Non_Proprietary_Questions_(27Apr_thru_RFP).pdf

No. Doc Title Para Customer Documents Wording Question / Comment Recommendation Gov't Response

129 DRFP Section I pg. 27

FAR 52.246-4 Inspection of Services -

Fixed Price (AUG 1996)

Per 46.304 Inspection of Services -- Fixed-

Price, in solicitations and contracts for services, or supplies that involve the furnishing of services, when a fixed-price contract is contemplated and the contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. The contracting officer may insert the clause in such solicitations and contracts when the contract amount is expected to be at or below the simplified acquisition threshold and inclusion is in the Government’s interest

CLIN 0004 Engineering Support

Services is the only CLIN for services and it is a cost plus fixed fee line item, based on prescription 46.304 this clause should be inserted for the inspection of services when a fixed price contract is contemplated. Please review for applicability. If not applicable request that the clause be removed.

Appropriate clause will be added.

130 DRFP Section I pg. 44

FAR 52.224-3 Privacy Training (JAN

2017)

Per 24.302 This Clause is required in contracts that The Contractor shall ensure that initial privacy training, and annual privacy training thereafter, is completed by contractor employees who--

(1) Have access to a system of records;

(2) Create, collect, use, process, store, maintain, disseminate, disclose, dispose, or otherwise handle personally identifiable information on behalf of an agency; or

(3) Design, develop, maintain, or operate a system of records (see also FAR subpart

24.1 and 39.105).

Please confirm applicability.

Request this clause be removed if it doesn't apply.

Confirmed not applicable to this effort. Clause will be removed.

131 DRFP Schedule B Pricing

Given that the trailing edge wedges have proven very difficult to produce according to the specifications, offerors will likely include some risk reduction measures that would increase price. For example, an offeror could assume a scrap rate of over 50% which would drive price up to the Government.

Does the Government intend to use the same wedge design for ATTACK, as was used for A-10 WRP?

Would the government consider breaking the wedges out for delivery under a separate CLIN to be paid based on Cost Plus

Fixed Fee or Fixed Price

Incentive?

The Government does not intend to make this change.

132 CLIN 0005

Incentive Schedule

/ Tooling Timeline

In support of meeting the incentivized delivery schedule, what is the

Government's anticipated timeline for delivery of the GFE tooling from AMARG?

Will the tooling be delivered directly to the place of performance, i.e. the Prime subcontractors' facilities? Will the incentive calculation be started after the tooling arrives at the place of performance?

Please provide clarification. It is anticipated that significant work can begin prior to any requested GFE items being delivered from AMARG. It will be the awardee’s responsibility to acquire/ship GFE from AMARG;

delays in requesting shipment from AMARG are not grounds for the incentive clock to stop without proof from the awardee that sole responsibility for the delay rests with the

Government and that the delays can be shown to be related to the contractor’s critical path to delivery.

133 DRFP

A-10 ATTACK

Budgets

The published budgets for A-10 ATTACK appear to provide funding for fewer than the 112 wings described in the draft solicitation. We understand that the approved budget for FY18 contains $103M and the requested PB19 for FY19 includes

$79M, and no funding is identified for FY20 and beyond. The funding identified appears to be inconsistent with the ordering quantity in the solicitation.

1) Would the Government please clarify if additional funding is available or planned to accommodate all 112 wings and the additional kits?

Does PB19 reflect the Air

Force’s intention regarding A-10 wing procurement funding/plans?

2) If no, can you please clarify the Air Force’s intention?

3) If yes, will the final Total

Evaluated Price (TEP) formula reflect a lower program procurement quantity based upon Government unit cost estimates?

4) If yes, would the Government consider a more aggressive procurement schedule with a base period that includes higher quantity commitments? This would enable bidders to better leverage economies of scale.

1) Additional funding is unknown past FY18 based on Government budgeting cycle.

2) The Government's intention is to order 112 wings. Contractors shall bid appropriately.

3) Procurement bid quantity shall be based on verbiage found in Section L & M of the RFP solicitation. The Government feels L & M adequately addresses this matter.

4) Yes, if additional funding becomes available, the Government would consider a more aggressive schedule and higher quantity orders.

Draft Sec M, 4 May 2018 Evaluation Factors M.I.B.1

Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, technical is the most important followed by cost/price and then past performance. Non-cost factors are significantly more important than cost factors.

The first sentence indicates that cost/price is more important than past performance, yet the second sentence indicates that non-cost factors are significantly more important than cost factors. Is past performance significantly more important than cost/price?

Please clarify. This shall be replaced with Technical and Past

Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

DRFP 4 May

Section B

Contract Sec. B, Pg 5, Para. Q

Paragraph Q states:

Multiple orders in the same ordering period may be combined to allow for quantity breaks in price. Orders placed within 180 days during the same ordering period will be combined to account for additional quantity and resulting quantity price break.

How many orders does the Government expect to place within an ordering period?

If it is more than 2, how are the 180 day periods calculated?

Recommend revision of the statement to bound the ordering timeframe, as follows:

"Multiple orders in the same ordering period may be combined to allow for quantity breaks in price. Orders placed within 180 days after the first order, but during the same ordering period will be combined to account for additional quantity and resulting quantity price break."

Recommended change has been made for clarification purposes.

Draft SOW, 4 May 2018 CSI Plan 3.4.2.1.1

CSI Inspection Plan

The prime contractor shall develop a

CSI Inspection Plan, which will be reviewed and approved by the

Government, to supplement the PQP for all parts and assemblies identified on the CSI List (Attachment B). This plan shall have specific provisions for demonstrating conformance to CSI requirements and address how vendors will receive Government approval to be a CSI provider.

Please confirm if vendors are prime contractors or suppliers? If it is prime contractors, we understand offerors are already source-qualified and assume this meets the requirement to be a CSI provider.

If vendors are suppliers, then what is the process for vendors to receive approval to be a CSI provider?

The process is the same regardless of prime, vendor, or supplier. AFI 20-106 describes this process in the Section E.2. AFI 20-106 can also be found as SECNAVINST 4140.2. This shall be incorporated into the Quality Assurance Plan.

Anyone handling, producing, or assembling a CSI part shall be part of this plan.

DRFP 4 May

CDRLs A023 & A024

CDRLs A023 & A024 require “The format of the CAD Model files shall be

Siemens NX 8.5 or current A-10 SPO version.”

Recommend the Government allow the Contractor to use NX

11.

The Government is moving to NX 11, but we currently use version 8.5. The SOW requires that the contractor use the current version as the

Government.

DRFP 4 May

CDRLs A023

Recommend the Government clarify how and when the

Configuration Baseline will be established as referenced in

CDRL A023.

Per SOW 3.4.1.2.2 Special Tooling Drawings and

MBDs, the drawings are due in draft at PRR. The how and when of the baseline is controlled by the contractor, but the Government expects the current configuration to be delivered with any

CDRL A023 request.

DRFP 4 May

Contract Section B, O.

THE AWARDEE'S TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL WILL BE INCORPORATED

INTO THE CONTRACT AT TIME OF

AWARD. SPECIFIC STRENGTHS THAT

ARE IDENTIFIED AS SUCH DURING

THE EVALUATION PHASE

THIS SOURCE SELECTION WILL BE

INCORPORATED DIRECTLY INTO THE

LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT.

Recommend that the USG specifically define in the RFP which elements of the technical approach would be open for incorporation in the final contract.

Currently, the technical proposal will be incorporated "by reference" into the contract with the caveat that in the event there is a discrepancy between the technical proposal and the SOW or

Technical Specifications, the SOW/Specs will take precedent. However, per the DoD Source

Selection Mandatory Procedure, para 3.1.2, "the solicitation shall include a notice to inform offerors that performance or capabilities proposed above mandatory minimums may be incorporated into the contract." Therefore, any proposed item that is evaluated as a strength is subject to inclusion in the final contract.

DRFP 4 May

Contract Section B, O.

THE AWARDEE'S TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL WILL BE INCORPORATED

INTO THE CONTRACT AT TIME OF

AWARD. SPECIFIC STRENGTHS THAT

ARE IDENTIFIED AS SUCH DURING

THE EVALUATION PHASE

THIS SOURCE SELECTION WILL BE

INCORPORATED DIRECTLY INTO THE

LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT.

Recommend that the USG specify that during contract negotiation the parties have an opportunity to agree on an acceptable methodology for incorporating specific proposal elements to ensure there are no conflicts or ambiguities.

The government does not intend to make this change. However, the Mandatory Procedure referenced in the previous question states that those methodologies may be incorporated.

Therefore, the pre-amble note will be updated from "will be" to "may be." It is also clarified that in the event there is a discrepancy between the technical proposal and the Government requirements documents, the Government specifications will take precedent. Offerors shall not propose methodologies they do not wish to incorporate into their contract execution.