Attach_QandAs.pdf

Updated 20 Apr 18 2:00

*Amendment 0001 corrected the RFP Closing Date to 4 May 2018 at 3:oo p.m. Amendment 0002 extended the RFP Submission Closing Date to 18 May 2018 at 3:00 p.m.

1. Reference ITO Para 4.3.1. Requests up to 3 PPI submissions while ITO Attachment 1.1, 1st Paragraph, requests 6 to 10 PPIS forms for the prime. please clarify.

Government Response: Changed PPI submissions on Instructions to Offerors (ITO) ATTACHMENT 1.1, 1st paragraph to match ITO 4.3.1

Government Response: Replaced “between 6 and 10” and “between 4 and 7” with “up to three (3)”

2. Reference ITO Table 2.1 - In Volume II there is a reference to ITO Paragraph Number 4.2.2. That paragraph does not exist. Please clarify.

Government Response: Corrected Table 2.1 to 4.2.1 where PPI questionnaire is referenced. Updated attachment.

3. Reference ITO Table 2.1 - Under Volume III there is a reference to ITO Paragraph Number 5.7 but that paragraph does not exist. Please clarify.

Government Response: Corrected Table to section 5.4 where content is discussed.

4. Reference ITO Table 2.1 - Under Volume IV there is a reference to ITO Paragraphs 6.1.4 and 6.1.2, but again, neither of those paragraphs exist. Please clarify.

Government Response: The Instructions to Offerors (ITO) corrected Table in Vol IV in the following manner.

o Model Contract: from 6.1 to 6.2 o Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors: from 6.1.4 to 6.2.4 o Supplies or Services and Prices/costs: from 6.1.4 to 6.2.2

5. Reference ITO Paragraph 6.2.2. This asks for pricing info which appears to be the same as ITO Paragraph 5.4 Section 4. However in ITO Paragraph 5.2 it states that Pricing information is only to be included in Volume III - Pricing. Yet ITO Table 2.1, under Volume IV, Paragraph 6.1.2 asks for Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost which would be Section B and generally include pricing. Please clarify.

Government Response: Paragraph 6.1.2 was erroneously numbered. Subsequently, paragraph 6.1.2 is now 6.2.2. All pricing requirements are accurately reflected in the Pricing Matrix.

6. Reference ITO Paragraph 6.2. There are two Paragraphs 6.2 in the document. Please clarify.

Government Response: Effectively changed duplicate 6.2 paragraph to 6.2.5.

7. PWS Paragraph 1.5.1.1 Quality Management Plan. The paragraph indicates that a copy of the Plan is to be submitted with the proposal but nothing in the ITO indicates where in the proposal this is to be provided. Please clarify.

Government Response: CDRL A005 Block 10-13, Submit with proposal, contracting to determining standardized location in proposal.

Government Response 25 APR 18: Please provide the information as an attachment to the Proposal.

Additionally, please provide a list of applicable attachments with the Quality Management Plan identified on that list.

8. PWS Paragraph 1.5.1.2 FOD Prevention Program. The paragraph indicates that a copy of the Plan is to be submitted with the proposal but nothing in the ITO indicates where in the proposal this is to be provided. Please clarify.

Government Response: CDRL A005 Block 10-13, Submit with proposal, contracting to determining standardized location in proposal.

Government Response 25 APR 18: Please provide the information as an attachment to the Proposal.

Additionally, please provide a list of applicable attachments with the FOD Prevention Plan identified on that list.

9. PWS Paragraph 1.6.2.1 documents a need for a Hazardous Materials Management Program Plan per CDRL A007. The CDRL states this is to be submitted with the proposal, but there is no discussion of where in the proposal this is to be located. Please clarify.

Government Response: Contracting to determine standardized location in proposal.

Government Response 25 APR 18: Please provide the information as an attachment to the Proposal.

Additionally, please provide a list of applicable attachments with the Hazardous Materials Management Plan identified on that list.

10. Reference (Addendum to 52.212-2) Evaluation Factors Paragraph 2.2.3, Evaluation Methodology.

The paragraph references are wrong. Please clarify

Government Response: 2.2.3 refers to section 2.2, which contains a factor with three subfactors. The numbering is correct.

Government Response 25 APR 18: Renumbered 2.2.3 to 2.2.4 to cover Factor 1 and all its Subfactors.

The remaining paragraphs of the Addendum were renumbered according to the new structure.

11. Reference Appendix C, Safety Specification. Is this required to be submitted with the proposal; and if so, where?

Government Response: Per para 1.6.2.1 of the PWS, the safety specifications are not required for submission. According to the PWS, the contractor shall comply with Appendix C.

12. Reference CDRL A001, Process Validation. Block 12 calls for complete engine water wash process documentation to be submitted with the proposal. Is this for all seven engine types and where in the proposal should this information be provided?

Government Response: Yes, one for each of the seven engine types, Contracting to determine standardized location in proposal.

Government Response 25 APR 18: Please provide the information as an attachment to the Proposal.

Additionally, please provide a list of applicable attachments with the Process Validation

Documentation identified on that list.

Questions received 17 APR 18

13. The attached map is from the previous RFP that we quoted five years ago. Can you please provide us with an updated one? It is a very helpful logistics tool.

Government Response: See the attached regional map named Contract 5 Wash Regions.

14. If possible, can we get a breakdown of the historical number of washes performed by station?

Government Response: No, historical number of washes at each location will not provide Best Estimate Quantities required for this solicitation. Recently instituted engine wash intervals, aircraft relocations and mission changes prevent an accurate estimate of future workload from past workload.

15. We have the total estimated quantities by region in the Pricing Matrix but a further breakdown by location is again, helpful with logistics.

Future Best Estimated Quantities based on engine wash intervals is provided. See Contract 5 Wash Regions map attached to solicitation amendment #2.

16. Finally, we would like to request an extension to the May 4th deadline. A new deadline of June 1st would be a huge help.

Government Response: Due to contract time constraints, only an additional two weeks can be extended for Proposal submissions. Per Amendment 0002, the extended RFP closing date is 18 May 2018 at 3:00 p.m.

Question received 20 APR 18

17. Reference PWS Paragraph 2.0.3. a. - This is the only reference in the PWS to Process Validation Washes. Are Process Validation Washes still required and if so, please describe the criteria and circumstances for the washes.

Government Response: Source selection will determine through technical and past performance the contractor qualifications to perform engine wash per the PWS. Para 2.0.3, a will provide surveillance of contractor compliance of PWS.

Questions received 25 APR 18

18. I was unable to download a SF30 documenting Amendment 2 and changing the official submittal date.

Government Response: : Solicitation amendment FA8124-18-R-0002-0002 posted to www.fbo.gov as Amendment #3 on FBO.gov. As Amendment #2 on FBO.gov was not editable, Amendment FA8124-18- R-0002 was forced to be uploaded as Amendment #3 on FBO.gov. As a result, Amendment FA8124-18- R-0002-0003 will be identified on FBO.gov as Amendment #4 on that website.

19. The answer to question 1 did not appear in the ITO Attachment 1.1.

Government Response: Amend Past Performance Information submission form requirements from “6 to 7” to “up to three (3)” for prime and subcontractors in attachment 1.1.

20. ITO Paragraph 5.2 states that Pricing is only to be included in Volume III. Yet the Volume IV outline references ITO Paragraph 6.2.2, which asks for the same information, but now in Volume IV (associated with #5 above).

Government Response: Despite the Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs category being listed in para 6.2.2, the verbiage in para 6.2.2 directs the contractor to provide that information in the Price Matrix.

In that section of the Proposal, referencing where this information is located within the Price Matrix will satisfy the requirement.

21. The answer to Question 6 did not carry over into the new ITO.

Government Response: Verified manual change of duplicated 6.2 para to read 6.2.5. See page 16 of the amended ITO).

22. The answer to Question 10 is incorrect. In the body of the paragraph, the reference for evaluating subfactors is given as 2.2. It is actually 2.3. The other references are incorrect also.

Government Response: Renumbered Factor 1 and Subfactor paragraphs to 2.2.4 numbering structure to eliminate the error. See page 4 of the amended Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors for Award.

23. The additional requirement for an email submittal has become mandatory. Please clarify whether we need to provide binders, CD Rom, or email submittals. Please not all. If hard copy is to be provided, how do we hand deliver the proposal? If email is possible, how do we transfer large files?

Government Response: Per paragraph 2.2.8, Submissions, Modification, Revision and Withdrawal of Proposal, a physical proposal is required. Digital proposals of Volumes I through IV must be submitted on disc media with the physical proposals.

24. Several answers include "contracting to determine standardized location in the proposal". Just need to know how soon that will be provided so we can continue with the proposal preparation.

Government Response: Please see the 25 APR 18 green responses to questions 7 and 12 listed above.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=f3468421341e727d7017e8c4b25f5fcf&tab=core&_cview=1