CSD_Inquiry_and_Comment_Tracker_12_Jan_16.pdf

Ref Inquiry or Comment

DRAFT SOW - RFI-CSD-Improvement: 3.2.3.1(a) Supply parts required for repair/overhaul of assets in a timely manner to support the production schedule.

3 Oct 14, Revised FBO post: 3.2.3.1 (a) Forecasting and procurements of supply parts required for repair/overhaul of assets in a timely manner to support the production schedule.

DRAFT SOW - RFI-CSD-Improvement: 3.2.3.1 (b) Procure new end items and reparable components as required to meet the performance requirements set forth in this SOW. The Contractor shall communicate all new procurement activities to the Government

IAW contract CDRL and DIDs. The Contractor shall be responsible for procurement of additional end items and reparable components required to meet the performance requirements of this SOW except for the following reasons:

3 Oct 14, Revised FBO post: 3.2.3.1 (b) Forecast and procure new end items and reparable components as required to meet the performance requirements set forth in this SOW. The Contractor shall communicate all new procurement activities to the Government

IAW contract CDRL and DIDs. The Contractor shall be responsible for procurement of additional end items and reparable components required to meet the performance requirements of this SOW except for the following reasons:

3 DRAFT SOW - RFI-CSD-Improvement: Added sub-paragraph 3.2.4(g)

3 Oct 14, Revised FBO post: Added 3.2.4(g) Put in place and maintain an agreement with end item OEM for the length of the contract to provide adequate technical, and engineering support required to meet the performance requirements set forth in this SOW.

4 3 Oct 14, Contractor Question: "Can you please define cost code, SMR code and IPV List?"

7 Oct 14 Govt. Response:

SMR CODE (Source, Maintenance, and Recoverability Code): The Illustrated Parts Breakdown (IPB) Technical Order for Air Force weapons, systems and equipment provides a breakdown of the assemblies and parts contained in the end item. A SMR code is assigned to each assembly and part identified in the

IPB. The SMR code provides maintenance activities with repair level responsibilities, support method (i.e. procure, manufacture, etc.), and disposition instructions.

Reference: T.O. 00-25-195 sections 1.1, 2.3, SMR Code table 2-2 from T.O. 00-25-195

Source Code: Assigned to items to indicate the manner of acquiring these items for the maintenance, repair, and overhaul of end items.

Maintenance Code: Code assigned to indicate the lowest level of maintenance authorized to perform the required repair functions. These codes do not preclude a higher level of maintenance from performing the required actions if the capability exists.

Recoverability Code: Code assigned to reflect the disposition of unserviceable items.

COST CODE:

Cost Code (CC) – A one-position code that classifies material as funded (Codes A, B, D, L, or S) or unfunded (Codes E and X through

Z).

A – Expense Material

B – MSD Exchange Material - Planned - Funded

L – Expense Material - Indirect or Overhead

IPV (Industrial Prime Vendor):

Through the Defense Logistics Agency’s Industrial Product-Support Vendor (IPV) Program, Lockheed Martin GSCS provides crucial support to the three U.S. Air Force depots by maintaining a ready and constant supply of miscellaneous, small consumable parts. Items

Checked “YES” on the material lists are currently supported through this program. These items are typically “Cost code L”.

Why do we list/explain cost codes A and B, but not the rest?

Response: Only Codes A, B, & L were noted on the sheet. L was listed on the same line as B. I have moved it to a separate line.

How does the IPV affect the pricing of any PBL offeror?

Response: IPV responsibility currently stays with LM, however up for Team discussion this week's. The SOW asks the offeror only to supply these parts if LM cannot timely.

Do they have to buy from IPV?

Response: No, they can buy from any approved source in a support role to keep the production line moving.

Are these items exempt from their work scope?

5 9 Oct 14, Contractor Question: "How do we go about obtaining a Password for the Login to the “PBL” Data Package

Response: The Government has uploaded some data (usage, replacement, BOMs on FBO as explicit access. Please use the "request explicit access" feature of the announcement. That will generate a request on our end to review and approve/disapprove.

6 9 Oct 14, Contractor Question: "When will the RFP be coming out so that we can respond with our proposal?

Response: The current schedule has a Draft RFP coming out in Jan 15, for additional industry feedback with the RFP tentatively scheduled for March 15.

7 21 Oct 14, Contractor Question: “Why don’t the AF preform pre-overall test & inspection of the CSD? “

Response: The CSD shop preforms limited pre-overhaul test & inspection based on time from last overhaul and failure mode. About 3 –

5 %

8 21 Oct 14, Contractor Question: “When will performance decrements charts be populated?” page 3 of Draft SOW

Response: Government conducting analysis to determine the optimal decrement range and percent. Plan to provide by Draft RFP release

Jan 15.

21 Oct 14, Contactor Question: “In Table 1, why are the Wiring Harness (NSN 6150-01-187-5386) and Filter Body (NSN 1650-01-210-

8537) included within the scope of the PBL.”

Response: These two NSNs are CSD components that have production control numbers, are field used, and have established RO level requirements. These items will be paid by the Flying hour methodology.

10 21 Oct 14, Contractor Question: “Will the AF T.Os be brought up to current OEM revisions prior to contract award?”

Response: The latest AF T.O revision shall be used in the overhaul of CSDs, if component parts identified in the IPB are no longer available and a suitable substitute is available the Government would expect the contactor to provide the AF cognizant engineer with the required data to facilitate a T.O change. The Government also would expect and would be interested in any value added process changes that the contractor might recommend.

21 Oct 14 Contractor Question: 3.1.3 (d) – “Should the contractor consider not using express a good thing? And should the contractor anticipate an IT interface with D035?”

Response: The Government is in the process of identifying all possible impacts if EXPRESS is turned off for this PBL effort. There may be some limited EXPRESS functions running that will be seamless to the contractor. The contractor would have to have the ability to trigger specific CSD inductions from DLA via some process. There will not be any IT interfaces to Government systems however;

there will be some degree of Government system access provided to the contractor.

12 21 Oct 14, Contractor Question: “Will the Contractor be allowed space within the CSD Shop?”

Response: Yes

13 21 Oct 14, Contractor Question: “How can the contract be awarded without an agreed signed Implementation Agreement (IA) in place?”

Response: Government will develop and post at Draft RFP and IA framework for competitive bidding. The process, still being considered within government is that after source selection and prior to contract award the Government and contractor will be provided a specific amount of time (TBD) to finalize the IA. If the IA cannot be finalized within the specified time the Government will move to the next best offeror.

14 22 Oct 14, Contractor Question: “Will the Government require a SB participation requirement?”

Response: The Government does not anticipate this effort to be a SB set-aside; however as part of the source selection criteria contractors would be required to provide a SB participation plan.

22 Oct 14, Contractor Question: “Does the CSD shop preform or support other workloads within the shop that will not be included within the PBL.

Response: No, all work preformed in the CSD shop is within the PBL.

22 Oct 14, Contractor Question: “Would the Government be open to having a Technical CSD subject matter expert (SME) in the shop to assist technicians with process and overhaul trouble shooting , with reach-back to the OEM for engineering assistance.

Response: One of the goals of the PBL/PPP is to insert industry best practices and process into the current CSD production process. The

Government would be very receptive to having a SME in the shop that is knowledgeable of CSD functional operations and overhaul procedures.

17 22 Oct 14, Contractor Question: “What is the CSD production capacity?

Response: The CSD shop's current production capacity is approximately 7 ea. per day / 140 ea. per month, one shift operation with some overtime.

18 24 Oct 14, Update to Explicit Access Data file: Added file titled "Current RO availability chart"

19 26 Mar 15, Posted Draft RFP on Government Point of Entry

20 30 Mar 15, Contractor Question: (via telephone) "What is the Government's best estimate for contract award?"

Response: The Government has several clearance reviews and approvals still pending. Best estimate is April 2016.

9 April 15, Contractor Question : When a part is held awaiting a AFMC 202 disposition, is the contractor expected to store/track the item the same as those that are not parts supportable (AWP)?

Response: No. The shop will store and track items held for 202 disposition. Only items determined to be parts-non-supportable will be stored and tracked by the contractor until they are ready for work.

22 9 April 15, Contractor Question: How long is the start-up period and what does it consist of?

Response: The startup period is 90 days from contract start. During this period the integrator will not be responsible for RO performance.

During the startup period the integrator will put in place infrastructure and gain base access in order to complete the requirements of the

SOW.

23 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Are the IPV parts kits stock listed?

Response: No. These kits do not have a national stock number. These kits are considered ease of maintenance kits and are identified by a kit number. IPV kit contents were released with the draft RFP data package.

24 9 April 15, Contractor Question: What is DLA’s World Wide Demand ?

Response: The world-wide demand is to accommodate world wide support of items common to the CSD items for which CSD is at least

50% of the world-wide market share. These would be priced per each based on best estimated quantity per year.

25 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Under the PBL, would the Prime contractor incorporate the labor side?

Response: No, this is a Work Share arrangement where the Government buying activity pays the contractor and Depot separately. The partnership agreement is established between the contractor and Depot via an Implementation Agreement.

26 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Are you only going out five years on the CLIN structure?

Response: The government is requesting pricing for all ten years consisting of a basic five-year period and a five-year option. Within each ordering period, each individual contract year is separately priced.

9 April 15, Contractor Question: Define how you generated the BEQ for AWP and WIP. The BEQs will bring the Government to what condition? After the first orders for AWP and WIP, will the requirement go away?

Response: The government generated the BEQ for Awaiting Parts and Work In Process based on our current piece-part shortages. The items are solicited based on government current estimated quantities and is subject to change prior to RFP release. The Government intends to issue an order for the necessary items soon after contract award to make all CSDs in AWP 100% parts-supported.

29 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Will the AF continue to order from DLA for the AWP/WIP inventory?

Response: The government will continue to order from DLA for the WIP. For any orders DLA cannot fill, the AF will order the parts from the integrator. Orders to support AWP inventory (listed in the RFP) will be issued to the integrator.

30 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Is the FMS requirement included in the ceiling price?

Response: Yes, the FMS and Other Service requirement is included in the ceiling price and is based on the best estimated quantity.

31 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Does “option 1 refer to the second five year period?

Response: Yes, the option 1 is the second, five years

32 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Is the contractor responsible for forecasting prices for all 10 years?

Response: Yes, this is the best way for the government to have a thorough competition and secure future pricing for purposes of budgeting.

33 9 April 15, Contractor Question: After the 5 year base period. Would your preference be to exercise the 5-year option?

Response: The government will evaluate contractor performance during the basic ordering periods, determine if it is within the government’s best interest to exercise the option, and if so, unilaterally exercise the option within the clause at FAR 52.217-9.

9 April 15, Contractor Question: The Government put a 5-day signature timeline on the IA. Does this include the government’s approval time as well?

Response: The five days is for the contractor signature after notification of best value decision. The Government will seek necessary signatures after receipt of contractor agreement. Offerors must have an established Public Private Partnership in place with OC-ALC or

AFSC prior to the RFP response deadline.

35 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Is the Government providing GFP reimbursable and non-reimbursable information?

Response: Yes, this information was provided as attachment with the draft RFP and industry day announcement. The government may refresh the listing prior to RFP release.

36 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Is the DLA part of the spreadsheet considered GFP?

Response: No, the DLA part (reimbursable) is not considered GFP. The DLA parts are considered requisitioned government material that, when purchased by the contractor, will become contractor furnished property. The attachment establishes the quantities the contractor must purchase under this future contract if awarded.

9 April 15, Contractor Question: Does the contractor pay DLA directly for the drawdown? What about the AF parts? Should the unit price by the flying hour be adjusted to account for the drawdown?

Response: The contractor will pay DLA for the DLA drawdown items as listed on the Government Property attachment (reimbursable tab). The government will provide the Air Force items listed on the Government Property attachment (non-reimbursable tab) as

Government Furnished Material. Each tab has quantities. For the DLA material, the contractor is only authorized to purchase the quantities as specified. For the Air Force material, the government shall furnish the quantities specified and the contractor needs to consider that material and quantity to adjust their bid accordingly.

38 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Where are the prices for the DLA drawdown items? Why are the prices for the AF items shown?

Response: AF Response: The contractor shall pay DLA the Email cost and therefore the Air Force does not show that cost on the DLA

Reimbursable List. The Air Force item cost is reflected in the Air Force Non-Reimbursable list to reflect the Government Property liability to the contractor.

39 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Will the parts be re-supplied by DLA?

Response: No, the DLA Reimbursable list reflects the quantity the contractor is authorized to requisition against this contract. DLA will not be re-supplying items in the drawdown where there is no further planned demand.

40 9 April 15, Contractor Question: What does the Govt. mean by weighting ranges to calculate the Total Evaluated Price?

Response: a. AF Response: The weighting is subject to change prior to RFP release. The weighting indicates the methodology the government will use to evaluate the flying hour ranges. This methodology is used to ensure each range is evaluated fairly in the competition. The evaluation methodology is documented in Section M of the draft RFP.

41 9 April 15, Contractor Question: To clarify, contractors should include the DLA parts into the flying hour unit prices?

Response: Yes, the contractor should include their cost to procure the DLA parts within their cost per flying hour pricing. The contractor is reimbursed for those costs through the contract invoice payments

42 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Will DOD EMALL parts prices stay the same?

Response: DLA response EMALL prices are all adjusted annually to account for inflationary factors and cost associated with purchases for procurements, most often paying higher prices but sometimes lower. DLA Standard Unit Price (SUP) will adjust higher based upon new/recent procurements where we are paying more than we did for previous purchases. The key issue with the drawdown is that all the

NSNs are migrating to contractor commercial support—DLA will not be making subsequent buys after the contract is stood up;

accordingly the only annual increase will more than likely be a small percent for inflation.

43 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Are parts stored in the 2100 sq. ft. area in building 2210 part of the DLA drawdown inventory?

Response: There may be some but not the entire DLA drawdown inventory. High volume inventory is forward stored in bldg. 2210’s

Shop Service Center (SSC) for point of use issue to the shop. The bulk of the Drawdown material is located in DLA distribution warehouses, in this case in the Large DLA distribution warehouses on Tinker AFB, not the SSC.

9 April 15, Contractor Question: Will the working agreement between DLA and integrator for the use of DLA’s infrastructure be spelled out in the IA?

Response: No, the DLA and Integrator teaming effort will be a stand-alone agreement worked out with DLA. A MOA will be posted with the RFP. This agreement will be between DLA and the contractor. The DLA POC is Mr. Art Steinhofer / 405-736-7038 / arthur.steinhofer@dla.mil

9 April 15, Contractor Question: Will the DLA/Integrator teaming effort be outlined in the SOW or will contractors have to get with

DLA to work out details of a MOA?

Response: A draft MOA will be posted with the RFP. This agreement will be between DLA and the contractor.

46 9 April 15, Contractor Question: How will MOU’s you mentioned address control of personnel?

Response: We plan to utilize the supervisory structure that we have in place, we envision the integrator working hand in hand with the respective DLA supervisor for managing day to day work priorities. Additionally, we can lay out an escalation process for the integrator to resolve or elevate any potential issues that cannot be effectively resolved with our DLA supervisor

9 April 15, Contractor Question: How will changing to a PBL improve parts availability, when the majority of the parts are still supplied by the OEM?

Response: By changing the nature of the relationship between the supplier and customer, we believe parts supportability can be improved.

48 9 April 15, Contractor Question: What is driving the high reject rate/low first pass yield?

Response: There is not one single driver for a low first past yield. Process engineering has begun mapping failure modes to identify the predominant root causes but this a recent undertaking.

49 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Is there a certain percentage of CSDs with parts that have never been replaced?

Response: Yes. After disassembly and inspection, only 100% replacement parts and parts determined to be unserviceable are replaced.

50 9 April 15, Contractor Question: At the end of the 5 year contract will the work be re-competed?

Response: No, the government will review the necessary requirements regarding whether or not the option is the best course of action, and if so, will unilaterally exercise the option per FAR 52.217-9.

51 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Will the Govt. provide a heads up if they intend to exercise the contract option?

Response: Yes, the government will notify the contractor per the clause at 52.217-9. The lead time for notification will be included within the clause at time of RFP release.

52 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Does the Government have drawings, data, or Technical Orders (TO)?

Response: The Govt. has TOs that are adequate to produce serviceable CSDs. There are engineering drawings that can only be accessed through the OEM.

53 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Can the Govt. or contractor reverse engineer any parts?

Response: Yes, reverse engineered parts are a possibility as long as the parts are approved IAW established AF procedures for parts qualification.

54 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Are there existing DMSMS issues with the CSD?

Response: There are no current DMSMS issues that the government is aware of.

55 9 April 15, Contractor Question: What is the average Administrative Lead Time (ALT) for piece parts?

Response: For AF managed reparables, excluding the CSD, the average ALT is about 165 days.

56 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Will the Govt. buy back any excess stock?

Response: As part of the contract exit phase, the government may evaluate this as an option but any such purchase would be separate from this contract.

57 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Why hold 10% back on the Flying hours

Response: The government is withholding invoice payments at the rate of 2%. This is a change from 10% as previously announced on the draft RFP and is based on industry day comment. This withhold is to protect the loss of government working capital funds in case the contractor does not meet the RO performance target.

58 9 April 15, Contractor Question: What is the shop’s production capacity?

Response: The guaranteed shop capacity, as stated within the IA is 150 CSDs per month.

59 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Why was the RO KPI set at 85% if the AF eternal goal is 80%?

Response: It was determined that anything over 85% RO was not value-added for the Govt to pay for. A KPI of 85% RO provides a level of cushion between the AF 80% RO and the KPI of 85% RO.

60 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Have there been internal discussions on providing an incentive for RO over 85%?

Response: Yes, there has been internal discussion, however paying for RO in excess of 85% is not value-added to the government.

9 April 15, Contractor Question: How will FMS requisitions affect RO and how will this be accounted for if the requisition causes the contractor to miss the 85% RO target?

Response: The government will fill these requisitions as required. The payment will not be decremented if this causes the RO for any

NSN to fall below 85%. This will be part of the month to month production reconciliation process.

62 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Are there sufficient carcasses available to support 85% RO on all CSDs?

Response: Yes, currently there are sufficient CSD carcasses. Govt. will provide worldwide asset data with the RFP.

9 April 15, Contractor Question: What is the PQDR process and who will pay for a part if the failed part was not provided by the contractor?

Response: The PQDR process will be performed IAW current AF policy. All parts required to rebuild the CSD will be provided by the contactor under the PBL CPFH all part cost are accounted for. Labor will be performed by the shop. PDQRs back to the shop are rare.

64 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Is the contractor graded on RO when MICAPs are needed that replenish RO?

Response: MICAPs will not affect how the contractor is graded. As long as 85% RO is achieved at the end of each 6 month performance period there will be no price decrement. The government will manage requisitions.

65 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Will there be any negotiations on the IA?

Response: No, once the RFP and IA are released, the contractor determined to provide the best value as a result of competition, will be expected to sign and return the IA in accordance with the special clause contained in section H of the RFP. Within the draft RFP, the government is seeking industry feedback and recommendation on the IA.

9 April 15, Contractor Question: If something goes wrong on the Govt. side, i.e., labor, facility, equipment that affects production will there be RO relief?

Response: Yes, as identified in the IA, both parties have responsibilities to uphold. The government is responsible for providing the production machine, timely 202 disposition, etc.

9 April 15, Contractor Question: What is the process for handling parts quality issues for parts purchased from DLA during the inventory drawdown? And will there be metric relief?

Response: Parts quality issues will be handled IAW DOD EMALL warranty policy. Metric relief will be granted. The PQDR process for DLA supplied material remains the same.

68 9 April 15, Contractor Question: What is the average number of AF 202s that are being issued?

Response: About 300 were submitted last year. Many for the same issue but different CSDs.

69 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Can blanket 202s be issued?

Response: Yes, however for the purpose of engineering studies and record keeping individual 202s are written for each CSD.

70 9 April 15, Contractor Question: What are the main categories of 202s issued right now?

Response: In 2013 a study identified 369 AFMC Form 202s were submitted. These failure were placed in four categories: 1) 35% Parts problem / workaround, 2). 49% TO Problem / Workaround, 3). 10% Test/Test Stand Problem /Workarounds, and 4). 6% Other (Paint, Facility, Tooling. Govt. will provide the most current six month 202 history data file at RFP release.

9 April 15, Contractor Question: What is the required engineering response time for 202s? And will the contractor have relief if the

Govt. takes a long time to disposition a 202?

Response: The required response time varies by priority. This is covered in the AMFCMAN 21-1. If the government exceeds the times allowed in the TO metric relief will be granted.

9 April 15, Contractor Question: Regarding the selections L and M evaluation can past performance demonstrated in the commercial arena be used for past experience?

Response: Yes

73 9 April 15, Contractor Question: What if a contractor wants to procure piece parts from a non-qualified source?

Response: The SOW states that all piece parts shall be procured from an AF approved source. New sources can be qualified through normal AF procedures.

74 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Clarify the piece part configuration challenges and what’s expected of the contractor?

Response: Mismatches between the part numbers in the TO and parts provided for the overhaul process.

75 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Can we visit the production shop and DLA SSC area at future date?

Response: Yes, as long as it is before the RFP is posted. Our team is currently conducting market research.

76 9 April 15, Contractor Question: How is RO calculated and what is the data source?

Response: RO is calculated by the Readiness-Based Leveling (RBL) system (D035E) based on a mathematical algorithm which takes into consideration elements such as CSD shop flow days, peacetime operating stock levels, war readiness needs and training needs to name a few. RO data is reported via the Recoverable Asset Management Process (RAMP) (D035C). Available shall be defined as serviceable (“A” condition) and ready for issue by the Air Force Supply System in D035A.

77 9 April 15, Contractor Question: If a CSD is condemned, will the AF buy a new carcass?

Response: No, the contractor is responsible for all buy decisions required to meet the performance target identified in the SOW, except for those specific instances called out in the SOW.

78 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Concerning the DLA WWD customer support. Is it set in stone and a part of the SOW?

Response: No, government is currently seeking Industry feedback.

79 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Who is the touch point for the Partnering Agreement?

Response: The POC for the Partnering Agreement is Ms. Courtney Clark / AFMC OC-ALC/OB. / 405-739-5050 / courtney.clark@us.af.mil or John Page / AFMC OC-ALC/OB / 405-739-9766 / john.page.4@us.af.mil. Having a signed Partnering

Agreement with the OC-ALC or the Air Force Sustainment Center is a required evaluation criterion.

80 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Has the Govt. considered an alternative approach to the OEM agreement?

Response: The OEM agreement is critical to the success of the PBL. The details of the agreement are up to the integrator and the OEM.

81 9 April 15, Contractor Question: What does the UTAS agreement need to look like?

Response: The OEM agreement needs to show reach-back ability to the OEM to provide adequate engineering, technical, and logistics support for the term of the contract as required to meet the performance requirements of the SOW. This does not mean that the engineering and technical support provided to the shop floor has to be a UTAS engineer.

82 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Would it be beneficial (weighted more) to have a UTAS employee in the shop as a SME?

Response: No. The technical factors are rated as “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. The offeror’s proposal, in this case shop-embedded

UTAS employee, must clearly show that the employee can satisfy the necessary engineering and technical functions.

83 9 April 15, Contractor Question: When do you expect the RFP to be posted?

Response: The current estimated RFP release is July 2015

84 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Are FMS requisitions segregated physically?

Response: No. FMS carcasses are not segregated. Requisitions are filled from the serviceable pool. FMS requisitions will not cause a performance price decrement if they cause RO to fall below 85%. The government will fill the FMS requisition, the contractor will be paid for the FMS/other service repair, and the contractor will still have to produce to meet 85%.

85 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Is the Govt. currently affixing IUID marking on LRUs?

Response: If the shop overhauls a CSD without an IUID marking, the shop will mark the unit. For newly procured CSD, they must be marked by the OEM.

86 9 April 15, Contractor Question: Does the Govt. perform engineering investigation of failures and is there a trend?

Response: Yes, engineering as has begun analyzing failures. Failure modes vary.

9 April 15, Contractor Question: Not every contractor has access to EMALL, can they still be provided DLA’s part pricing? Can we get support in acquiring access?

Response: There is an EMALL process identified out on their web site that lays out the process for gaining access.

https://dod.emall.dla.mil/auth/login.action

27 May 15, IA page 9, Section 10, 3rd bullet states “Recognizes and agree to stated production shop capacity as 150/units per month”.

Question: Does this mean 150 inductions per month, or total capacity of in work assets (M Condition) cannot exceed 150/units per month?

Response: This means the shop can produce 150 serviceable CSD/IDGs per month. The number of inductions or quantity of Work in

Process may vary, but the shop can overhaul, test, and sell up to 150 units per month. For instance, there may be 200 inductions or 175 units in WIP, but for the purposes of the IA, Maintenance cannot guarantee output in excess of 150 units per month.

As of 1 June, the total monthly demand rate for all CSD/IDGs is approximately 118. This leaves adequate capacity to adjust to changing demands and RO fluctuations.

Note: If production targets are missed due to parts non-availability or other contractor issues, the government can only recover at the

150/month rate. The contractor must plan to this maximum rate. If production targets are missed due to government production-related issues (facilities, personnel, equipment, etc.), the government is responsible to make up the shortfall.

27 May 15, IA page 9, Section 11, 2nd Paragraph, 1st bullet states: “To provide shop capacity of 150 units/month, understanding that production capacity may increase as efficiencies are gained”. Concern: If capacity is understood to mean a cap of 150 units in work (M

Condition) per month this could have a negative impact on the Public Private Partnerships ability to achieve the initial RO Transition

Performance requirement of 85% within 18 months, as well as the intermediate goals of 30% - 6 months, and 55% - 12 months. Question:

In the event that shop capacity becomes a limiting factor in achievement of RO metrics, will relief be granted to the private partner?

Interested Vendor Suggestion: Remove references to capacity. In discussions with the ETCC and CMXG Management, the discussion of work share arrangement was seen as an area of risk on Industry’s part partially for this reason of potential capacity concerns. In those same discussions, CMXG Management inferred labor availability would not be a concern as they were vested in achieving the desired support levels through working in the Public/Private Partnership setting. In developing a CSD availability plan to achieve the stated goal of the contracting action and the metric to which the private partner will be held accountable to, capacity should not be stated in finite terms, or levied as a potential limiting factor. To be successful in achieving the desired support level of CSD’s to Air Force units both parties need to work together as a team to support the common goal.

Response: In the event shop capacity becomes a limiting factor in the achievement of RO metrics, relief will be granted to the private partner. Under the terms of the SOW, the contractor will provide a semi-annual production requirement to the shop. This requirement must be sufficient to meet field demands and to achieve/maintain the RO target. The contractor recognizes that the shop does not have unlimited production capacity. Semi-annual demand for CSD/IDGs is approximately 708 units. At 150 units/month, the shop is capable of producing 900 CSD/IDGs per semi annual period. This capacity is adequate to meet demands and transition from current state RO to the intermediate goals stated in the SOW.

27 May 15, IA page 11, Section 15 states “OC-ALC shall provide necessary facilities to include floor space and access to government personnel for the purposes of providing support as required in performance of this IA and/or SOW. Mutually agreed upon accommodations within the facility, with adequate lighting and ventilation, will be provided to the <Private Partner>.” Question: Will warehouse and office space be provided to the private partner for Program Management and execution of this program?

Response: Yes. Limited warehouse space in building 2210 will be made available along with administrative space in building 2210 and building 3001. Detailed space allocation will be described in the RFP.

27 May 15, IA page 9, Section 10 states “(Private Partner) Will review performance requirements and provide production requirements to OC-ALC and 848 SCMG NLT 21 days prior to the start of each performance period.” The SOW explains that there will be 3 periods, the first of which begins when the contract is issued. Question: Is the intention for the performance requirements review and advance production requirements to start on Phase 2 since completing this prior to Phase 1 would be prior to the contract being in place?

Response: The contractor has no CSD support requirement for the first 90 days of Phase 1. The first production requirement to maintenance is not due until 21 days before the CSD support requirement begins (approx. 69 days after Phase 1 commences).

92 29 May 15, Has there been any changes to the small business requirements in the CSD PBL draft RFP?

Response: The following is under consideration for the SB Participation Subfactor: Section L -Prepare and submit one SB Participation

Plan in the format as outlined below. For each SB category identified in the attachment, specifically identify the SB concerns that will participate in this acquisition, either as part of a joint venture or a first-tier subcontractor, and provide the extent to which each identified

SB concern will participate (expressed in both dollars and percentages of the total acquisition).

Large businesses will not be eligible for award if they fail to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan. Subcontracting plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the SB Participation Plan.

An offeror submitting a proposal as a prime contractor and approved in the “Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive SB

Subcontracting Plans” shall submit their Comprehensive SB Subcontracting Plan.

Section M - This subfactor shall be rated as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. The government will evaluate the extent to which each offeror identifies and commits to SB in the performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture or first-tier subcontractor. The government will consider the complexity and variety of the work SB’s are to perform and the realism related to SB participation of the proposal. Offeror’s proposal must meet the minimum mandatory total SB participation of 10 percent (through collective SB participation from any type of SB or sub-category SB). Participation will be measured in dollars as a percentage of total contract value. The work to be performed directly by a SB prime offeror will be evaluated as SB participation.

24 June 2015, Statement of Work dated 1 June 2015, Paragraph 3.5.3.2 addresses the DLA Drawdown requirement. In conducting production and material support planning, utilizing the Government data provided to date, it appears there are 108 line items that will have quantities remaining available at the end of the 10 year period of performance. DLA is requiring us as the contractor to draw from their inventory, and some of these quantities appear to be significant amounts. There are another 110 line items that will only be expended should the 5 year option be exercised. Given that DLA would be the only source from which we would be drawing, in accordance with the statement of work, is it the Government’s intent to require the purchase of the unused amount?

Response: No. SOW Paragraph 3.5.3.2 has been revised to state: "The contractor shall utilize DLA as the first source of supply for items in GFP Attachment 1, Reimbursable List. The contractor may only provide material from other sources when DLA material is unavailable to meet production schedule. The contractor shall purchase the material listed in GFP Attachment 1, Reimbursable List to support CSD/IDG production requirements until DLA inventory has been completely drawn down or no requirement for the NIIN exists"

94 13 July 15, What is the AF’s position on the percent amount of contract lot payments to be withheld?

Response: In order to protect the Government for excessive overpayment 5% of each lot payment will be withheld. This amount has been decreased from 10% as noted in the 27 Mar 15 draft RIP FBO posting.

95 13 July 15, What is the current percent of SB participation?

Response: SB participation requirement is 10%. , subject to approval by the small business office prior to RFP release.

96 13 July 15, Will the Flying hour band structure remain the same?

Response: Yes, the government will pay for PBL per each weapon system actual hour flown.

17 Jul 15, Can you please define BASIC EVALUATION QTY as listed on the Draft Pricing Matrix? We have some questions about this spreadsheet. We understand that we need to issue a BASIC UNIT PRICE for each of 3 different flight hour ranges per CSD for every year of the program, and to get an EXTENDED PRICE for each range, it appears the BASIC UNIT PRICE is multiplied by the BASIC

EVALUATION QTY. At first we thought this was an estimate of quantity of CSD repairs but these numbers are too big for that...any clarification here would be appreciated. We've been reading up in Section M to understand this formula and have some ideas but we need to confirm...

Response: In the contract line item structure, Best Estimated Quantity reflects the number of lots the government expects to award per each ordering period (essentially 12 months for payment purposes). Each lot will be priced per the example in the informational CLIN using the hours we expect for that weapon system to fly. Now, for the fun part. For evaluation purposes, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) in section M, the government must evaluate all price ranges as fair and reasonable. To accomplish this, the government will weight the ranges based on cost risk to the government. Weighting is subject to change in RFP release. This methodology should keep all pricing proposals on the same level playing field. This TEP will not match the maximum contract price since the maximum contract price utilizes the maximum estimated flying hours for each system x the current government cost per flying hour (not releasable) + the FMS/OS

BEQs x government cost per repair (not releasable). The government will provide a pricing cost model with the RFP to assist offerors with total evaluated price.

17 Jul 15, We have teed up a notional RFQ for UTAS (as I'm sure many others have). I'm not sure UTAS is willing, ready, or maybe even capable of fielding multiple and unique massive RFQs from industry. Has there been any work by the US GOVT and/or UTAS to define the method of parts needs beyond the BOM lists? We want to be efficient about this pricing exercise so before we start inundating

UTAS I wanted to see if the US GOVT had any planned approaches to this issue in work.

Response: The government received assurance from UTAS on 16 July that all interested vendor requests for quote will be supported.

The government intends to announce a UTAS point of contact on FBO.

99 17 Jul 15, Last we spoke you indicated AUG as a target for RFP release. Has anything changed on that front?

Response: The government will not likely make the August RFP release. The best assumption is Sept-Oct timeframe with a 60 day RFP response time. This will also allow UTAS sufficient time to provide quotes to interested vendors.

30 July 15, Request Air Force provide more detail data pertaining to command 202's, event narratives and affected CSD/Part Numbers affected and resolution.

Response: Updated command 202 data will be available with the released of a second Draft RFP. Schedule release of second Draft RFP is 11 Aug 15.

30 July 15, Request Air Force provide information pertaining to CSD Test Stand reject/recycle events to include number of events over the past 12-24 months and root cause of the rejection and resolution.

Response: CSD Test Stand reject/recycle history will be available with the released of a second Draft RFP. Schedule release of second

Draft RFP is 11 Aug 15.

102 4 Aug 15, Can we get a copy of the SKIL template the mechanic will be using to request parts?

Response: Yes, the government has posted the example SKIL on FBO.

103 4 Aug 15, Can we get a copy of the Technical Orders.

Response: Yes, the government posted the process of requesting TOs through public sales on ?

104 We are having difficulty in gaining access to DoD Emall. Can the CSD team assist?

Response: Until contract award, the PCO cannot authorized Emall access. However, the process for gaining access has been posted with this announcement. See document "DoD Emall Access"

105 4 Aug 15, Can we get failure rate by NIIN?

Response: CSD Test Stand reject/recycle history by NIIN will be available with the released of a second Draft RFP. Schedule release of second Draft RFP is 11 Aug 15.

106 4 Aug 15, Is there any concern with shelf-life items with the DLA inventory?

Response: DLA would not require PBL contractor or anyone to buy down or draw down obsolete, discontinued or past shelf life parts.

We screen those part out in the analysis and the DD. If we miss one or things change, then reasonable adjustments are accomplished between all concerned

4 Aug 15: Notice to Industry: NSN 6685-01-281-2118 , PN 5906270, Temperature Transmitter possible obsolescence concern, impacts E-3 IDG (NSN 1650-01-502-8980)

27 Aug 15, DLA MOU paragraph 1)B.i. indicates that DLA personnel will provide training on system access and usage for the following systems:

− CPOA

− D035A & D035K

− D043A

− DIBBS

− EBS

− ESS

− EMALL

− LIMS

− DSCM-AT

− G005M

Which systems access will be a requirement of the contract? Will access, at a minimum, and training be provided should the contractor decide not to engage DLA with the MOU?

Response: None of the identified systems are a requirement of the contract, however the contractor will need to establish an account for

DOD EMALL. EMALL will be used for material pricing and ordering of DLA inventory drawdown. No system training will be provided by the Government. See questions 38, 42, 67, 87 & 104 for other DOD EMAL related questions and responses.

27 Aug 15, SOW paragraph 4.4.2.1.h) indicates the contractor is responsible for providing Ease-Of Maintenance kits IAW the Material

Support section of the Workshare IA. Would the Government provide the specific make-up, by type, of subject kits?

Response: Ease of Maintenance Kit specific make up can be found in the FBO Explicit Access data file "CSD Material List

BOMs_Kits" tabs 13 -28

27 Aug 15, SOW paragraph 4.4.2.1.b) indicates the contractor is responsible for procurement of additional end items required to meet performance requirements. To facilitate the identification and forecasting, as well as pricing of potential future end item requirements, to include adequate sourcing and procurement time, it’s requested the Government provided the following information specific to each NIIN contained within this solicitation:

o Total population broken down by condition code o Condemnation/Survivability rates

Response: A data file consisting of the requested information will be provided in the Explicit Access data file at RFP release.

27 Aug 15, An Attachment to the DRFP labeled Packaging Requirements was provided by the Government. We are of the understanding contractor responsibility is complete once the CSD/IDG sells, and that DLA was responsible at that point for packaging of the sold unit. Please explain the requirement in which the contractor requires the packaging requirements and special instructions.

Response: The contractor does not have a packaging requirement for shop produced CSD/IDGs sells. If the contractor buys a CSD/IDG it must be packaged IAW the packaging requirements. All piece parts supplied must be packaged IAW industry best practice.

27 Aug 15, At Section L paragraph LPP2.1 Submission of Past Performance Volume at subparagraph, Past Performance Information

Sheets (PPIS) at the second sentence states, “The PPIS forms shall be completed in accordance with Section L, Attachment 1, Past

Performance Information Instructions.” As well, at subsequent subparagraph, PPIS Relative Contract Narrative, it states “For each PPIS

Form, the offeror shall provide a narrative… may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts… requested to limit the narrative to a total of 5 pages.” Does the government seek to have the PPIS

Relative Contract Narrative submitted through the PPI Tool as may be outlined in Section L, Attachment 1, as part of the PPIS forms online submission? Our confusion centers on a statement at Section L, Attachment 1, page 5, mid-page Program Details bullet, Brief

Description of Effort sub-bullet, at the third sub-sub-bullet asking the offeror to include “****If applicable: Provide information on performance problems encountered on the identified contracts. At a minimum, briefly describe the problem experienced, actions taken to alleviate the problem, and whether or not the problem was satisfactorily overcome. **** Within Section L of the DRFP this information is also requested as part of the PPIS Relative Contract Narrative as noted above, leading us to believe the government may wish offerors to include submission of their 5-page Narratives through what is titled a “Brief Description of Effort” at the respective fill-in block of the

PPI Tool. Please clarify.

Response: Yes. All requested information in Section L, paragraph LPP2.1 Submission of Past Performance Volume, subparagraphs Past

Performance Information Sheets and PPIS Relevant Contract Narrative can be entered in the PPI tool. The information shall be included under the Program Details Tab (page 5 of the PPI instructions). That tab has three main bullets:

1) Brief Description of Effort: Here the offeror will include if they performed as a prime, subcontractor, etc. on that particular contract.

The offeror will include a brief description of what services were performed on that contract. Also, the offeror shall discuss any performance problems they may have encountered on the contract, and what they did to overcome them (this corresponds to the similar statement in Section L, Para LPP2.1, subparagraph PPIS Relevant Contract Narrative).

2) The second bullet instructs offerors to describe how the work they performed on the contract is relevant to the Constant Speed Drive effort. This corresponds to the Section L, para LPP2.1, subparagraph PPIS Relevant Contract Narrative. Offerors should use the instructions in LPP2.1, subparagraph Relevant Contract Narrative as a guide for describing relevancy.

3) The third bullet instructs offerors to describe portion of effort. For instance, what is the specific portion of effort for the prime contractor, and for each subcontractor? Portion of effort should correspond to the Technical subfactor elements. This bullet relates to two statements in Section L, Para LPP2.1. The first statement is found in the first paragraph. It says, "The Government Past Performance

Evaluation Team (PPET) evaluates each member of the offeror’s team for relevancy and performance, 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." The second statement is found in the subparagraph PPIS Relevant Contract Narrative.