Questions_and_Answers_PreProposal_Conference.pdf

Additional Questions and Answers F108 Mod 13/15 Remanufacture

Follow up Questions from Pre-Proposal Conference Held 5 February 2019

Follow up to slide 34, Question 39:

Why must a contractor report parts not in the IPC to the PCO- What is the possible outcome of this requirement? A small quantity may contain 3 hardware?

Government Response to Follow up to slide 34, Question 39:

This is configuration information that the Government uses. It may require a part change if the part is no longer an acceptable configuration. There have only been a small number of these not in the system and so the risk or possibility of it happening is extremely low. If there is a case where the part number is not found please contact the item manager or the program manager and we will research that part number.

Follow up to slide 37, Question 43:

LLPs that need repair may have longer TAT then the module that they came from. Can an LLP be replaced if repair exceeds TAT for module delivery?

Government Response to Follow up to slide 37, Question 43:

Based off of past performance, the occurrence of this is expected to be low and can be addressed on a case by case basis. This will not affect a contractor’s CPARS ratings.

Follow up to slide 39, Question 45:

Will the Government extend the proposal due date to accommodate internal processes needed to submit a proposal?

Government Response to Follow up to slide 39, Question 45:

As a result of Question 45 and Question 48, the government will revise the SOW to add the definition of BER back into the SOW. The RFP will be amended to include the revised SOW and the proposal due date will be extended to the 15th of March.

Follow up to slide 43, Question 49:

Do users of CEMS have to be US Citizens? Can non US Citizens perform CEMS reporting and system access?

Government Response to Follow up to slide 43, Question 49:

In order to be granted CEMS access, the individual requesting access must be a US Citizen.

Follow up to slide 50, Question 57:

Please confirm that DCMA oversight of Mod 13/15 modules and components will be handled as commercial CFM56-2B versus military use subject to International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) oversight.

Government Response to Follow up to slide 50, Question 57:

For ITAR information, please see DFARS clause 252.225-7048 which is located on page 28 of the solicitation. The Department of State publishes guidance regarding ITAR compliance at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/index.html.

Follow up to slide 49, Question 56:

Regarding Attachment 7 “SOW Supplement”: Will missing NSNs and Part Numbers be provided/filled in on the excel files?

Government Response Follow up to slide 49, Question 56:

The Government will, where practicable, provide additional NSN information. The spreadsheet attachment will be incorporated in an amendment to the solicitation.

Follow up to slide 23, Question 28:

Why is this acquisition considered to be a purchase of supplies? Why will the USAF not consider the addition of an Over & Above CLIN?

Government Response to Follow up to slide 23, Question 28:

Remanufacturing shall be deemed to be manufacturing when the seven criteria listed at FAR 22.1003- 6(a)(1) are met. This procurement satisfies the criteria listed at FAR 22.1003-6(a)(1), thus it is considered to be “manufacturing”, or the purchase of supplies.

In accordance with DFARS PGI 217.7701, an Over and Above CLIN is not compatible with a remanufacture contract.

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/index.html

Question 68:

For non-Life Limited Parts (LLP) will the Government consider scrap bands covering the variability in supply of commercial used serviceable material versus OEM new?

Government Response Question 68:

No.

Question 69:

For LLP material, will the Government consider establishing an Equitable Price Adjustment (EPA) clause providing for material cost increases greater than 10%?

Government Response Question 69:

No.

Question 70:

Will the Government approve the use of commercial used serviceable material for LLP replacement?

Government Response Question 70:

No; the Government requirement as stated in the SOW remains unchanged.

Question 71:

Will the Government consider separate FFP CLIN pricing for FOD events or non-standard repair events, to include inspections and different scopes of work, to address cost risks? What about potential changes in the market for materials?

Government Response Question 71:

No, the Government will not add additional CLINS. The CLIN structure remains as solicited. As stated in the Government Response to Question 26, in recent years FOD occurrences that would affect the Module 13/15 have been minimal. Although past history does not in any way describe future requirements for this NSN, the Government believes it has provided adequate information to offerors.

Vendors are encouraged to use their expertise to evaluate market conditions, perform risk analysis, and develop competitive unit prices.

Follow up to slide 18, Question 13:

Is there an error in the chart on slide 18? Perhaps instead of “cycles per year” the average cycle accumulations are actually cumulative totals for the fleet?

Government Response to Follow up to slide 18, Question 13:

The revised slide is included below.

The right column title “Cycles per Year” is corrected to “Cycles per Module.”

“Fleet Average Cycle Accumulation” is corrected to “Fleet Average Cycle Accumulation Remaining.”