Non_Proprietary_Questions.pdf

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

1 SOW

3.3.1.1. Model Based

Definition (MBD)

What version of Siemens NX is the SPO currently using?

NX 8.5, expecting to upgrade to NX 11 in the near future. See Gov't Response #126 for more information.

2 SOW

3.3. Engineering and

Quality Requirements

What is the order of precedence between product data for configuration control definitions? I.e. - paper drawings, CAD models or tooling?

The TDP consisting of NX models, Part Reports, Drawings and Specifications will contain necessary information for producing product. If there are inconsistencies in this data, it is to be handled per "SOW 3.3.3.1.4. Errors, Inconsistencies, Problems within the TDP"

Will the Government provide a list of previous subcontractors who provided parts and components for the current A-10

IDIQ?

The Government cannot legally provide a list.

4 RFP Section L 0.0(e)

The proposal shall be provided both electronically and in hard copy.

Offerors are to submit two paper copies and two CDs (CD-R/W are not acceptable) with the proposals and any supporting documentation.

Will the Government clarify if they want two CDs, with each containing all volumes or if two CDs should be provided for each volume for a total of ten CD's?

2 paper copies and 2 CDs or DVDs each containing all volumes. Section L has been updated.

5 RFP Section L 0.0(g)

Will the page count of the draft plans and schedules be included in the page count of the volumes?

As stated in section L, the IMP will count toward the page total while the IMS will not. See Section

L Paragraph II.C.2 Subfactor Two.

6 RFP Section L & M L 4.0/ M2.2

Each offeror shall submit present / past performance information for itself/joint venture member on the attached Present / Past Performance

Sheet.

Can a prime contractor utilize the past performance of their subcontractors for evaluation purposes?

Within a past performance information sheet

Primed by the offeror, the offeror may mention efforts by subcontractors as long as it is made clear what the sub accomplished independently, what the prime accomplished independently, and what the sub & prime accomplished together and whether the sub will be used in the proposed effort. This is in addition to qualifying critical subcontractors for the current effort (as specified in the updated Section L) being able to provide one past performance information sheet providing past performance data for tasks they will execute under the proposed ATTACK contract. L & M and relevant RFP attachments have been updated to address consideration for subcontractors.

7 SOW 3.4.1.2. Special tooling

Are there photos available for the tooling at AMARG?

The government does not currently have photos of the tooling at AMARG, but the government is considering hosting a post RFP tooling conference at AMARG to exhibit a sampling of center panel assembly tools.

8 RFP Section B

FRP CLINs All contractor's are interested in the most likely ordering scenario's. Industry understands this is an IDIQ contract and what that means. However, a BEQ is very helpful to Contractors, Suppliers etc., for planning/pricing scenarios. Can the

Government publish the Best Estimated

Quantities for each ordering year?

The Government will not be providing a BEQ at this time. Offerors are required to price all quantity ranges in the pricing tool. The price evaluation will be based on notional quantities.

The planning/pricing process may not reflect the actual orders placed for this contract. The TEP may or may not include all quantity ranges.

9 SOW

Attach F

Government

Furnished

Information List

Will the TDP package be part of

Attachment F on the SOW?

Attachment F will provide an index of everything provided on the hard drive: This includes the

TDP.

10 SOW

Attach G

Government

Furnished Property

List

Will the Master and Production Tools be part of Attachment G on the SOW?

A list of all tools will be provided in Attachment G.

Will there be an industry day for the

ATTACK acquisition?

The government is considering hosting a post

RFP tooling conference at AMARG to exhibit a sampling of center panel assembly tools.

12 CDRL A001 (IMS) Integrated Master Schedule

Block 4: Tailor DI-MGMT-81861A as indicated below:

The contractor shall generate IMS in accordance with SOW Paragraphs

3.2.3; 3.2.5.1; and 3.2.6.1.

CDRL cites SOW 3.2.6.1, but SOW 3.2.6.1 does not call out CDRL A001

Amend the SOW 3.2.6.1 and

CDRL A001 to provide consistency.

The government has added a CDRL A001 callout to "SOW 3.2.6.1. Technical Reviews and Audits"

13 CDRL A002 (IMP) Integrated Master Plan

3.2.6. System Engineering

Management Plan

...The SEMP shall be reflected in the

IMP [CDRL A002].

SOW 3.2.6 cites the CDRL, but 3.2.6 is not included on the CDRL.

Add the SOW paragraph 3.2.6 to

CDRL A002.

The government has made this change, expect updated versions at RFP.

14 CDRL A006 (SPI) Alternate SPI Articles

Contractor may design alternate SPI

…. Alternate SPIs [CDRL A006] must be approved by government prior to use.

CDRL cites SOW 5.4, but actually it is 5.4.1 Amend the SOW reference in

CDRL A006.

The government has made this change, expect updated versions at RFP.

15 CDRL A007 Packaging Plan

Contractor shall develop a Packaging

Plan [CDRL A007] to be approved by government.

CDRL cites SOW 5.4, but actually it is 5.4.1 Amend the SOW reference in

CDRL A007.

The government has made this change, expect updated versions at RFP.

16 CDRL A010

Packaging Kit Contents

List

Contractor shall submit a packaging kit contents list with the shipment of each shipset [A010].

CDRL cites SOW 5.4, but actually it is 5.4.2 Amend the SOW reference in

CDRL A010.

The government has made this change, expect updated versions at RFP.

17 CDRL A016

QAPP (Non-conformance

Plan)

This database shall have the same schema as defined in the Non-

Conformance Plan [CDRL A016]

Para 3.4.3.2.5.2 is not cited in the CDRL Add SOW Para 3.4.3.2.5.2 to

CDRL A016.

The government has made this change, expect updated versions at RFP.

18 CDRL A027

Configuration Management

Plan

3.3.3. Design Changes

...according to the Prime contractors

CM Plan [CDRL A027].

3.3.3.3. TDP Change Process

... in the Configuration Management

Plan [CDRL A027].

5.4.4. Unique Identification (UID)

Requirements

. ...through the Configuration

Management Plan [CDRL A027].

SOW 3.3.3, 3.3.3.3, and 5.4.4 all cite the

CDRL, but are not included on the CDRL.

Add SOW paragraphs to CDRL

A027.

The government has made this change, expect updated versions at RFP.

19 CDRL A030

Production Qualification

Plan

Block 4: Tailor DI-MISC-80711A in accordance with SOW Paragraph:

3.4.2.1; 3.4.2.2; and 3.4.2.2.1

CDRL cites SOW 3.4.2.2 and 3.4.2.2.1, but these SOW paras do not include this

CDRL.

Remove references to SOW

3.4.2.2 and 3.4.2.2.1 in CDRL

A030.

The SOW has been updated to change 3.4.2.2 to

"3.4.2.1.1. CSI Inspection Plan" and 3.4.2.2.1 will become "3.4.2.1.2. Risk Assessment." The intent is that the CSI Inspection Plan and Risk

Assessment feed into the PQP (CDRL A030).

CDRL A030 will be updated.

20 SOW

3.4.3.8. Serial Number

Control

The contractor shall present the serialization method to the

Government in the form of a revision to the SNCP, 162S900706, for approval prior to use [CDRL A033].

CDRL states delivery is after the FA FCF, but the SOW requires approval before use.

Recommend adding a requirement to provide a draft document for approval at

Production Readiness Review

(PRR), with the final data item to be delivered after First

Article FCF.

"SOW 3.4.3.8. Serial Number Control" has been updated.

21 CDRL A043

Interchangeable

Replaceable Requirements

List

Block 4: Tailor DI-MISC-80711A in accordance with SOW Paragraph:

3.4.1.5.1; 3.4.1.5.1.1; and 3.4.1.5.2

CDRL cites SOW 3.4.1.5.1.1 and 3.4.1.5.2, but these SOW paras do not include this

CDRL.

Amend CDRL A043 or SOW

3.4.1.5.1 to provide consistency.

"SOW 3.4.1.5.1.1. Interchangeable by Nature of

Manufacture" and "SOW 3.4.1.5.2. Backward

Interchangeability and Replaceability" have been updated.

22 RFP Section B

CLIN 0001AC 0001AD

0001AE

Inspection: Origin

Acceptance: Destination

Does "Low Rate Initial Production Piece," require operational checks and functional flight checks prior to acceptance, at BLDG

590? If so, this conflicts with the

Origin/Origin.

Please provide clarification. See SOW Paragraph 3.4.3.7. Acceptance is at

Destination upon fulfillment of SOW requirements.

23 RFP Section B Part 1 – The Schedule –

Section B page 3

THE SUBSEQUENT IDIQ CONTRACT

WILL HAVE A BASIC FIVE-YEAR

ORDERING PERIOD BEGINING AT

CONTRACT AWARD, TWO ONE-YEAR

OPTIONAL ORDERING PERIODS

THEREAFTER, AND A FIVE-YEAR

DELIVERY PERIOD FOLLOWING THE

END OF THE ORDERING PERIODS.

Please clarify if the 5 Year

Delivery Period is referring to the 5 years after the FA + LRIP

Periods, the Production

Ordering Periods and or the

Production Optional Ordering

Periods.

The 5 year delivery period does not apply to the initial FA+LRIP effort. It does apply to the basic and option ordering periods.

24 RFP Section B Pg. 9, CLIN 0003

Potential Re-Start Costs are marked as

Cost Reimbursable - No Fee

Restart costs could entail staffing challenges, facility planning, tooling updates, re-learning and more. Generally, fee is commensurate with risk, and there is clearly risk associated with this scope.

What is the rationale behind a cost reimbursable CLIN with no fee for any potential restart costs?

Please consider applying fee to

CLIN 0003 upon release of the formal RFP

The Government does not intend to change this

CLIN type. If a break in production does occur this

CLIN is the mechanism to reimburse contractor for only verifiable/measurable associated costs incurred. The CLIN states that the costs will be negotiated.

25 RFP Section B C.2 and CLIN 0006

Individual Kits A-E are priced separately from whole Wing

Assemblies.

Please confirm the Government's intent.

Does the Government wish Offerors to provide individual kit pricing that is valid throughout the 7-year ordering period?

Could the Government "mix and match" the kit order quantities? Does the

Government wish to have the ability to order up to 15 kits of any variety, at any given point in the 7 years?

Please clarify the requirement.

Consider limiting to a subset of the ordering periods, for example, eliminate the option for ordering individual kits during Ordering Periods 1 and

2.

Please clarify that an order of individual kits does not satisfy

"placing an order" for the purposes of CLIN 003 Potential

Restart Costs".

The govt's intent is to order full wings, and preserve the option to order any combination of kits throughout the life of the contract for any unforeseen needs. The government reserves the ability to procure kits at any time within the 7 year ordering period and may be willing to pay restart costs.

26 RFP Section B CLIN 0001AB

First Article Inspection at Origin and

Acceptance at Origin.

Given multiple production locations for various kits and components, will the inspection and acceptance of the 5 separate kits be allowed to be performed at separate locations?

Does acceptance of First Article at Origin mean that the FA will be DD-250'd at

Origin, and then the Government will ship to Hill?

Given acceptance at origin, does that acceptance at origin constitute delivery for the purposes of CLIN 003 Potential Restart

Costs?

Does this acceptance occur prior to installation and FCF at Hill AFB?

Please provide clarification. This CLIN has been changed, FA acceptance will be at destination IAW "SOW 3.4.3.6 First Article

Exhibit" requirements.

27 RFP Section B multiple

2 "Optional" Ordering Periods Given that the contract is an IDIQ and there are no guaranteed orders other than the first four wing assemblies, how do the two "optional" ordering periods differ from the other ordering periods from the

Contractor's perspective?

Please provide clarification. There is no difference from a contractor perspective. This is how the SPO had to structure the contract to cover more than a 5 year period and satisfy internal best practices.

28 RFP Section B Page 9, CLIN 0002

Shipping / Packing / Disposition of

Tooling is marked as Cost

Reimbursable / No Fee.

Shipping / Packing / Disposition of Tooling involves taking possession of Government property and significant handling.

Generally, fee is commensurate with risk, and there is clearly risk associated with this scope. What is the rationale behind a cost reimbursable CLIN with no fee?

Please consider applying fee to

CLIN 0002.

The Government does not intend to make this change, costs will be negotiated upon exercising of the CLIN. GFE is provided as a means to help the awardee accomplish the contract; and special tooling that is acquired/built specifically for the purposes of this contract will have been paid for by the Government. Therefore, the Government does not intend to pay fee for costs associated with recovering equipment previously provided or paid for by the Government.

29 RFP Section B Pg. 3, Part I, Sec.B, Para D.

D. Periods of Contract Performance The CLINs throughout Sec.B do not align with the ordering periods in Item D, page

3. There seems to be an additional CLIN.

The 7001 CLIN (Pg. 23/24) does not have an associated ordering period.

Basic Contract Period CLINs

Basic Year 1 0001 thru

Ordering Period (Year 2) 1001

Ordering Period (Year 3) 2001

Ordering Period (Year 4) 3001

Ordering Period (Year 5) 4001

Optional Ordering Period (Year 6) 5001

Optional Ordering Period (Year 7) 6001

NONE 7001

Please clarify the draft RFP’s

Period of Contract Performance

(Part 1, Section B, Para D) and the CLIN structure.

Ordering Period 1 (CLIN 1001) will be from date of award through one year. The other Full Rate

Production CLINs (2001-7001) fall into succession after that to represent the full 7 year ordering period. The Pre-Amble Note does suggest a

"Basic Year" which is now corrected to "Ordering

Period (Year 1)."

30 RFP Section I Pg. 42

52.222-19 CHILD LABOR--

COOPERATION WITH AUTHORITIES

AND REMEDIES (OCT 2016)

The FAR reflects the current version date of January 2018.

We request that the Jan 2018 version be cited, rather than the

Oct 2016 document, since it is the most recent version published.

The RFP will contain the most recent version.

31 RFP Section I Pg. 43

52.223-20 AEROSOLS (DEC 2016) The FAR reflects the current version date of June 2016.

We request that the Dec 2016 version be updated to reflect the June 2016 version since it is the most current version published in the FAR.

The RFP may or may not contain the most recent version. Contract writing system is being updated. Contract Award will contain most recent version.

32 RFP Section I Pg. 43

52.223-21 FOAMS (DEC 2016) The FAR reflects the current version date of June 2016.

We request that the Dec 2016 version be updated to reflect the June 2016 version since it is the most current version published in the FAR.

The RFP may or may not contain the most recent version. Contract writing system is being updated. Contract Award will contain most recent version.

33 RFP Section K Pg. 54

52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS

AND CERTIFICATIONS (NOV 2017)

The FAR reflects the current version date of Jan 2018.

We request that the Nov 2017 version be updated to reflect the Jan 2018 version since it is the most current version published in the FAR.

The RFP will contain the most recent version.

34 RFP Section K Pg. 58

52.222-18 CERTIFICATION

REGARDING KNOWLEDGE OF CHILD

LABOR FOR LISTED END PRODUCTS

(Mar 2011)

The FAR reflects the current version date of Feb 2001 Version

Please confirm that the Feb

2001 version published in FAR is to be used for this acquisition.

The RFP will contain the most recent version.

35 RFP Section L p.62, Part IV, 2nd para.

Evaluation Criteria For Award - is different from the Section L&M

Evaluation Factors.

Evaluation Criteria For Award - is different from the Section M 2.0 Evaluation Factors, omitting Small Business Concern

Utilization Plan.

Revise the solicitation language to be consistent.

The RFP will be revised as Small Business

Participation is an evaluation factor.

36 RFP Section L & M p.16, 2.1.1.2(e)

(e) The integrated plan, if any, to meet incentivized delivery schedule:

planning and production approaches, expedite options for long-lead items, and production and planning risks and mitigations.

Item (e) requires an integrated plan to meet the incentivized delivery schedule.

Will the page count be increased to accommodate a plan? If it is increased, how much is it increased?

Recommend that the integrated plan be an attachment to the

Technical Proposal without page limitation.

Sections L and M have been updated. A separate plan will not be required.

37 RFP Section L & M Page 20, para 2.2

We noted an administrative issue of a hanging sentence on Page 20 of ATTACK-

L_and_M.pdf , para 2.2, with respect to the

Quality of Products and Services evaluation. The paragraph states “This

Evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing quality products that meet the users’ needs. The following evaluation”

We assume that this will be corrected in the final RFP.

L&M have been updated.

38 SOW

2.0. References and

Applicable Documents

Under Section 2.0, References and

Applicable Documents, the first paragraph, last sentence states “Versions are not defined and are expected to be the most current release.“ Changes in versions can have a substantial impact to the contract.

For the purpose of bidding the contract, can we assume the most current version of a referenced document as of 45 days prior to proposal submission?

Recommend stating that the most current version of a referenced document as of 45 days prior to proposal submission is the requirement for the program.

The Government accepts this risk. Changes to versions that impact the effort will handled via over and above.

39 SOW 3.1.2. Technical Data

Specifications (as denoted in SOW

Section “2. REFERENCES AND

APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS”) may need to be updated in support of either

A-10 SPO PLM requirements or supplier enhancement requests.

An open-ended requirement for specification updates increases Contractor risk and affects pricing. Without additional definition, Contractors may assume more or less effort than is required.

Does the Government have an expected scope of Specification update effort? Alternatively, move this SOW 3.1.2 requirement to Over and Above

CLIN 0004.

See "SOW 3.1.2 Technical Data" and "SOW

3.1.2.1. Government Requested Specification or

Teamcenter/NX Version Update" If a supplier enhancement request results in a specification updates, the contractor would absorb the cost. If the Government requests specification updates the cost will be considered over and above.

40 SOW 3.2.8. Engineering Services

Under section 3.2.8, Engineering Services of the SOW; what is the scope of the engineering support services, what kind of services are anticipated being provided?

Analyses, assessments, etc.?

Please confirm that over and above tasks are not to be included in contractor pricing.

The anticipated scope of work for additional engineering services is relatively small.

Consideration would be negotiated and handled on a case by case basis and handled via over and above. Section L & M have been updated to specifically state Over and Above will NOT be included as part of the TEP.

41 SOW 3.4.1.2. Special tooling

The contractor may utilize this tooling or develop their own.

The tooling is located and packaged at

AMARG (Davis Monthan AFB, AZ).

Does the Government pay for shipping of

Government Furnished Material, including

Tooling, to the contractor at the beginning of the contract, and back to the

Government at the end of the contract?

The CLIN 0002 total estimated cost entry says TBD. Is the Contractor required to price this CLIN?

Please provide clarification. S&H costs will be TBD and evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the administrative contracting officer. Shipping and handling (S&H) costs will NOT be included as part of the TEP and contractors are not required to price this CLIN. Initial shipping and return of tooling after disposition will be covered by CLIN

0002.

42 SOW

3.4.1.5.3. Cycle Checks of

Control Media

Interval between cycle checks shall be approved by SPO prior to production

Please quantify the interval between cycle checks to allow fidelity in pricing estimates.

Consider annual.

Cycle checks are to be proposed by the contractor via the product quality plan and approved by the Government. Approved cycle check intervals may be adjusted based on the confidence in the process and the successful completion of conforming parts and assemblies made from a given set of tooling. Demonstrating confidence in a reliable output of conforming product will justify increasing the intervals between tool cycle checks.

43 SOW

3.4.3.6.2. First Article

Exhibit Acceptance

First Article Exhibit Acceptance

Final acceptance of the First Article

Exhibit shall be based on successful

FCA, PCA, fit checks, rigging checks, Ops Checks, and FCF.

The incentive fee includes actions beyond the control of the Contractor. Government time to install/FCF the wing on the aircraft should not be counted in the determination of contractor earned incentive fee.

Recommend that the incentive fee be approved at delivery of the wing to the Government.

The incentive fee has been updated to be based on delivery date.

44 RFP Section B Paragraph A (page 3)

This paragraph is unclear and can be interpreted that there will be two IDIQ contracts, the IDIQ contract for the purchase of A-10 ATTACK wing assemblies and the subsequent IDIQ contract.

The RFP has been revised.

45 RFP Section B Paragraph A (page 3)

Please explain how the ordering process will work based on "a five-year delivery period following the end of the ordering periods". Does this mean that deliveries will start only at the end of all ordering periods (i.e. after the 5th year (or 7th year if options are exercised)?

Deliveries can be made anytime within the contract period of performance. IDIQ contracts traditionally have "delivery periods" which extend past the "ordering period." This distinction is simply to show that deliveries of items ordered can be made for 5 years beyond the ordering period expiration date.

46 RFP Section B Paragraph C (page 3)

We did not receive any technical information regarding the content of the 15 kits. Attachment E does not exist in the

FBO.

That information will be released with the RFP.

47 RFP Section B Paragraph F (page 4)

Will the list of GFE production tooling include details on the specific parts produced by each tool?

The government does not have any information regarding the use of the available production tooling outside of the tool definition data provided in the TDP. Typically, the tooling number, 162Dxxxxxx, matches the related part number.

48 RFP Section B Paragraph F (page 4)

Will the status of the tools be provided such as: condition, location, periodic inspection requirements, tool drawings/reports, tooling capacity/quantity of parts produced by tool, etc.?

In general, tooling is either in long term storage at

AMARG or in the processes of being packaged and shipped to AMARG. Tooling was in working order before packaging and shipping and has been recently used in production, the expectation is that cleaning and inspection is all that will be required before use after removal from storage at

AMARG. Some minor adjustments may be required to produce conforming product.

Typically, tooling has been in good condition after storage at AMARG. Periodic tooling inspection requirements are described in "SOW 3.4.1.5.3.

Cycle Checks of Control Media". The quantity of individual tools will be shown in the GFE list provided as an attachment to the SOW. All information owned by the government relating to tooling definition and use will be provided in the

TDP.

49 RFP Section B Paragraph H (page 4)

Will it be acceptable to include production capability set-up tasks, other start-up tasks, tooling preparations/inspections, etc. as part of the list of Long-Lead Items.

This is required to enable the contractor to receive Performance Based Payments for these initial tasks (which are not items to be assembled in the wing)?

It is considered acceptable to include start-up tasks for the procurement and/or production of long lead items. Performance payments will be negotiated with awardee.

50 RFP Section B Paragraph J (page 4)

It is understood that all costs associated with first article and low rate initial production unit inspection and testing are to be entered under the associated CLINs.

However under what CLIN are the costs for building the additional infrastructure to meet the 4 wings a month requirement to be entered?

There is no separate CLIN for additional infrastructure required to execute the contract.

The costs for the required resources can be applied to the FA/LRIP or FRP articles as desired.

Cost evaluations will be accomplished per

Sections M of the solicitation.

51 RFP Section B Paragraph L (page 4)

The 4 wings per months maximum production rate is defined as a requirement. Please explain if the contractor can supply at a lower rate. If the contractor is allowed a lower rate, what is the minimum rate required?

The delivery schedule is negotiated for each order. Section M has been updated to reflect an evaluation of the ability to scale to FRP, will be evaluated in the technical section. The expectation of FRP is our maximum requirement.

52 RFP Section B Paragraph L (page 4)

In addition, does the GFE production tooling support a production rate of 4 wings per months?

The available production tooling has previously supported a production rate of 4 wings per month.

53 RFP Section B Paragraph N (page 4)

Please elaborate on the meaning of "may overlap with the ATTACK WRP contract".

An example of such overlap will be helpful.

An overlap example would be that the

Government is currently purchasing spares

(through AF or DLA) and the ATTACK WRP needs the same or similar parts for production. This statement is stating that the offeror will not enforce non-compete statements on potential sub-contractors, so parts could be purchased, or continue to be purchased independently by the

Government. See "SOW 3.2.9 Government Parts

Procurement"

54 RFP Section B Paragraph N (page 4)

Will the Government overlap of contracts result in reduced quantity of wings to be ordered under the ATTACK program.

The exclusion of non-compete agreements with contractors will not negatively affect this contract.

AF or DLA acquisitions will be to procure spares for both legacy and currently installed EWA wings.

55 RFP

Item No. 3 "Potential Re-start Costs" (pages 9-10)

CLIN 0003 Potential Re-start Costs provides a vehicle to potentially recoup re-start costs. However, the CLIN is currently written in a manner that does not recognize the effects of production breaks. If we take the minimum period of

18 months from the last delivery and add the lead times (time from placing orders to the supply of hardware), this translates to a production breaks of at least 2 years. If there is no continuity between ordering production lots there will be re-start costs for each new order. The only way that to cover the potential risks of these production break/re-start costs is to add these costs to each of the yearly ordering periods.

Should a break in production occur as defined re-start costs would be negotiated between the contractor and the government. The example scenario would not result in line stoppage, but may result in a schedule adjustment at time of order. The government would like to clarify that orders will be placed 18 months prior to the last delivery.

56 RFP

Item No. 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 5001 6001, 7001

"Year 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Ordering Periods" (pages

15-24)

The price for the minimum quantity of only one wing will be extremely high. To avoid risks the quantity range of 1 to 5 wings will be priced at the price for one wing. It is recommended that the minimum order quantity is at least six (6) wings.

The government acknowledges this. Price accordingly.

57 RFP

FAR 52.209-4 First Article

Approval--Government

Testing (SEP 1989), subparagraph (g) (page 35-

36)

It is not clear what the contractor is responsible for with regard to providing operating and maintenance instructions, and spare parts support, during any first article test.

See "SOW 3.4. General Productions Tasks" for contractor responsibilities for first article installation.

58 RFP

52.216-19 Order

Limitations (OCT 1995)

(page 39)

What is the meaning of the Minimum order in this FAR? What is the connection to the contract minimum that was defined on page 3 (1 First Article and 3 Low Rate

Initial Production Articles - for a Total of 4)

The "Minimum Order Guarantee" as defined on page 3 is the quantity that the government guarantees to the awardee; this is IAW FAR 52.216-

22(b). The "Order Limitations" from FAR 52.216-19 on page 39 simply states that if the Government places an order below that "Minimum Order" amount, the contractor is not obligated to honor that order. A closer review of the language in those two FAR references will clear up the distinction of "minimum order guarantee" and

"minimum order."

59 RFP

FARs:52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business

Concerns (Nov 2016) and

52.219-9 Small Business

Subcontracting Plan (Jan

2017) and 52.219-16

Liquidated Damages

Subcontracting Plan (Jan

1999) and

DFARs:252.219-7003 Small

Business Subcontracting

Plan (DoD Contracts)-Basic

(Deviation 2018-O0007)

(Dec 2017)252.219-7003

Small Business

Subcontracting Plan (DoD

Contracts--Alternate I

(Deviation 2018-O0007)

(Dec 2017) 252.219-7004

Small Business

Subcontracting Plan (Test

Program) (Oct 2014)

(pages 40-42)

What is the exact requirement for a foreign contractor which subcontracts part of the work in the US? Does subcontracting part of the work in the US make these FARs fully applicable on the foreign contractor?

Or, the only requirement is to flow down the requirement under these FARs to the

US subcontractors?

The prescribing language in FAR 19.708 states an exception to submitting a subcontracting plan if

"the contract, together with all its subcontracts, will be performed entirely outside of the United

States and its outlying areas." Therefore, a subcontracting plan is likely required from all offerors.

60 RFP

52.216-22 Indefinite

Quantity (Oct 1995) (IAW

FAR 16.506(e)) (page 40)

With the contract award mid 2019 followed by 3 years to First Article (mid 2022). The statement that the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under the contract after 30-SEP-2025 seems to be an error.

Correct. 30 Sept 2025 was simply the furthest date the contract writing system would allow at the time. The software has been updated and the date associated with the final delivery period is corrected to reflect the most likely scenario.

61 RFP

52.216-27 Single Or

Multiple Awards (Oct 1995)

(page 61)

It is requested to delete this FAR from the solicitation.

Concur. This solicitation will result in a Single-

Award IDIQ type contract. A multiple award IDIQ contract is not feasible for this acquisition; the clause has been removed.

62 RFP

FAR 52.204-3 Taxpayer

Identification (page 54)

IAW FAR 4.905(a), FAR 52.204-3 shall not be included in the contract when FAR

52.204-7 is included therein.

Concur. The provision has been removed.

63 RFP

FAR 52.216-7 Allowable

Cost And Payment (Jun

2013) (page 39)

Please indicate in the parenthesis after the

FAR that this FAR is applicable to the items that are contemplated as cost-reimbursement.

The prescribing language clearly addresses this concern. Additionally, there is a note under this

FAR Clause that states, "(Applicable when specifying cost-plus-fixed-fee pricing arrangement)"

64 RFP

FAR 52.222-2 Payment For

Overtime Premiums (Jul

1990) (page 42)

Please indicate in the parenthesis after the

FAR that this FAR is applicable to the items that are contemplated as cost-reimbursement.

The prescribing language clearly addresses this concern. Use of this clause will only be realized for future orders and will be coordinated with the

Awardee.

65 RFP

FAR 52.222-22 Previous

Contracts and Compliance

Reports (page 55)

Please Include a clarification in the solicitation that this FAR shall not apply if

FAR 52.222-26 does not apply.

The prescribing language clearly addresses this concern. The Provision at 52.222-22 is only applicable in conjunction with FAR Clause 52.222-

26.

66 RFP

FAR 52.222-24 Preaward

On-Site Equal Opportunity

Compliance Evaluation

(Feb 1999) (page 61)

Please Include a clarification in the solicitation that this FAR shall not apply if

FAR 52.222-26 does not apply.

The prescribing language clearly addresses this concern. Additionally, the provision at 222-24 within the draft RFP includes a note to confirm the connection between the two FAR references. The

Provision at 52.222-24 is only applicable in conjunction with FAR Clause 52.222-26.

67 RFP

FAR 52.222-25 Affirmative

Action Compliance (page

55)

Please Include a clarification in the solicitation that this FAR shall not apply if

FAR 52.222-26 does not apply.

The prescribing language clearly addresses this concern. The Provision at 52.222-25 is only applicable in conjunction with FAR Clause 52.222-

26.

68 RFP

FAR 52.222-26 Equal

Opportunity (Sep 2016)

(Page 43)

Inclusion of clarification in the solicitation that this clause shall not apply if work performed outside the U.S. by employees who were not recruited within the U.S.

Confirmed. However, note that FAR Clause 52.222-

26 is not waived for portions of work performed within the U.S.

69 RFP

FAR 52.222-38 Compliance with Veterans'

Employment Reporting

Requirements (Page 55)

Inclusion of clarification in the solicitation that this clause shall not apply if work performed outside the U.S. by employees who were not recruited within the U.S.

Confirmed. However, the prescribing language for this provision and any associated clauses clearly address this concern.

70 RFP

FAR 52.223-11 Ozone-

Depleting Substances and

High Global Warming

Potential

Hydrofluorocarbons (Dec

2016) (Page 44)

Inclusion of clarification in the solicitation that this FAR shall not apply if this contract performed outside the U.S.

Negative. The prescribing language only excludes contracts for supplies delivered outside the U.S.

or contracts for services that will be performed outside the U.S.. This contract is for supplies that will be delivered within the U.S.; therefore, this clause is applicable.

71 RFP

FAR 52.249-6 Termination

(Cost-Reimbursement)

(May 2004) (page 52-53)

Please indicate in the parenthesis after the

FAR that this FAR is applicable to the items that are contemplated as cost-reimbursement.

The prescribing language clearly addresses this concern. Additionally, there is a note under this

FAR Clause that states, "(Applicable to cost-reimbursement)."

72 RFP

DFAR 252.216-7008

Economic Price

Adjustment--Wage Rates or Material Prices

Controlled by a Foreign

Government-

Representation (Page 56)

IAW FAR 52.222-38, this FAR shall not be listed if the solicitation includes FAR

52.204-7.

Concur: 252.216-7008 is not necessary and will be removed.

73 RFP

DFAR 252.225-7050

Disclosure of Ownership or

Control by the Government of a Country that is a State

Sponsor of Terrorism

(Page 56)

IAW DFAR 225.771-5, FAR 252.225-7050

shall not be listed if the solicitation includes FAR 52.204-7.

Concur: 252.225-7050 is not necessary and will be removed.

74 RFP

DFAR 252.247-7022

Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea

(Page 56)

IAW DFAR 247.574(a)(2), FAR 252.247-7022 shall not be listed if the solicitation includes FAR 52.204-7.

Concur: 252.247-7022 is not necessary and will be removed.

75 RFP

FAR 52.244-2 Subcontracts

(Oct 2010) (Page 51)

Please indicate in the parenthesis after the

FAR that this FAR is applicable to the items that are contemplated as cost-reimbursement.

The prescribing language clearly addresses this concern. Additionally, there is a note under this

FAR Clause that states when this clause is applicable.

76 RFP

DFAR 252.227-7014 Rights in Noncommercial

Computer Software and

Noncommercial Computer

Software Documentation

(Feb 2014) (Page 45-46)

IAW DFAR 227.7203-6(a)(1), DFAR 252.227-

7014 shall be listed only in solicitations requiring the successful offeror(s) to deliver computer software or computer software documentation.

Clause will remain as government best practice.

77 RFP

FAR 52.219-4 Notice of

Price Evaluation

Preference for HUBZone

Small Business Concerns

(Oct 2014) (Page 40)

IAW FAR 19.1309(b), FAR 52.219-4 shall be listed only in solicitations conducted using full and open competition.

The use of this Clause is correct. This solicitation allows for full and open competition. Although the solicitation has qualification requirements, any and all interested participants can submit a qualification package for review and possible approval by the A-10 SPO Engineering Chief; thus making this solicitation a full and open competition.

78 RFP

FAR 52.216-8 Fixed Fee

(Jun 2011) (page 39)

Please indicate in the parenthesis after the

FAR that this FAR is applicable to the items that are contemplated as cost-reimbursement.

The prescribing language clearly addresses this concern. Additionally, there is a note under this clause that states when this clause is applicable.

79 SOW 1.1. Purpose

In the Second paragraph it states that the geometry of the baseline TDP is defined by Three Dimensional (3-D) models in

Model Based Definition (MBD). Please clarify, whether the meaning is that the 3D models are for the OML/LOFT Data or for the parts. Can an example of PLM DATA be provided? Does the TDP include the production engineering “route cards” for the A-10 subassemblies and parts manufacturing?

The TDP is in Model Based Definition format per

ASME Y14.41. See ASME Y14.41 for more information. The TDP does not contain "Route

Cards" for production tool process flow and manufacturing, this data is not owned by the government.

80 SOW

3.3.1. General CAD/PLM

Requirements

In the third sentence of the first paragraph:

please, clarify the meaning of "Models shall be required for all temporary and permanent fasteners; models shall be developed in coordination with the A-10

SPO".

The intent is that if, within the confines of the contract, the contractor develops or modifies temporary or permanent 3D models of fasteners, the development shall be coordinated with the A-

10 SPO and delivered IAW para 3.3.1.1.

81 SOW

3.3.1.1. Model Based

Definition

In the fourth sentence of the first paragraph: Will the contractor be notified by the A-10 SPO before moving to a new

NX version?

The Government does have plans to move to

NX11, contractors will be notified prior to migration. See Gov't Response #126 for more information.

82 SOW

3.3.1.1.1. 3D Model

Validation Plan

It is understood that the contractor's responsibility is limited to validating 3-D models and there is no requirement to create 3-D models

It is not a contractual requirement to perform a full validation of TDP models as delivered, however it is the contractor's responsibility to verify the TDP is complete (see SOW 3.).

Para 3.3.1.1.1 relates to 3D models that are developed or modified within the confines of the contract.

83 SOW

3.3.1.2. PLM Data Linking

and Submittal

Will it be acceptable for the contractor to use its own Data Base system to store and maintain the 3-D models?

The contractor may use a database of their choosing, however the contractor is still required to comply with SOW requirements for data exchanges and linking with Government CDRL data deliveries. As an example see "SOW 3.3.1.2.

PLM Data Linking and Submittal." There are other references to data exchanges within the SOW.

84 SOW 3.3.3. Design Changes

Is it correct to assume that the design changes will be handled within the framework of the "Changes Clause".

The application of the Over and Above CLIN will only occur if the Government requests TDP changes.

85 SOW

3.3.3.1.3. Proprietary

Requirements

If the contractor is unable to locate a non-proprietary alternative solution for the

Process specifications, Material specifications, etc., what will the policy be to use this proprietary data (MMS5039, PS14295, and others as the list provided may not be inclusive?)

The TDP provided at contract award will contain non-proprietary options for the production of all

ATTACK wing components. If the contractor wishes to make design changes as described in

SOW 3.3.3 a non-proprietary specification option will need to be included with the proposed change in order to be considered for review by the

Government.

86 SOW

3.3.3.2.1. Analysis

Requirements

Please, clarify the meaning of AFGROW

DTA SOFTWARE

AFGROW (Air Force Growth) DTA (Damage

Tolerance Analysis) version 5.3.1 is a fracture mechanics and fatigue crack growth analysis software tool. For more details, see http://www.afgrow.net/

87 SOW

3.3.3.3.3. Technical Order

Updates

Will the TDP Changes incorporated within the TCTO1A-10C-520 be provided to the prime contractor?

Will changes requested by the contractor need to be approved by the government and included in the TDP?

Please, clarify the meaning of:" If a final purchase is made to complete the A-10 fleet with new wings, the contractor shall deliver clean-up TO source data to address removal of TCTO 1A-10C-520 from affected TOs".

The most current version of TCTO 1A-10C-520 will be included in the TDP at RFP and contract award.

If, during the contract, TDP changes are executed that affect TCTO 1A-10C-520 the contractor shall update the applicable TCTO sections.

If the entire fleet is updated to only EWA and

ATTACK wings, TCTO effectivity is fully realized, the contractor shall perform updates to all affected A-10 TOs by removing all TCTO and legacy wing references.

88 SOW

3.4.1.1.1. Prohibited

Processes

We understand this paragraph as follows: The thermal processes that are not approved cause the material around the area undergoing the process to heat up. The raised temperature may cause a hardening/tempering effect depending on the temperatures and rate the area cools down. As this cooling is uncontrolled the characteristics of the material in this area will be unknown.

The non-thermal processes all have a vibration/cold work effect on the area next to the area undergoing the process. Again the hardening of the surrounding area is uncontrolled and the characteristics of the material in this area are unknown.

The plastic media blasting and similar coating removal processes are similar to shot peening which results in "work hardening" of the surface in the area undergoing the process

(this improves the fatigue characteristics).

We understand that if a request is made to the

SPO engineering they may approve these processes, but currently these processes are not approved and were not used for the production of the A-10 wings.

Please, clarify if we understood correctly.

Prohibited processes have been demonstrated to degrade structural integrity and may not be used unless qualified and approved by the A-10 SPO.

Contractor must propose and qualify any new processes. Final approval authority resides with the A-10 SPO chief engineer. Reference A-10

Aircraft Process Specification De-Burring and

Blending - Metals, G-F101 Rev A, for additional information on approved and prohibited processes.

89 SOW 3.4.1.2. Special Tooling

What kind of tooling (Master Tools, Installation tools, Production tools etc.)

are available?

When were these tools last used?

Are all the Master Tools available?

Were all the production tools returned from manufacturers (i.e., CPI, KAI, Boeing, etc.)?

What production rates can be achieved with the existing tools?

In general, tooling is either in long term storage at

AMARG or in the processes of being packaged and shipped to AMARG. Tooling was in working order before packaging and shipping and has been recently used in production, the expectation is that cleaning and inspection is all that will be required before use after removal from storage at

AMARG. Some minor adjustments may be required to produce conforming product.

Typically, tooling has been in good condition after storage at AMARG. Periodic tooling inspection requirements are described in "SOW 3.4.1.5.3.

Cycle Checks of Control Media". The quantity of individual tools will be shown in the GFE list provided as an attachment to the SOW. All information owned by the government relating to tooling definition and use will be provided in the

TDP. The available production tooling has previously supported a production rate of 4 wings per month.

90 SOW

3.4.1.5.2. Backward

Interchangeability and

Replaceability

Will the contractor be supplied with the

Master Tools of EWA to perform the

Backward Interchangeability and

Replaceability task?

Yes

91 SOW

3.4.2.3. Functional

Configuration Audit Plan

Will the contractor receive the list of

GSE/GSS?

Are there any LRA units which are obsolete?

Will it be possible for the contractor to purchase obsolete parts via the

Government, if necessary?

LRA units are source control items and are provided in the TDP as a 160C or 162C prefix.

Approved sources for these items are contained in the parts list of the drawings/part reports. The

Government does not have obsolete parts for purchase.

92 SOW

Attachment C

Critical Safety Item

(CSI) List

The A-10 ATTACK SOW Dated 8 Feb 2018 includes identification of several

Attachments including Attachment B

Critical Safety Item (CSI) List. These

Attachments were not released with the

Draft RFP.

Would the Government please confirm if the previous TUSK

CSI Attachment is the same as the planned ATTACK CSI

Attachment?

This Attachment was not released, because it was under review. An updated copy will be released on RFP.

93 RFP Section L & M 0.0(g)

Volume II: Technical Volume -- Limited to 50 pages

To provide the best product to the Government and a complete description of our Technical

Approach, would the

Government please consider increasing the Page Limit to 60

Pages on the A-10 ATTACK

Technical Volume?

The page count for the technical volume will not be increased.

94 RFP Section L & M 0.0(g)

Volume IV: Past Performance --

Limited to 15 pages per past performance submittal

We request that the

Government allow 5 pages of introductory material to fully introduce the contracts used to substantiate Contractor past performance.

This amount of space is provided through the PPI tool which has a section titled "Brief Description of Effort." This section allows up to 32,000 characters which is roughly equivalent to 7 pages using Arial Size 10 with a 1-inch Margin. Any substantiation of relevancy should occur in detailed descriptions of the relevancy elements listed on the Past Performance Information Sheet.

95 RFP Section L & M 4.0

The RFP states, “Each offeror shall submit present / past performance information for itself/joint venture member on the attached

Present / Past Performance Sheet. Can offerors submit past performance for subcontractors, as well as prime contractors or joint ventures? If the answer to the question above is yes, can the subcontractor past performance submission be from a subcontract that supports the prime contractor past performance submission?

Please provide clarification. See Gov't Response #6 and updated section L.

Each Prime and Joint venture member may submit 3 past performance contracts using the past performance information sheet (RFP

Attachment 2). Each critical subcontractor may submit 1 contract. Example: A prime (3 contracts max) with a joint venture member (3 contracts max) with two critical subs (1 contract each max) may submit up to 8 contracts.

96 RFP Section B

Pricing CLINS 0001 through 0004 Please confirm that pricing for

CLINS 0001 through 0004 in

Schedule B, should reflect a 36-month schedule, regardless of whether the offeror is intending to meet the incentivized 24-month schedule.

Confirmed. All CLINs should be priced in accordance with the solicitation requirement of a

36 month delivery schedule. Moreover, these

CLINs will only be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and their TEP.

97 SOW 5.4.2. Kitting Requirements Table 1: Kit D SPI Requirements pn 162D611521-1003 should actually be dash number 1013

Please correct the part number. The SOW has been updated.

98 RFP Section I 52.215-20

FAR 52.215-20 Requirement for

Certified Cost or Pricing Data or

Information Other Than Certified Cost and Pricing Data (OCT 2010)

The prescription 15.403 states that

Certified Cost and Pricing Data is not required if the price was based on adequate price competition.

Request that this clause be removed or that the Contracting

Officer acknowledge that the clause doesn't apply due to the competition.

Contracting Officer acknowledges that this clause does not apply if adequate price competition is realized. If adequate price competition does not take place, the CO will require the apparent awardee to submit certified cost or pricing data

IAW the clause.

99 RFP Section I 52.216022

52.216-22 Indefinite Quantity (OCT

1995) (d): Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after 30 Sept 2025.

Please confirm that this clause is applicable, since it appears that deliveries extend beyond

30 Sept 2025.

The clause is applicable but it extends further than this date, 30 Sept 2025 was simply the furthest date the contract writing system would allow at the time. The software has been updated and the date associated with the final delivery period is corrected to reflect the most likely scenario.

100 RFP Section L & M 2.2

The offeror shall provide a draft

Integrated Management Plan (IMP) …

Will the Government accept a draft IMP as an attachment to Volume II as opposed to volume content?

If not, we recommend a page count for an additional 20 pages to include an actual draft plan.

Sub-factor 2, Program Management, is a draft IMP that must address SF2 sub-factor elements. This has been taken into consideration when page limits were established. See Gov't Response #5.

101 RFP Section L & M 2.2

Section L 2.2, Program Management, states “The offeror shall provide a draft Integrated Management Plan

(IMP) which will enable the government to assess how the offeror will ...”

The Draft SOW, Section 3.2.3 is titled

Program Management Plan. This SOW section requires a Master Plan, not a

Management Plan.

See SOW text below:

3.2.3. Program Management Plan

The prime contractor shall produce a comprehensive Integrated Master Plan

(IMP) [CDRL A002] and Integrated Master

Schedule (IMS) [CDRL A001].

Please confirm that the CDRL

A002 in the PWS should be changed to Integrated

Management…