Responses to Questions from Industry 23 Aug.doc

Questions from Industry

TLPS RFP

23 AUG 2008

Below is a list of questions/comments that the Air Force has received from industry regarding the Thunderbolt Life-cycle Program Support (TLPS) contract/solicitation and the Air Force responses to the questions/comments. Air Force responses are based on the best information available at this time and are subject to change. The final RFP will reflect the Air Force’s position and requirement. Only the final RFP should be relied on while preparing proposals.

Contents

1General Comments

1Section B Comments

2Section E Comments

2Section F Comments

3Section G Comments

4Section H Comments

4Section I Comments

10Section K Comments

11Section L Comments

11Section M Comments

General Comments

1. Industry Comment: What does acronym JALC stand for? Joint Air Logistics Center?

Air Force Response: The acronym JALC does stand for Joint Air Logistics Center?

Section B Comments

2. Industry Comment: Section B: Clause 9952.232-9001 IMPLEMENTATION OF LIMITATION OF FUNDS. What is the intent of this clause? Is funding intended to be segregated by individual task order, by CLIN, or is this just to state the total funding available? Why the different wording that payment of costs is “under *Task Order Specific through *Task Order Specific” while the payment of fee is by “CLINs *Task Order Specific and Task Order Specific”?

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause will not be in the final RFP Section E Comments

3. Industry Comment: Section E: Suggest all Section E clauses be notated with, “Applicable as specified in individual orders issued hereunder.” Inspection criteria will differ from TO/DO to TO/DO and are not necessarily applicable at a top level to the entire contract.

Air Force Response: A note regarding these clauses has been added to the preamble section that indicates that these clauses couldn’t be edited but are task order specific.

4. Industry Comment: Section E: Clause FAR 52.246-7 Inspection of Research and Development - Fixed Price and FAR 52.246-8 Inspection of Research and Development-Cost Reimbursement. Is the use of RDT&E funding within this contract contemplated? Other parts of the RFP indicating limits to fee appear to indicate that no RDT&E work will be included.

Air Force Response: Research and Development tasks are in scope of this contract. Fee proposed for the TEP will be for non R&D Efforts. It is anticipated that Section L and the rates matrix will be revised to have a NTE Fixed Fee proposed for R&D and other type efforts. R&D maximum fixed fee is limited 15% per the FAR 15.404-4.

Section F Comments

5. Industry Comment: Section F: Clause 52.211-11 (Liquidated Damages - Supplies, Services, or Research and Development). Can the government help industry understand what damage is foreseen that indicates inclusion of this clause is necessary? Industry recommends this clause be removed as the Contractors are already motivated to complete deliveries on time due to the continuing competition requirements dictating that performance on individual TO/DOs will impact ability to win subsequent awards and due to the desire to collect final payment on Firm Fixed Priced deliveries. If this clause remains, will it apply to the entire contract or individual TO/DOs, how will the values be filled in, and was it really the intention to delete lines (b) and (c) from the FAR language?

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause will not be included in the final RFP.

6. Industry Comment: FAR 52.211-11 that appears in the latest draft RFP, and the amount that is shown in the per calendar day of delay. Would you please review and confirm the amount that belongs in that section?

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause will not be included in the final RFP.

7. Industry Comment: Section F: Should all FAR Part 47 Transportation/F.O.B. clauses be marked with language indicating they are only "Applicable as specified in individual orders issued hereunder."? Most other CLINs appear either to have applicability stated or it is self-evident from the title and/or proscription, but these are more confusing and would not appear to apply at a top level to the entire contract.

Air Force Response: FOB will be determined and identified on CLINS at the task order level. Because of the numerous circumstances under which transportation may occur, a variety of transportation clauses are included in the basic contact. Clauses apply as indicated on CLINs at the task order level.

8. Industry Comment: Section F: Clause 9952.247-9017 (F.O.B. POINT FOR DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED PROPERTY). Is the intent that the Contractor Fill-in for location be included with the initial completed RFP with all potential locations inserted? Or is this meant to be filled out with applicable TO/DOs?

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause will not be included in the final RFP.

Section G Comments

9. Industry Comment: Section G: Clause AFMC 5352.237-9002 (Contract Holidays). Industry does not have the same holiday observance schedules as the Government. What is the intent of this clause and why is it needed?

Air Force Response: The list of holidays will apply if the contractor is required to work on a Government installation. It should be assumed unless stated otherwise in the specific task or delivery order that the Government installation will be closed on those days and the contractor will not have access unless specific authorization is obtained.

10. Industry Comment: Section G: Clause titled ACTIVITY ADDRESS CODE. Does this clause have a number associated with it? Is the intent that the Contractor Fill-ins be included with the initial completed RFP with all potential facilities inserted? Or is this meant to be filled out with applicable TO/DOs? What is meant to go in Activity Address Code? Is this the DODAAC code?

Air Force Response: No, there is no clause number associated with this note; it is pulled from AFMAN 23-110. This clause will filled out on specific task orders as needed, and it noted as task order specific on the final RFP. Yes, the code is the DODAAC code.

Section H Comments

11. Industry Comment: Section H: Industry continues to recommend the removal of the AFMC basic clause 5352.209-9002 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST as well as all of its Alternates. The inclusion of this clause appears to be inconsistent with the Statement of Objectives (SOO) and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements.

a. Further, OCI as it may (or likely may not) occur is appropriately addressed by 9952.903-H903 with the following exceptions: 1) The H clause reference to the above AFMC clause is recommended to be removed here as well; 2) Letter (e) is recommended to be removed.

Air Force Response: Additional language will be added to the H clause to clarify that OCI clause 5352.209-9002 and it alternate that they will be called out on specific task orders. 5352.209-9002 will only apply if indicated in a task order (evident at time of task order RFP).

12. Industry Comment: Section H: 9952.907-H907 PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY. Request to discuss this new clause to clarify the prohibition in numbers 1 and 2 against using proprietary information. Suggest adding a caveat that this information cannot be used “without permission” to account for information validly obtained via Associate Contractor Agreements. Additionally, request a discussion regarding immediate notification in last paragraph.

Air Force Response: Suggested wording “without permission” is expected to be included in the clause.

Section I Comments

13. Industry Comment: Section I: DFARS 252.211-7007 ITEM UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. Request clarification regarding inclusion of this clause. Is it the government’s intent that only this UID clause for GFP be included or is the 252.211-7003 Item Identification and Valuation also to be included? If either of these clauses is included in the final RFP, suggest UID requirements will be addressed by indicating "Applicable as specified in individual orders issued hereunder.”

Air Force Response: Clause 252.211-7003 is expected to be added to the RFP annotated as applicable at task order.

14. Industry Comment: Section I: DFARS 252.211-7007 ITEM UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. Request clarification regarding inclusion of this clause. Is it the government’s intent that only this UID clause for GFP be included or is the 252.211-7003 Item Identification and Valuation also to be included? If either of these clauses is included in the final RFP, suggest UID requirements will be addressed by indicating "Applicable as specified in individual orders issued hereunder.”

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that 252.211-7003 will been added to the RFP, and annotation of task order applicability will be made.

15. Industry Comment: Section I: FAR 52.219-9 (Small-Business Subcontracting Plan). The clause in the RFP is dated November 2007. An updated clause was released in June 2008 – will this be incorporated into the final RFP?

Air Force Response: The clause in the RFP is the deviation form of the clause, the current date for the deviation is November 2007.

16. Industry Comment: Section I: Clause 9952.219-9000 (INCORPORATION OF SUBCONTRACTING PLAN). Is the threshold intended to be $500K or $550K (the threshold in FAR 52.219-9)?

Air Force Response: The correct amount should be $550K; we are not able to change it in our computer system at this time….we hope to have it corrected by the RFP release date.

17. Industry Comment: Section I: The following JALC clauses are incorporated by reference only. Because these are not formal regulations, the Contractors do not have access to the text. Can the full-text be provided for: 9952.228-9001 INSURANCE CLAUSE IMPLEMENTATION, 9952.237-9001 CONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION, and 9952.245-9005 ELIMINATION OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN THE USE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Air Force Response: It is anticipated Clauses 9952.237-9001 and 9952.245-9005 will not be included in the Final RFP. The text for clauses 9952.228-9001 will be included in the final RFP and is as follows:

9952.228-9001……………… The Contractor shall obtain and maintain the minimum kinds and amounts of insurance during performance of this contract as specified by FAR 28.307-2, Liability, and contemplated by FAR 52.228-5, Insurance--Work on a Government Installation, and/or 52.228-7, Insurance--Liability to Third Persons.

18. Industry Comment: Section I: Clause 9952.245-9006 (AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OR FABRICATION OF FACILITIES). Is the intent that the Contractor Fill-ins be included with the initial completed RFP with all potential facilities inserted? Or is this meant to be filled out with applicable TO/DOs?

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause will not be included in the final RFP.

19. Industry Comment: Section I: Clause AFFARS 5352.237-9001 (Requirements Affecting Contractor Personnel Performing Mission Essential Services). Clause version listed as November 2004, however the latest version on Hill FAR Site is October 2004. Is a November 2004 version available for review or is this a typo?

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause will not be included in the final RFP.

20. Industry Comment: Section I: Included clauses 52.215-10 through 52.215-21 (with the exception of 52.215-15) are required only when it is contemplated that cost or pricing data will be required. Per FAR 15.403-1 cost or pricing data is not required when a price is based on adequate price competition. For these clauses, and those in Section L (52.215-20 & 52.215-21), it is confusing to have them included without a caveat that they will only be applied as required to specific task orders. Industry believes the Government will have to clearly show in each TO/DO RFP if they do want cost and pricing data. For the current Integration Support Task Order, what is the intent?

The following specific questions about this clause series are also included:

a. FAR 52.215-11 Price Reduction for Defective Cost or Pricing Data – Modifications – Not required when 52.215-10 already invoked.

b. FAR 52.215-12 Subcontractor Cost or Pricing Data - Use DFARS 252.215-7000 in conjunction with this clause.

c. FAR 52.215-21 (Requirement for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost and Pricing Data – Modifications). Given the

Government intends to maximize competition for TO/DOs, cost and pricing data does not appear to be required. Industry recommends Alt IV of this clause be added and the basic provision removed. Alternate IV, which replaces the basic provision in its entirety, deletes the requirement to submit cost or pricing data. In its place, Alternate IV requires offeror to submit other than cost or pricing data to permit an adequate evaluation of the proposed price. Industry also recommends a line indicating "Applicable as specified in individual orders issued hereunder" be added for clarification.

Air Force Response: The caveat has been added that these clauses are task order specific

a. It is anticipated that 52.215-10 and 52.215-11 will both remain in the RFP as either could possibly apply to future task orders.

b. It is anticipated that clause 252.215-7000 will be included in the final RFP

c. It is the intent of the Government to maximize competition under the TLPS contract. However, in the case of legitimate exceptions to fair opportunities there may be circumstances where cost and pricing data may be required. Because of the broad nature of this contract and the various circumstances that may exist, a broad range of clauses are included in the RFP and will be included in the basic contracts.

21. Industry Comment: Section I: FAR 52.216-11 (Cost Contract - No Fee). This should be applicable only to the CLIN’s called out in Section B as “No Fee.” Can clarification be added to make it clear that this is not applicable to the entire contract?

Air Force Response: This clause will only apply to the cost reimbursable CLINs in the contract. The title of the clause states “Cost Contract—No Fee”, and directly below the heading it states “(Applicable when specifying cost reimbursement providing no fee and not a cost-sharing contract)”. The Air Force feels that the intent of the clause is clear.

22. Industry Comment: Section I: FAR 52.216-18 Ordering (OCT 1995). Fill-ins required. These were included in previous version of RFP but deleted (inadvertently?) in this RFP update.

Air Force Response: Updated in the preamble as “to be completed at contract award”. It is anticipated that this clause will be in the final RFP.

23. Industry Comment: Section I: FAR 52.216-22 Indefinite Quantity. Fill-ins required. These were included in previous version of RFP but deleted (inadvertently?) in this RFP update.

Air Force Response: Updated in the preamble as “to be completed at contract award”. It is anticipated that this clause will be in the final RFP.

24. Industry Comment: Section I: AFFARS 5352.216-9000 Awarding Orders Under Multiple Award Contracts. The way this is brought in with only partial changes to paragraphs is somewhat confusing. Rather than a reference to H900, consider a reference to 52.216-19 where the minimum value is called out.

Air Force Response: 52.216-19 only refers to the Minimum dollar amount of a task order the vendor is required to fulfill (i.e., if we issue a RFP for a task order under $25K the vendors don’t have to bid on or provide it). H900 calls out the minimum guarantee to successful offerors.

25. Industry Comment: Section I: FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. Request more explanation of this clause to better understand the implications given the rate structure and firm options contemplated for this contract.

Air Force Response: 52.217-8 will not be applicable to the basic contract as the 11 year PoP is the maximum allowed by regulation (without a waiver). It may be applicable as called out on task orders.

26. Industry Comment: Section I: FAR 52.222-51 Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Act to Contracts for Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain Equipment--Requirements (NOV 2007). This clause seems to imply we are doing A-10 Weapon System service type work which is equivalent to general practice commercial service type work. This scenario appears to be unlikely and, as such, this exemption would not apply. Additionally, industry suggests that no exemption is required. Instead, the SCA is not applicable due to the current labor/skill rate table’s primary focus on professional skill types which generally are not considered “service employees” as defined in the Act.

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause will not be in the final RFP.

27. Industry Comment: Section I: FAR 52.223-14 Toxic Chemical Release Reporting. If this is included, should 52.223-13 be included per proscription?

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause, 52.223-13, will be in the final RFP.

28. Industry Comment: Section I: The latest RFP update added a number of clauses which address situations where effort is to be performed outside the continental United States (OCONUS). While the Government may eventually require such effort through work scope associated with individual TO/DOs, incorporating these provisions upfront creates considerable difficulty for industry. Due to the complex and potentially dangerous nature of activities covered by such clauses, coordination at the corporate level is required along with the incorporation of additional associated clauses deemed necessary for acceptance.

Industry suggests the government consider removal of the following clauses in the initial solicitation and incorporate in individual TO/DOs requiring OCONUS effort: DFARS 252.225-7040 Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States, DFARS 252.225-7043 Antiterrorism/Force Protection Policy for Defense Contractors Outside the United States, FAR 52.228-3 Workers' Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act), FAR 52.228-4 Workers' Compensation and War Hazard Insurance Overseas, DFARS 252.228-7003 Capture and Detention, FAR 52.229-8 Taxes-Foreign Cost Reimbursement Contracts, and DFARS 252.237-7019 Training for Contractor Personnel Interacting with Detainees.

Air Force Response: Based on careful review of the clauses questioned above it is anticipated that clauses 252.225-740, 52.228-3, 52.228-4, and 252.237-7019 will not be included in the final RFP. However it is anticipated that clauses 252.225-7043 and 252.228-7003 will be included in the final RFP.

29. Industry Comment: Section I: FAR 52.232-19 Availability of Funds for the Next Fiscal Year. When will fill-ins be provided; at contract award?

Air Force Response: At TO award, the IDIQ will not have funds assigned to it.

30. Industry Comment: Section I: DFARS 252.232-7009 (Mandatory Payment by Government wide Commercial Purchase Card). Air Force Responses to Industry comments and questions regarding the TLPS Draft RFP dated 20 June 2008 indicated in answer #13 that this clause is not applicable and would not be included in the RFP. Will this clause still be removed from the final RFP?

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause will not be included in the final RFP.

31. Industry Comment: Section I: FAR 52.244-2 Subcontracts. Request the government clarify how this clause will operate and when/by whom the subcontractor fill-ins will be completed?

Air Force Response: This will be clarified at during solicitation of TO’s, the clause will be filled in by the government.

32. Industry Comment: Section I: FAR 52.245-1 Alternate I. Is this alternate applicable per the proscription? There is another line with the same number 52.245-1 but titled Basic Agreement Applicability. The government’s intent is unclear.

Air Force Response: Yes, the alternate is applicable…as we could have a FFP contract that doesn’t require the submission of cost or pricing data; refer to 45.4107(a)(2). The “other” line titled “Basic Agreement Applicability” just spells out when Alt 1 is applicable.

33. Industry Comment: Section I: FAR 52.245-2 Government Property Installation Operation Services, AFMC 5352.245-9001 Government-Furnished Property/Contractor Requisitioning, AFMC 5352.245-9002 Maintenance of Government-Furnished Property. Suggest notation be added to GFP clauses indicating intent to invoke and complete required fill-ins for individual TO/DOs.

Air Force Response: All the clauses are annotated as such in the clause or in the preamble if they are not modifiable.

34. Industry Comment: Section I: FAR 52.247-2 Permits, Authorities, or Franchises (JAN 1997). Request the government clarify what is meant by “regulated transportation” and how this clause applies to this contract.

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause will not be in the final RFP.

35. Industry Comment: Section I: Included clauses 52.247-12 through 52.247-28 are required in solicitations and contracts for “transportation or transportation-related services.” Request the government clarify how these clauses apply to this contract?

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause will not be in the final RFP.

36. Industry Comment: Section I: The proscription for each of the following alternate clause versions indicates they are to be used only if the contract is with an agency of the U.S. Government or with state, local, or foreign governments. This is not applicable to the Contractors that are not an agency of the U.S. Government, or a state, local or foreign government. Recommend removal: FAR 52.249-2 Alternate II, FAR 52.249-6 Alternate II, and FAR 52.249-6 Alternate V.

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause will not be in the final RFP.

37. Industry Comment: Section I: DFARS 252.249-7000 Special Termination Costs. Request the government clarify how this clause will operate and when/how the fill-ins would be completed.

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause will be noted in the preamble as one that will be used on task orders only when it is called out.

38. Industry Comment: Section I: Clause 252.227-7013 (RIGHTS IN TECHNICAL DATA – NONCOMMERCIAL ITEMS). Can the government discuss the rationale for adding this Data Rights clause?

Air Force Response: According to the clauses, the Government may require technical data for commercial items, and that the government may pay a portion of the development costs on.

Section K Comments

39. Industry Comment: Section K: FAR 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications. Is it the government’s intent to complete this clause to include the NAICS code and small business size standard for this acquisition in the final RFP?

Air Force Response: Our contract writing system, ACPS, does not allow us to modify the clause; however this information is included on the front page of the RFP.

40. Industry Comment: Section K: FAR 52.215-6 Place of Performance. Request the government clarify intent for this clause. Should this be filled out with only the current Integration Support Task Order in mind or should all potential locations be provided?

Air Force Response: Yes, currently this clause will only need to be filled out of the Integration Support Task Order (and all subsequent TO’s). It doesn’t apply to the base contract as there is no work being done under it.

Section L Comments

41. Industry Comment: Section L: FAR 52.232-13 Notice of Progress Payments (APR 1984) and FAR 52.232-28 Invitation To Propose Performance-Based Payments. As both of these appear to be applied, the government direction to industry is unclear. Suggest government consider specifically invoking payment requirements for each TO/DO. Does the government intend to invoke progress payments for the current Integration Support Task Order?

Air Force Response: These clauses will only apply as called out at the task order level.

42. Industry Comment: Section L: Clause 9952.900-L900 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS. Is the text listed under L-900 Instructions to Offerors the full text of this JALC clause? Will the proposal be due at 2:00 (as indicated on the RFP cover sheet) or 4:00 (as indicated in Section L)?

Air Force Response: The clause is only a header; the text of the clause is the L&M sections. RFP coversheet and section L will be corrected to be consistent with each other.

Section M Comments

43. Industry Comment: Section M: FAR 52.217-3 Evaluation Exclusive of Options and FAR 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options. As both of these appear to be applied, the government direction to industry is unclear. Suggest government consider specifically invoking evaluation requirements for each TO/DO as these clauses are mutually exclusive and cannot both be applied at the same time.

Air Force Response: It is anticipated that this clause, 52.217-3, will not be included in the RFP.

44. Industry Comment: Section M: FAR 52.247-47 Evaluation - F.O.B. Origin, FAR 52.247-49 Destination Unknown, FAR 52.247-51 Evaluation of Export Offers, and FAR 52.247-56 Transit Arrangements. Suggest notation be added to these clauses indicating intent to invoke and complete required fill-ins for individual TO/DOs. Assume the current Integration Task Order would not have any supplies and would therefore not invoke these clauses?

Air Force Response: The above clauses that can be edited to add the note “task order specific” will be. The rest have been listed in the preamble to the contract annotating that they will only be invoked when needed. The assumption is correct; they will not be needed for the Integration Support Task Order.