Attachment_-_Q&As.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 ext

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 ITO ATTACHMENT 1.1, 1st paragraph to match

ITO 4.3.1

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 ITOP 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 change 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

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.

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.

10. Reference 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.

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.

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.

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 attached.

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 Wash es. Are Process Validation Washes still required and if so, please describe the criteria and circumstances for the washes.

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.