Industry Comments - Air Force Responses 16 Jan 09.docx

A-10 Thunderbolt Life-cycle Program Support (TLPS) RFP – FA8202-08-D-1000 Industry Comments/Questions and Air Force Responses.

16 January 2009

1. Industry Comment: Section B: The RFP states, “Performance or task orders may extend beyond the duration of the contract; subject to limitation set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and its supplements.” Is it correct to assume this is meant to reference the limitation set forth in 217.204 wherein the period of performance cannot extend more than 1 year beyond the 10-year limit on the ordering period? This would result in the potential period of performance being up to 11 years in total (as described in previous Draft RFP’s), though the duration of the contract is limited to ten years.

Air Force Response: The intent of the RFP is that the ordering period of the contract will be 10 years and that a task order may extend beyond that as long as it does not violate other limitations. Limitations may include those set forth in DFARS 217.204 or others set forth in the FAR and its supplements.

As a note DFARS 217.204 does allow for task orders extending more than 1 year beyond the end of the ordering period with appropriate approvals.

2. Industry Comment: Industry requests clarification on the state of Cost or Pricing Data (COPD) clauses in the Final RFP (including Information Other Than Price or Cost Pricing Data clauses). Various places throughout the RFP seem to indicate COPD will not be required unless the Contracting Officer (CO) finds and communicates a lack of competition (or other exception to FAR 15.403-1). However, Section I and Section L contain numerous COPD clauses (52.215-10/11/12/14/15/18/19/20/21) that are no longer marked as applicable by T/DO. Are these clauses really meant to be applicable to this initial proposal, the basic contract, and all T/DO’s? Or is it correct to assume for this initial proposal that Section L, Paragraph 6.2 (COPD only required upon CO determination of its need) takes preference and that future COPD applicability will be clarified?

Additionally, while Industry appreciates the consideration of the Government to allow for Contractor Format for COPD by adding Alternate I of FAR 52.215-20/21 REQUIREMENTS FOR COST OR PRICING DATA OR INFORMATION OTHER THAN COST OR PRICING DATA (MODIFICATIONS), the use of both Alternate I and Alternate IV in the final RFP is confusing. Alternate I is designed to be used in conjunction with the Basic clause and does not stand alone. Conversely, Alternate IV should stand alone and is not designed to be used in conjunction with any other Alternates.

In summary, the current use of COPD clauses appear to leave confusion as to: 1) when COPD actually is required; and 2) which COPD data/Clause is invoked when COPD data is required.

Air Force Response: Certified Cost or Pricing Data is not required for proposals in response to the TLPS RFP for the TLPS basic contract or the ISTO. Certified Cost or Pricing data clauses do remain in the contract to be used with respect to task orders. The clauses are applicable in accordance with the prescribing language. In other words, if a task order fall above the threshold for requiring Certified Cost or Pricing Data and no exception apply the requirement for Certified Cost or Pricing Data exists even if the clauses are not called out in a particular task order.

3. Industry Comment: Section L, Paragraph 5.5 requires a 3-page contract listing in spreadsheet format. Would the Government prefer to have this listing on 11x17 paper to allow for a larger sampling of contracts or would use of 11x17 for this purpose count towards the overall maximum number of 10 foldouts?

Air Force Response: No, the Air Force expects the pages to be regular 8 ½ x 11 size; consequently the maximum number of foldouts is unaffected.