Industry Comments - Air Force Responses 21 Jan 09.doc

A-10 Thunderbolt Life-cycle Program Support (TLPS) RFP – FA8202-08-D-1000

Industry Comments/Questions and Air Force Responses.

21 January 2009

The following industry comments were received in regard to the A-10 TLPS RFP. To ensure fairness in the competition the responses are hereby provided for all potential offerors.

Any additional questions or comments should be sent in writing to the TLPS Contracting Officer, Andrew Hatch at andrew.hatch@hill.af.mil.

1. Industry Comment: Clause 52.230-3 Disclosure and Consistency of Cost Accounting Practices (OCT 2008) is only applicable to contractors using modified CAS coverage. Will this clause be removed from the final contract of successful bidders that are subject to the full Cost Accounting Standards (CAS)?

Air Force Response: No, it is not the intent to remove the clause; it is intended that the clause will remain in all of the A-10 TLPS contracts. If the clause does not apply to a particular contractor then the clause is not in effect. However, if over the duration of the contract conditions change and the contractor is eligible for and elects to use the modified CAS coverage then the clause is in the contract and is then in effect.

2. Industry Comment: Section L, Paragraph 4.5.1.M.b requires, “Documentation evidencing DCMA certified Earned Value Management System (EVMS) in compliance with ANSI/EIA-748-A-1998(r2002) or a comprehensive plan for compliance with the guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748-A-1998(r2002) in accordance with contract provision 252.234-7001 as included in this RFP. Documentation is required as part of this proposal for the TLPS basic contract; however, EVMS will be implemented at a Task Order level as applied at DFARS 234.201.”

Industry requests clarification on two points: 1) The final RFP calls out a revision of the ANSI standard versus just the generic ANSI/EIA-748. Industry believes that ANSI/EIA-748-A-1998(r2002) may be an old standard and that a more updated standard of ANSI/EIA-748 B (published July 07) is available. Given that FAR 252.234-7001 requires compliance with the “current version at time of solicitation,” should Industry provide certification to the ANSI/EIA-748 B standard? 2) The DFARS reference (234.201) for EVMS implementation at a Task Order level appears to be incomplete. Is 252.234-7002 the intended reference?

Air Force Response: This question was received from industry and is posted here for information. The Air Force is currently working the response to this question will post it as soon as possible