RC-26_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_10June16.pdf

PDF 177 KB Posted

Attached to
C-26 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
FA8131-16-R-0002
Issued by
Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Lifecycle Management Center Tinker Air Force Base

About this file

The attached are the answers to industry question for the RFP. All industry question to this point have been answered. The due date for the proposal is extended to July 7 2016.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to C-26 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS), newest first.
File Type Posted
RC-26_RFP_Questions_and_Responses1July16.pdf PDF
FA813116R0002_______0004_RC-26_52_212-1_ITO_21June16.docx DOCX document
FA813116R0002_______0004.RTF RTF text file
RC-26_RFP_Questions_and_Responses21June16.pdf PDF
RC-26_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_15June16.pdf PDF
FA813116R0002_______0003_RC-26_52_212-1_ITO_9June16.docx DOCX document
FA813116R0002_______0003_C-26_PWS_8Jun16.docx DOCX document
FA813116R0002_______0003.RTF RTF text file
RC-26_RFP_Questions_and_Responses3June2016.pdf PDF
FA813116R0002_______0002_C-26_PWS_15Apr16v3.docx DOCX document
FA813116R0002_______0002.RTF RTF text file
FA813116R0002_______0002_RC-26_52_212-1ITO_31May16.docx DOCX document
FA813116R0002_______0002_IncentiveOptions_26May16.doc DOC document
FA813116R0002_______0002_WageDeterm27May2016.doc DOC document
FA813116R0002_______0002_SBIncentive27May2016.docx DOCX document
RC-26_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_23May16.pdf PDF
FA813116R0002_______0001_RC-26_PriceMatrix-18May16.docx DOCX document
FA813116R0002_______0001.RTF RTF text file
FA813116R0002_______0001_C26SourceSelectionQASP_v2May2016.docx DOCX document
ppi_tool.accdb —
DRAFT_C-26_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_28_March_16.docx DOCX document
FA813116R0002_RC-26_52_212-1_ITO_18_Apr16.docx DOCX document
FA813116R0002.RTF RTF text file
FA813116R0002_SBIncentive.docx DOCX document
FA813116R0002_GovernmentBaseSupportMatrix.pdf PDF
FA813116R0002_RC-26_PriceMatrix-20Apr16.docx DOCX document
FA813116R0002_RC-26_52_212-2-Eval_Factors18Apr16.docx DOCX document
FA813116R0002_C-26_PWS_15Apr16.docx DOCX document
FA813116R0002_WageDeterm.doc DOC document
FA813116R0002_C26_QASP.docx DOCX document
FA813116R0002_DD254.pdf PDF
FA813116R0002_IncentiveOptions7Apr16.doc DOC document
Show all 32

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

Response to RFP Questions

June 10, 2016

FA8131-16-R-0002

PWS 1.4f states, “In those instances in which an item of

Government owned/furnished

TMDE cannot be supported by the

PMEL, the Contractor shall provide the PMEL with the technical data necessary to complete an AFTO Form 45, Request for Calibration

Responsibility Determination, which the PMEL will forward to

AFMETCAL. AFMETCAL will then make the determination and if

Air Force calibration is not possible, authorize calibration by an AFMETCAL-approved commercial laboratory performing measurements traceable to the

National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST).”

Question: Can Government provide incumbent/current contract history of those items of

Government owned/furnished

TMDE which could not be calibrated by the PMEL/Air Force and the AFMETCAL-approved commercial laboratories?

The Government has provided a list of

Government owned items that require

OEM/contractor calibration in the tech library.

This document is now added to the technical library.

2 Bidders Library- 2013, 2014, 2015

Usage Data is listed as Calendar year consumption, whereas flying hours is listed as FYxx

(fiscal year). Will the Government provide flying hours by calendar year so the two can be appropriately reconciled?

The Government has updated the flight hour data file in the tech library, to include monthly flight hours. Both usage data as well as flying hours are provided per month so data can be compared/reconciled as needed.

Per PWS 1.37.9, Management

Plan, page 27, it states “The

Contractor shall provide an initial

Management Plan with the delivery of proposal.” Can the

Government please confirm that the Management Plan does not count towards the 100 page limitation in the Technical

Volume?

The Government has modified the delivery date of the initial Management Plan to 30 days after contract award as stated in the PWS.

Additionally, the Phase-in Plan has been removed from the Management Plan as a

Contract Transition Plan is required as part of the Technical Volume. With the Management

Plan due date modified to after contract award, the management plan will not be included with the tech volume and will not count towards the

100 page tech volume limitation.

4 Question: In response to

Amendment 02 Questions and

Answers, Questions 12 and 31, can the Government place the respective/applicable RC-26B

T.O.s/ETIMS in the bidders library?

Previous information provided to potential offerors with respect to T.O. access was incorrect (answers to questions 12 & 31).

To access T.O.’s offerors are required to submit the following to:

AFLCMC.LZPTP.PublicTORequets@us.af.mil

1. Request access to specific T.O.’s via company letterhead with signature block

2. Attach approved DD FORM 2345 (with request)

5 Question: Can the Government then provide a 2 week extension for proposal submission from the time we are authorized to receive/review the requested documents in the bidders library?

The proposal due date has been extended from

27 June 2016, to 7 July 2016.

6 Question: In the Amendment 02

Questions and Answers, for

Question 48 the Government’s response was that CLIN X010 is for travel and per diem for official business. The Solicitation identifies CLIN X008 as the

Travel and Per Diem CLIN and

CLIN X010 is identified as

Technical and Engineering

Services. Is the response to question 48 a typographical error?

Travel and per diem for CLIN X010 is to be included in CLIN X010. The services provided under the Technical and engineering will be priced as needed and the travel for each effort will be reviewed with the inclusion of efforts as they are added to the requirement.

mailto:AFLCMC.LZPTP.PublicTORequets@us.af.mil

7 CLIN X001. The current CLIN structure does not allow for PMO cost to be directly to a given

CLIN. Will the Government allow for PMO labor to be bid under each CLIN?

PMO labor is allowed to be allocated under each subCLIN under CLIN X001 as there is not a specific subCLIN for PMO cost.

8 There is a high number of EO/IR sensors procured on the 2015 usage list. Does the USG provided usage data for EO/IR turrets reflect a one-time acquisition for modifications or is the usage data representative of component failures?

All the EO/IR sensors that are listed as Safire

HD system with a purchase price of 550K were purchased for the BLK

25R modification. All other sensors have been repaired as required.

9 Question (Responses on 23 May and Questions 4 Response on 03

June. Past Performance Delivery

Discrepancy. Question 9

Response (23 May) states that

Electronic submission only is acceptable 15 days prior to closing date. Question 4 response (03

June) states that hard and soft copies must be delivered on 13

June. Does Question 4 response from 03 June override Question 9 response from 23 May?

Soft copies and/or hard copies are requested to be delivered 15 days prior to the closing date.

All past performance information MUST be delivered by not Later than the RFP due day.

Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in offeror disqualification.

10 Due to the Amendment 2 release on 03 June, additional pricing revisions are required. To ensure fairness to all offerors, will the government please extend the final proposal due date by two weeks to accommodate these unforeseen revisions.

The proposal due date has been extended from

27 June 2016, to 7 July 2016.

ITO 2/7/3 Table 2.1 Past

Performance Content. Table 2.1 implies that the PPI Tool and the questionnaires are “TAB Only” implying that these are to be submitted separately from the proposal response itself. Question

6 on the 03 June responses indicates that these are to be submitted with the proposal and not via the PPI Tool (tool inputs) or customer (questionnaire responses). Will the government please confirm that the proposal response for Volume II should be

“TAB Only” for these two sections and not the actual responses themselves?

This is correct.

Due to multiple request from industry and the clarification of the process to access the T.O.’s the due date for the RFP has been extended to 7 July 2016.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .