FA8121-25-R-0017 2nd round QA.docx

Second Round of Q & A FA8121-25-R-0017

Based on the Q&A responses posted, attached are StandardAero’s clarification questions:

Q1. In order to facilitate one-to-one comparison between the information presented and to ensure important elements can be located in deliverables such as plans, can the Government provide a summary table of the required documents due at proposal submission and any min/max page limits.

The following are what will be required at proposal submission:

Completed and signed front page of the solicitation (1447) Completed fill in contractor information for the clauses For Large businesses a Small Business Subcontracting Plan Completed pricing matrix List of GFE that your company will need from the provided possible GFE list Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

No limits were set for page counts.

4. Per Section 1.2 a) of Appendix A, non- incumbent Contractors are being instructed to "Provide a detailed plan on how GFE (Attachment G) will be moved from existing location to vendor facility (para 1.2.2.). NOTE 1: This only applies if the vendor requires any movement of GFE. NOTE 2: Movement of GFE can only occur when prior contract work-in- process utilizing GFE is completed. During this period or any period that GFE is not available, the Vendor must have their own equipment to support any delivery order work requirements or process demonstrations." In order to ensure a fair and equal bid process for non-incumbent Contractors, will the Government release NOW a DRAFT Attachment G to allow non- incumbent contractors the opportunityto evaluate what GFE we will require, how it will be moved, if we already have the necessary GFE, etc.?

Q2. GFE is an expense to relocate to the requesting organization, and an operational disruption to the GFE holder, due to the disruption required to remove the GFE. To provide an accurate cost assessment and potential disruption assessment, the GFE needs must be quantified in advance of proposal submission. Request the USAF clarify the how GFE impact is to be assessed. All organizations need that information in order to provide a fair cost assessment.

We understand your concerns about the costs and disruptions associated with relocating and managing GFE and appreciate your proactive approach in seeking clarification. PWS 1.16.2 outlines the transition phase-out plan for new contracts. This reflects the USAF's commitment to improved lifecycle management, reduced inventory overhead for the government, and overall reduction of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). This commitment is a driving factor in our approach to GFE. While a comprehensive, definitive quantification of GFE impact applicable to all offerors is not feasible prior to proposal submission, the following information is provided to guide your assessment.

Refer to PWS 1.16.2 for specific details regarding the transition phase-out plan. This section provides valuable insights into the government's expectations for managing and eventually phasing out GFE, and careful consideration of this plan is crucial for developing a cost-effective solution. Consider strategies such as proposing alternative solutions that reduce reliance on GFE, implementing efficient maintenance and management practices for GFE, and developing a detailed plan for the eventual phase-out of GFE, aligning with PWS 1.16.2. Offerors should demonstrate a clear understanding of the potential costs and disruptions associated with GFE in their proposed solutions. The government's evaluation will consider the offeror's plan for the efficient management and eventual phase-out of GFE, aligned with the goals of reduced TCO. GFE will be dispositioned at the end of the current depot contract.

The following language is included in the PWS: “The Contractor may use the DLA as their source of supply for consumable items. The Contractor shall procure new and unused parts only.” Please confirm that no Used Serviceable Material or PMA parts can be used on the USAF, Navy, or FMS engines.

Q3. Surplus T56 material can be accumulated from salvaged T56 engines from FMS countries or commercial vendors. Are surplus engine parts from non-USAF entities allowed to be used in the USAF, Navy and FMS engines? Pls clarify.

No used consumable parts for PMA parts will be allowed. No surplus engine parts are allowed on this contract. Surplus/used engine parts from “non-USAF” entities will only be authorized for use on FMS engines, however, said parts must be USAF and/or OEM approved parts with TO 2J-T56-54 or RR T56-A-15LFE IPC appropriate.

Q4. The following language is included in the RFP:

3.0 Factor 1 – Price

3.1. These instructions….proposed prices/costs. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Offerors shall not input pricing information in Part I – Schedule B – Supplies or Services and Prices of the model contract. Offerors shall complete the Pricing Matrix (PWS Attachment C).

4.0 Solicitation Requirements

4.1.1. Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs

The offeror shall complete pricing information in Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs section of the solicitation.

Can the Government clarify whether offerors are to complete Supplies or Services and Prices of the solicitation?

Proposed prices should be entered in the Pricing Matrix only. The contractor does not need to add it in schedule “B”.

Based on the Q&A responses posted, StandardAero’s clarification question: Q5.

1.1.3.1 Repair Qualification Requirements (RQRs)/source approval requests (SAR) IAW C-130 SPO Engineer 5/13/2025, Lockheed Martin QEC certification is not required for USAF QEC SAR qualification. RR AMC and AMOF qualifications are a stand-alone requirement for bidding qualification, mostly related to having access to Rolls-Royce proprietary series

3.5 data that USAF cannot provide non-RR certified repair contractors USAF SAR qualifications for fuel items (Honeywell OEM) are covered under the Power Section SAR, with USAF tech data available, so even if fuel controls, pumps, etc. are worked on separate stand-alone CLINs, being USAF Power Section SAR qualified, means qualified repair of these items approved independent of any OEM certifications. Bottom line: USAF SAR qualifications trumps OEM certifications on this contract

1. The response states that LM QEC qualifications are not ‘required’. But will the USAF ‘accept’ LM QEC qualifications for this contract?

Still waiting on response. As not to hold up the solicitation, once received I will provide the answers to all interested parties.

2. Pls confirm that the Navy will accept QECs repaired to the USAF RQR and USAF Tech Order specifications.

Still waiting on response. As not to hold up the solicitation, once received I will provide the answers to all interested parties.

If not, pls provide a copy of the Navy QECK RQR.

Still waiting on response. As not to hold up the solicitation, once received I will provide the answers to all interested parties.

3. A copy of the USAF RQR was not provided with the draft solicitation. Pls provide a copy of the current USAF/C-130 SPO QEC RQR.

ROR was attached to the pre solicitation.

Q6. Pls provide the of CSI/CAI parts for the Power Section, and the QEC.

Still waiting on response. As not to hold up the solicitation, once received I will provide the answers to all interested parties.

Q7. Ref PWS Section 1.17 “The plan and processes apply to the Contractor and their suppliers, subcontractors, associated integrators, and vendors, spanning the entirety of the supply chain from raw material stage to delivery of a finished product”.

Contractor’s suppliers include DLA and the OEM. Contactor does not have reach back to the entirety of the supply chain to apply the plan and processes developed. Please remove this requirement or clarify for the scope of this contract.

As long as you put all flow down clauses on your purchase orders you should be fine.

Q 8. For our Question #8, after reviewing Appendix A and Attachment P, it is not clear that in order to bid on and be awarded the contract for FA812125R0017 whether it necessary for the bidder, awardee, and their vendors and suppliers to be NIST Level 1 or Level 2 compliant. If either, is the compliance required at the time of bid submission or bid award?

1. Requirement 1: Initial Compliance Level

0. The Bidder, any potential Awardee, and their respective vendors and suppliers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Participants") must, at a minimum, operate at NIST Level 1 compliance at the time of proposal submission. This requirement demonstrates a foundational commitment to cybersecurity best practices.

1. Requirement 2: Enhanced Compliance Level

0. Within thirty (30) calendar days of contract award, the Awardee and all Participants must achieve and maintain NIST Level 2 compliance. This enhanced compliance level must be demonstrably achieved and maintained throughout the duration of the contract. The Awardee is responsible for ensuring compliance by all Participants.