FA8124-20-R-0002 Questions and Answers.pdf

Questions

Currently the upper and lower margin requirements are one inch. Question: are we allowed to add header and footer information (i.e., company logo, Volume #X, page numbers, etc.) within these 1” spaces or do you require these margins to be fully empty?

Government Response: A Header and Footer may be added and does not have to be within the 1” margins.

Should we include copies of our certifications within the Technical volume, and do they count against the total page count or can we include these within Volume 4, Section 6.3 (Other Information)?

Government Response: Yes, please provide the certifications with the Technical Volume and no, they are not part of the page count limit.

Question Number Question / Comment Reference

Contractor Rationale

Government Response

It appears the Service Contract Act (SCA) was placed into this RFP by mistake, therefore we request the RFP be amended to remove this requirement and its applicable FAR clauses.

Appendix D, P. 8-9, para’s

3.3.10.1 and 3.3.15.

Rationale: the applicability of the SCA to a contract, including a contract for engine overhaul, is a matter to be determined by the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL"). See, e.g., Engine and Equipment Co., B-

199480, 81-1 CPD ¶

359. The Department of Labor has determined that:

“Complete or substantial teardown and overhaul of heavy construction equipment, aircraft, engines, etc., where the government receives a totally rebuilt end item with a new (or nearly new) life

The SCA clause remains in the contract as the maintenance repair CLIN efforts do not zero time the engine.

expectancy resulting from processes similar to original manufacturing, will normally be considered remanufacturing subject to Walsh- Healey (PCA) so long as the work is performed in a facility owned and operated by the contractor.” The

USAF T53 RFP

expressly calls for "teardown" and "overhaul" (see RFP §§ B & C), and this work will be performed in a facility owned and operated by the contractor. See RFP § C.1.1.

We request to amend the RFP to remove this non-mandatory CMRA requirement because our subcontractors supply us with fixed pricing for repair services, so they/we are unable to provide hourly labor data.

Appendix A, P. 18, para.

1.9.7.

CRMA is a mandatory clause for SCA type contracts and cannot be removed.

We request clarification on the term “commercial” regarding T53-L-703 manuals because this term could imply use of the Honeywell “Commercial-derivative” T53 engine manuals which includes different sets of inspection criteria not identified within the USAF PWS? Example:

All -703 series manuals begin with numbering series

Appendix A, P.3, para.

1.1

All USAF T53 engines are T53-L- 703s. The applicable Honeywell manuals should be used. The USAF has no experience with 330 series manuals. We only know of the 290 series manuals.

However, this

“290,” however all Commercial manuals begin with “330” series - therefore which series does the Government desire to utilize?

series only covers the Maintenance Manual, Overhaul Manual, and the Illustrated Parts Catalog, this requirement includes the use of the Standard Practices Manual and Repair Manual as well as any other manauls applicable to the T53-L-703 engine.

The warranty parameters referenced within the PWS do not match what Honeywell provides IAW CSL T53-02-5 R1 which outlines their current “3-Tier” warranty program as outlined below: New Spare Parts for Engines Honeywell warranty for the new parts used in engines that are overhauled to Honeywell’s 5000-hour TBO standard provides for an extended warranty shall expire forty-eight (48) months from the date of shipment by Mint Turbines or two thousand (2,000) engine operating hours, whichever occurs first.

Repaired and Overhauled Engines Honeywell warrants to the owner that each Honeywell engine repaired or overhauled to Honeywell’s 5000-hour TBO standard will (at time of delivery) be free from defects in material and workmanship with respect to replaced parts and repair services when performed at

Appendix A, P. 4, para.

1.4.9 and Honeywell

CSL T53-02-

5 R1 (attached in Rationale field)

USAF engines will be returning to the contractor after every 1250 hrs of operation for one of the scheduled maintanence actions. This is a warranty from the contractor to the government, not from the OEM to the government.

That being said, having read the attached document, the 2 yr or 1000 flight hr warranty seems in line with Honeywells warranty.

a Honeywell facility. This basic warranty shall expire forty-eight (48) months from the date of shipment by Mint Turbines or two thousand (2000) engine operating hours, whichever occurs first.

Repaired/Overhauled Parts Honeywell warrants that repaired/overhauled parts, will (at time of delivery) be free from defects in material and workmanship with respect to replaced parts and repair services when such services are performed at Mint Turbines facility.

This warranty shall expire twelve (12) months from date of installation or six hundred (600) engine operating hours, whichever occurs first. Warranty for parts replaced under the Honeywell engine warranty shall not extend beyond the date of expiration of the original warranty period.

We request the warranty parameters shown in the PWS be revised to match what Honeywell is currently providing as per CSL T53-02- 5 R1?

For any military engine shipping container received in damaged condition, due to the complexity and unknown nature of each repair event required, will the USAF remove this requirement from the FFP CLIN’s and allow the Contractor to submit, on a case-by-case basis, a separate proposal to perform container repair?

Appendix A,

p. 19, para.

1.10.6.1

Container repair is part of the overall CLIN pricing fo the maintenance repair CLINs.

“The Contractor is responsible for remanufacturing/returning damage engine shipping trailers to serviceable condition in accordance with TM 1-8145-695-24&P (applies to both T53 and T55 shipping and storage containers)” – please define what is meant by “Shipping Trailers?”

Appendix A,

p. 19, para.

1.10.6.1

This is a typo.

There are no trailers. We only have shipping containers.PWS has been modified to reflect containers not trailers.

An additional USAF requirement (not addressed in the commercial Honeywell manual) is to remove and fully inspect the 2nd Stage Power Turbine Nozzle per the Depot Manual Work Package 72- 50-03 and Commercial Service Bulletin T53-L-703-

130. Request the PWS be revised to remove Service Bulletin T53-L-703-130 and replace with Service Bulletin T53-L-703-0174 since CSL- 130 has been inactive since Sept. 2010.

Appendix A, P.7, para.

1.7.1.1

Service Bulletin T53-L-703-130 Revision 2, Sept 2010 applies.

An additional Air Force requirement (not addressed in the commercial Honeywell manual) is to remove and fully inspect the 2nd Stage Power Turbine Nozzle per the Depot Manual Work Package 72- 50-03 and Service Bulletin T53-L-703-130. This statement is not needed because complete disassembly of the Power Turbine Section is required during the 2500 Hour Inspection.

Appendix A, P.7, para.

1.7.1.2

No change to PWS required.

Statement remains to help clarify intent.

An additional Air Force requirement (not addressed in the commercial Honeywell manual) is to remove and fully inspect the 2nd Stage Power Turbine Nozzle per the Depot Manual WP 72-50-03 and Service Bulletin T53-L-703-

130. This statement is not needed because complete disassembly of the Power Turbine Section is required during the 5000 Hour Overhaul.

Appendix A, P. 7, para.

1.7.1.3

No change to PWS required.

Statement remains to help clarify intent.

The PWS states the Contractor shall conduct Turbine Nozzle flow checks as a part of this effort.

However, there is no requirement to flow check each Turbine Nozzle during the 1250 Hour Inspection.

We request clarification to determine if the “Flow” requirement was meant for the Start Fuel Nozzle and Main Fuel Manifolds and not the Turbine Nozzles?

(note: this requirement is identified within Honeywell Service Bulletin T53-L-703- 0001 and Honeywell Maintenance Manual 290.2 72-00-00 Para. 1 H (3) (k) and (i).)

Appendix A, P. 8, para.

1.7.2.

All LRUs are considered part of the engine for the purposes of this contract.

PWS, para. 3.0 states “no GFE or GFM considered as GFP.” However, in the ITO, P.13, para. 5.3.5 states “the only GFP provided on the T53 contract is the T53 engine end item for repair.”

Question - does the Government consider the engine shipping container as

GFP?

Appendix A, P. 26, para.

3.0 and ITO, P. 13, para.

5.3.5.

Yes - the shipping container for the engine is Government property that is part of the engine end item.

Is it possible to add two lines to the pricing Matrix, one for FCU’s and one for Governors?

Pricing Matrix

No - FCUs and Governors are part of the engine CLIN pricing.

Regarding the Maximum order statement, (b)(3) reflects 30 days, however

(b) (1) and (2) are blank – will the Government provide specific criteria to complete (b)(1) and (b)(2)?

Solicitation, page 23 of

45, FAR 52-

216-19 (Order Limitation), (b)

For FAR Clause 52.216-19 Order Limitations clause, the maximum valuesfor (b)(1) and (b)(2) will be a dollar figure that will be based off of the pricing provided in the pricing matrix plus 25%. This clause is not required to be completed or filled in by the offeror. This will be completed by the PCO at the time of award.

The pricing matrix utilizes Best Estimated Quantites (BEQs) which should be used as guidelines for maximums for proposal purposes.

Question 1:

Requesting clarification on reference to “Section J” in Appendix C ITO_10Jun20, we were unable to locate Section J of the RFP for a list of documents to attach / include in our Response.

Please advise if this was a typo?

6.3.5. Attachments to the RFP / Model Contract

The Offeror shall provide as attachments to the RFP / model contract the documents listed in Section J of the RFP except for the ITO and Evaluation Factors for Award documents.

Government Response: Section J is in the RFP document on pages 28-30. Section J is just a list of all of the attachments to the RFP. For this RFP, the Pricing Matrix (Appendix B) is the attachment that needs to be completed and returned with your response. However, all other attachments and any requirements identified in them need to be acknowledged somewhere in your response.

Question 2:

In regards to CLIN X013 / X015 Over & Above UER Material Handling. We are asking for clarity regards

X013 and X015 in how to express the Materials price. Currently the Price Matrix calculates our response as a product of ($5,000 x n Units). It is unclear what n (cell H23 in Year 1) is meant to represent.

Government Response: For these CLINs (X013 and X015), what is being requested is the material handling rate that will be applied to the material for the associated Over & Above CLINS (X012 and

X014). For the purposed of the evaluation, the pricing matrix is utilizing an estimated value of $5,000 for the material cost for each year. What needs to be proposed on the pricing matrix is the material handling rate which will be applied to the cost of the material. The material handling factor shall represent all indirect costs and profit associated with obtaining the direct material and/or subcontract costs. Explanation of material handling rates are identified in the ITO (Appendix C) in Para. 5.3.4.2.

Typically, because of the almost infinite combination of parts that may be needed in an Unscheduled

Repair, the price of such Materials is expressed as:

- A percentage Discount from OEM New List Price, or

- A percentage Markup over and above OEM New List Price

In both cases the Offeror would account for indirect costs and profit in these numbers.

If the formula were changed such that n (cells H23, L23 etc.) were a Percentage Discount from OEM

New List Price, evaluation would be more clear.

Given current economics, the former (Discount) would be more applicable to Honeywell product.

1. Definition of “Subcontractors”

Airborne intends its bid to be the sole Contractor with no Teaming nor Joint Venture efforts;

Currently we use Subcontractors (by our definition) for minor part or fuel accessory repairs not totaling > 10% of the total Tinker AFB contract; normally we would not work formally with such vendors in completing a Bid;

We believe the term “Subcontractors” in the RFP is referring to companies teaming to provide significant (>10%) portions of the engine repair;

Can you please confirm how we should define Subcontractors for purpose of completing the RFP?

Government Response: Subcontractor is defined as any work performed that is not performed internally to the prime offerors company. If the work is being performed by another division which has separate business systems, that work has to be identified as being performed separately by the other division. If the work being is performed by a subcontractor, the technical proposal should identify what specific tasks will be performed (their portion of the work scope) even if it is considered minor. The pricing proposal should include supporting documents in accordance with ITO Para. 3.3.14 for all subcontractor pricing.

2. Early Proposal Information

Section 4.2.1 of the ITO describes the following:

4.2.1. Each Offeror is requested to submit Volume II – Past Performance for each relevant contract fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the solicitation closing date. The

Past Performance volume early proposal information is a request and not a requirement. Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in Offeror disqualification.

Does this mean that, at our discretion, we complete ‘Past Performance Volume (Factor 2)’ entirely and submit it by July 8, 2020, including two hard copies and one CD copy? (assuming the due date does not change)

If yes: do we need submit the same number of copies again at the Due Date? Or would we only include Volumes 3 (Technical), 5 (Price) and 6 (Contract) at the Due Date?

Government Response: If the past performance volume in its entirety was submitted early and there is not any changes to the information contained within the volume, then no there is not a need to resubmit with the entire proposal. However, if there is information that has changed since the submittal, the offeror can provided an updated submittal as long as it is received before the proposal due date.

REF RFQ

SECTION

Para.

No.

Page No.(s)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 ITO

5.3.6 13 What is the number of T53-L- 703 (T53) GTEs located at each base?

Need Clarification before a response can be granted - What is meant by the term GTE?

5.4.2 14

5.5.3 15

2 PWS 1.2 3

What are the estimated expended engine hours per year?

The pricing matrix provides the forecasted engine repair quantities. These are considered as best estimated quantities (BEQs) and in some case estimated hours for other CLINs. The estimates are derived from historical propulsion data and any known mission changes. The pricing matrix provides the estimated quantities known to date.

3 PWS

1.6, 1.7, 1.8

16- Jun

What is the normal flow of T53 inspections/overhauls in any given month, year?

BEQs are provided in the pricing matrix by year - estimates are not broken into a monthly quantity.

4 PWS

1.6, 1.7, 1.8

16- Jun

What is the maximum surge of inspections/overhauls the Government anticipates at any given time?

BEQs are provided in the pricing matrix by year - estimates are not broken into a monthly quantity. Historically, there have been 10 engines in maintenance at one time, but that is rare.

5 PWS 1.9.4 17

Will the USAF accept a one-for-one engine swap of a GTE that has equal or lower engine flight hours providing it meets or exceeds next inspection requirements?

No, this contract is for repair of USAF T53 engines. The Government will not perform engine swaps or buy engines.

Attach 4

3.3.10.1 8

What is the evaluation process for the Over & Above time and materials components?

The Government intends to establish a Fixed Price Labor Wrap Rate per hour for over and above (O&A) actions. This rate is to be a fully burdened wrap rate which will be applied to negotiated approved O&A hours at time of O&A event, upon which material will be added to total a firm-fixed-price O&A task order.

Eval

Appendix B

Pricing Matrix

Tab 1

What were the Government’s assumptions used to generate your forecast for the number of overhaul engines?

The pricing matrix provides the forecasted engine repair quantities. These are considered as best estimated quantities (BEQs) and in some case estimated hours for other CLINs. The estimates are derived from historical propulsion data and any known mission changes. The pricing matrix provides the estimated quantities known to date.

Appendix B

Pricing Matrix

Tab 1

For the 5000 hrs. overhaul, can the contractor provide a replacement engine at a lower price?

No, this contract is for repair of USAF T53 engines. The Government will not perform engine swaps or buy engines.

Appendix B

Pricing Matrix

Tab 1

If the actual quantity of inspections/overhauls is higher than the BEQ what is the process for handling the increased scope? Would that require a contract Mod?

The BEQ is an estimate only.

Actual quantities will be provided with each task order.

10 PWS

1.7.2 15-

Nov

What is the Government’s definition of "hands-on" hours?

Hands-On hours refers to direct labor hours spent in the repair of the engine CLINs.

1.7.3

1.7.4

11 PWS

1.7.2 15-

Nov

What is the Government’s required background documentation that the contractor will need to provide and support over and above "hands-on" labor hour negotiations?

The Contractor will provide their fixed price labor wrap rate for the O&A CLIN with their proposal. At time of O&A event, the contractor will provide rationale and justification for their proposed labor hours based on historical data, known actuals, and other supporting factors.

1.7.3

1.7.4

Appendix B

Pricing Matrix

Tab 1

Are test cell runs and fuel costs the only material costs associated with the over and above CLINs?

No - each O&A event will be considered for any material costs associated.

Appendix B

Pricing Matrix

Tab 1

How will material costs outside of test cell runs and fuel costs be paid for? Will they be added to the contract?

Material cost will be part of the O&A task order.

14 PWS 1.7.2 11

How were the 80 hours of estimated over and above labor per task determined?

The pricing matrix provides the forecasted engine repair quantities. These are considered as best estimated quantities (BEQs) and in some case estimated hours for other CLINs. The estimates are derived from historical propulsion data and any known mission changes. The pricing matrix provides the estimated quantities known to date.

15 PWS 1.7.7 16

How many people are assumed to be present for meetings that require travel to Tinker AFB?

Number of travelers is dependent on meeting event and varies. Details of travel are approved by the PCO at time of travel event.

ITO 5.3.5 13

The only GFE are the engines.

If there are machine(s) and/or tool(s) that are unexpected after an evaluation do they fall into the over and above materials/CLINs?

All equipment and material for the T53 soliciation will be contractor furnished. The Governemnt does not own any technical data, equipment, nor material for T53 and will not be providing any for this effort. PWS 1.4.4 4

17 PWS

1.11 19

How will the Government evaluate contractor performance when a spare part’s lead time from the OEM exceeds the delivery requirement?

The Contractor is responsible in meeting the Government delivery date and for forecasting parts / orders to meet dates.

Efforts that exceed the contractor's abilities will be reviewed on a case by case basis. 2 23

Appendix B

Pricing Matrix

Tab 1

If the O&A hours exceed the Government’s estimated labor in the pricing file will the Contractor be able to invoice the Government accordingly based on our wrap rates?

O&A hours will be negotiated at time of O&A event. Only the approved hours per each event will be placed on the O&A CLIN as a fixed priced effort.