should be placed in Volume

III (Contracts Volume) with the offeror’s table of exceptions to the solicitation. There is a concern that putting this material in

Volume I will make that particular Volume exceed the page limit already established.

In accordance with SOW paragraph 1.2, “The technical proposal shall identify differences or gaps of the proposed engine with the EPS and associated risks (including the supporting documentation” and 52.212-1 (ITO) paragraph

3.2.3 (h)(v) “Identify differences or gaps between ‘shall’ requirements in the EPS and the existing…”, the information shall be included in Volume I, the Technical Volume. All other exceptions shall be documented in accordance with

52.212-1 paragraph 6.2.

RFP QA

CLIN

Structure

CLIN

Structure

According to paragraph (e) on pages 4-5 of the model contract, the “Minimum required performance for this contract is the completion [of] CLIN 0101, year one of Program Management…subject to the availability of funds.”

Under FAR 52.216-19, Order Limitations, on pages 45-46 of the model contract, paragraph (a) indicates that the Government is not obligated to purchase “less than 1 MO of CLIN XX01-XX04, or 1 EA (all other CLINs).” First, please define “MO”—we assume it means “month,” but we just want the clarity. Same for “EA”—please clarify that this means “each.”

It was our understanding based on paragraph (e) on pages 4-5, that the minimum order would be the amount associated with the completion of 1 year of CLIN 0101. However, 52.216-19 appears to indicate that the minimum order is the amount associated with

1 MO of CLINs XX01 – XX04 or 1 EA of all other CLINs. We are having trying to reconcile the two different “minimums” and request that the Government provide an explanation to assist in differentiating between them.

Paragraph (e) on pages 4-5 refers to the minimum order for the IDIQ contract. To establish an IDIQ contract, the FAR requires that there be a stated guaranteed minimum quantity of supplies or services to be ordered under the IDIQ contract, IAW FAR 16.504(a)(1), and this amount must be obligated at the time the contract is awarded. Therefore, the government will issue an order for at least 1 year (12 Months) of CLIN 0101 (as a minimum) when the IDIQ contract is awarded.

Regarding FAR 52.216-19, Order Limitations, MO = Month. EA = Each. This clause identifies minimum order requirements for future orders, after the initial order. For instance, the Government could incrementally fund CLIN

XX01 depending on various constraints, such as funding limitations caused by continuing resolutions.

RFP QA

Pricing

Matrix

Pricing Matrix USAF provided a response to Question #31 & #289 stating that the pricing and the pricing matrix is based on the calendar year.

Our interpretation of calendar year is January through December. The Solicitation FA8107‐ 19‐R‐0002 states the period of performance for any given year is June through June of the following year, and Option 7 ends in June 2038. In order to capture the costs for the last six months of the contract, please provide a column in the pricing matrix for calendar year 2038.

The years stated in the pricing matrix illustrate the estimated calendar year that performance will begin. As stated in

Paragraph (e) on pages 4 and 5 of the solicitation, the performance period provided is an example, and will change depending on the date of award. For instance, the first year of the example Basic Period is 18 Jun 2021 to 17 Jun

2027. This equates to Year 1--2021 on the Pricing Matrix. The actual performance period will begin at contract award. The matrix contains sufficient columns to account for 17 years of performance and does not need to be changed.